A recent study finding computer-based learning in the classroom doesn't seem to improve reading test scores -- and by implication learning -- will serve as ammunition for those who demand that schools "get back to the basics'' of teaching.

While the study by the conservative Washington-based Heritage Foundation has some useful things to say, I believe it doesn't address some of the true benefits of computer-learning and doesn't look at a real issue -- teachers' knowledge, or lack thereof, about the technology.

In the study (www.heritage.org/library/cda/pdf/cda--00-08.pdf ), released in June, researcher Kirk Johnson analyses the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress reading examination of public school children in the US.

He finds students who use computers in the classroom at least once each week do not perform better on the reading test than do those who use computers less than once a week.

He concludes in a very Heritage-like way that: "As this analysis shows, the use of computers in the classroom may not play a significant role in explaining reading ability. Thus, dedicating large amounts of federal tax dollars to the purchase of computer hardware, software, and teacher training could crowd out other worthwhile education expenditures on, for example, new textbooks, music programmes, vocational education, and the arts.'' I agree in general with most of the conclusion but I don't think it follows from what he claims his analysis focuses on or shows. Mr. Johnson is partially correct in that money for computer hardware and software should not crowd out other worthwhile educational expenditures. He's wrong about the teacher training bit, though.

The study fails to properly analyse the importance of teacher training and knowledge in correlating them with the results. And I believe he doesn't properly acknowledge that computer "literacy'', the simple ability to use the machines and software as tools, is an important skill set in itself that will help students enter the job market.

Using computers as an everyday tool in the classroom, whether or not it boosts learning the basics, has value in itself in that it reinforces the ability to use the machines.

Computer knowledge (hardware, software and the Internet) fits into the category of an "important'' skill, whether the student goes on to become a university researcher, or a car mechanic. Having the skill will probably help a student get much farther ahead than not having it, simply because they will have more time to deal with the actual aspects of their future jobs rather than dealing with learning the technology.

But perhaps teacher training and continuing education is perhaps the skill set that the Heritage study doesn't properly assess when making its conclusions.

Mr. Johnson acknowledges that teacher training is an important consideration in an analysis of the issue. His report specifically analyses "computer usage in the classrooms of teachers who responded that they are at least moderately well-prepared in the use of computers in reading instruction''.

That standard is not set high enough it seems to me and might not have garnered the correct response. From my own experience most people who tell me they "know" how to use computers, basic software and the Internet, generally don't once you see them using one.

They might be able to get one started, start a word processing program and download e-mail. But any simple problem that crops up -- try trashing those shortcut icons for example -- shuts them down.

I'm also surprised at the lack of basic knowledge some of the teachers I know have about computers and the Internet. I even have one friend who purports to teach among other things, computer use, and who couldn't even figure out how to turn off my modem connection or use a browser properly.

These aren't the stereotypical old fogies everyone claims are holding back the technology. Rather they are the 30-year-olds and the 40-year-olds teaching in the classroom who haven't been able to keep up, who just don't use the technology often enough, for one reason or the other.

It would be a very valuable exercise to find out just how knowledgeable teachers are about information technology. I propose that Bermuda conduct a thorough survey of its teachers and students to see what kind of skills they do have, as a step toward improving them.

Perhaps teachers and students should take the same test -- one that has a written and a practical part. I propose also going beyond questions such as "Do you have an e-mail address? " to "How often do you receive and reply to e-mails?'' and "How do you change the size of text in a browser".

Now that would be a revealing test. My bet is that it would reveal a sad lack of skills among the teachers. I hope I'm wrong.

As the Heritage study notes, teachers who don't have the requisite knowledge in computers may actually do more harm than good as "even if there are computers present, their students may actually learn less because of unqualified instruction.'' Sherry Turkle, a professor of the sociology of science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is quoted as noting that the possibilities of using a computer poorly ''so outweigh the chance of using it well, that it makes people like us, who are fundamentally optimistic about computers, very reticent''.

Tech Tattle deals with topics relating to technology. Contact Ahmed at ahmedelamin yhotmail.com or (01133) 467901474.