Slashdot Mirror
Is Technology Making Kids More Intelligent?
Faithful contributor Ant sent in this piece about the role of computers in educating children. It presents arguments both pro and con; one researcher argues that computer use can reduce creativity and create anti-social kids (never met any of these, no sir) while another researcher contends that kids who use computers and the internet grow up reading, inquiring, and generally brighter.
Kirk Anderson created a very funny cartoon about this.
I think the internet provides the perfect opportunity to teach these skills, but the teachers have to be well versed in the technology themselves before it can be used effectively, and most teachers don't have the training yet.
Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!
I wasn't really fond of Oregon Trail. Lemonade Stand was my favorite. It was a neat way to learn the basics of supply and demand. It's also where I started to learn about programming. A few tweaks, and you'd be amazed how much people will pay for lemonade when it's 10 million degrees out.
Another game I remember fondly and forgot the name of, had you put together a sequence of machines, that did various things to a square part. There were machines to rotate, punch holes, and paint stripes. One part of the game, it'd show you a finished part, and you had to figure out the sequence of machines to build it.
Or another game, Omega, in which you built tanks, and wrote code to control them in battle against other tanks. Had a nice single step debugger in it too.
Mainly it comes down to what you do with the computer. Is the computer the tool, or is the user the tool?
One parent I chatted with noted that instead of going out to play with other kids, they were much more likely to become self-absorbed in a computer game. While this may build up some good motor skills (OK expect neuro-surgeons with amazing kinestic coordination), the lack of social interaction (learning how to negotiate, compormise, etc) was distrubing. When it easier to copy (plagerise) than to think, to accept than to question, to spam/flame than to craft a reflective response, then extrapolate to wider society, it makes you think what the next generation will evolve. Already you see situations where people accept evidence of bank statements just because it comes out on a screen than if they went through the effort of checking the outcome. Where people ignore the fine print (e.g. prepaid mobile phone cards disguised as actually an unsecured loan) and outsource your memory (familiy photos hosted on external sites) or rely on hot stock tips instead of creating your own opportunities.
Unfortunately education (aka school of hard knocks) is about learning from your mistakes. The computer is not a nnay, it is not a wise teacher, and it most certainly is not a magical fountain of wisdom. As with all technogical devices, people are finding new social interactions, from MUDs to chatrooms. Dabbling in the cocktail circuit is quit different from a formal acquisition of valuable skills (understanding regular expressions and finite state machines for pattern searching). Mental discipline, inner curiosity and creative energies are traits which can be enahnced, but never replaced by a computer. Any school that considers otherwise is only fooling themselves and their charges. If you really want to learn, go visit another country, ask your parents to read to you at night, volunteer for social programs, discuss world events over dinner, or just randomly select non-fiction books from your library.
Never ever let formal schooling get in the way of an education.
LL
W have a 12 year old son who likes to use computers. At one point we decided that the amount of time spent playing computer video games had gotten out of hand.
He is good in math and science, so I figured he was bright enough to learn programming. So, now the requirement is that for every hour he spends playing StarCraft, he must spend another hour of his time time learning programming and writing programs of his choice. His total computer time (outside of homework) is also limited.
It has worked out great. He is learning Java (he heard that's what he'll need to use in high school and college), and has begun writing some simple but interesting programs.
The end result is that he gets his recreation (games), but also comes away with some "real" computer skills that will be useful to him later in life.
It actually would have surprised me if Microsoft (or any company that relies on income from computer using customers) had found that computers ARE retarding childrens intellectual growth.
Somehow - I think that no matter what they found - this conclusion was pre-ordained.
If children are actually really reading more (more than what? More than kids did when I was their age?) I'll only believe it when I see it.
Car advertisements which show kids with their eyes glazed over, watching built in tv/vcrs does not bode well.
Now - if car makers were installing more reading lights for kids who like to read during long trips,
then I'd be more likely to agree.
I'd like to see a company that does not have a vested interest in books OR computer generated revenues conduct the same survey.
First they burn books, then they burn people.
Maybe having thought about this since I first posted it - intelligence is mesured how?
I think anyone smart enough to use a computer and have a real life is more intelligent than the average hacker who spends more than 10 hours a day in front of his computer.
Just because you dream in C++ doesn't make you a genius. I'm going to teach the kids about programming. I'll also teach them that it is not more important than goofing off on a sail boat or getting invited over to classmates birthday parties.
realkiwi
There are some people who are naturally inquisitive and who will seek out information and knowlege. Then there are others who will not. The presence or abscence of a tool that might help someone do this has nothing to do with whether they actually will or not.
When television first came out it was heralded as a tool for education. There were people who believed that it would be used by the masses to learn. They believed this because they were the type of people who seek to learn themselves, and so they interpreted the motivations of others through their own desire to learn. By and large television has not been a tool for education because most people simply don't want to learn. Their desire to not know is truly bizarre to me, but that is the only expanation I know that fits.
It is true that today we've got things like TLC, the Discovery Channel and the History Channel, but how many years did it take after cable tv became popular that networks like these became a profitable enterprise?
If you need further proof of what I'm saying just look at books. Books are educational, yet how many people out there actually read anything? Most people can read, but few actually choose to read anything past street signs and the occassional newspaper.
If someone is intelligent and/or inquisitive, then they will use the tools available to them to learn. If they are not then the nature and usefullness of the tools available makes no difference because they aren't going to use them in the first place.
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
If you don't teach your kids to think for themselves, someone else is going to do their thinking for them. Granted, that someone may not hurt them, but you can be assured, they won't have their best interest at heart.
But people who can think for themselves, tend not to buy as much, and they tend to be unpredictable. Why, who knows who an independent thinker will be voting for this election. So the system tends to discourage it. And for some families, critical thought has been missing for at least 2 generations already.
Computers are only relevant, in that they amplify the state you're already in. If you're a critical thinker, a computer is just another sword in your armory. If you can't think, a computer is just another set of chains that bind you to the person(s) who is(are) thinking for you.
The computer is just another tool that can be used or misused in the education process. It can be used to help children learn to be creative, questioning, skeptical, and independent.
Or, it can be used to teach a kid to be passive, unquestioning, and accepting (in short, perfect fodder for today's society).
Of course the same can be said about any other part of the educational process, e.g. textbooks, teachers, etc.
One of the kids I knew in high school didn't do so well in his classes. He didn't fail them, mind you, but he got a lot of C's because he wasn't doing his homework (he did excellent on the tests, IIRC).
What was he doing? He was spending most of his time programming and learning various assembly languages. He had more logical thinking skills and practical technical knowledge than just about anyone his age because of all the programming he did, and in this respect it made him "smarter." However, according to our blatantly flawed education system, his grades said he merely "average."
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
A child needs to learn to read, write, do math, and think clearly. Teaching these things requires books, writing materials, and a motivated person to do the teaching.
A child needs to learn morals, wisdom, and how to get along with his fellow man. Teaching these requires continuing attention, role-modeling, and exposing the child to life experiences as appropriate.
If a child gets this good foundation, then how much he uses technology and whether it makes him smarter will be a much less important concern.
Parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, family friends, please get in the faces of the kids you care about! Listen to them talk about what goes on in their lives. Play with them. Work with them. Answer their questions. Talk to them about your experiences. Challenge them to think. You can make a difference that will last the rest of their lives.
</soapbox>
"Rub her feet." -- L.L.
Now dont get me wrong, I LOVE computers. Im a verified geek. I have been ever since my parents sat me in front of the old Apple IIe at the age of six. (And gave be a BASIC book at the age of 7)
Computers arent the savior of education that everybody was hoping they would be. Computers are a tool and nothing more. You will always have the children who choose not to use the tools available to them, as well as the children who have no tools available to them.
I remember one time in elementary school we were in the computer lab of Apple IIe s and I decided to have a little bit of fun with the people in there - so I wrote a little program to show just how 3eet I was:
You wouldnt believe how much trouble I almost got in for that little stunt. I distinctly remember sitting in the hallway for the remainder of the class - with a large smile on my face. (This only got worse when I started going into Radio Shack Stores - Some of the messsages I came up with there probably affected sales quite a bit
Anyway - I remember in highschool (around 1995) when they built the computer lab full of older IBM 486 Lan Manager machines. We spent a large amount of time there (to my great surprise) - but it was only to waste time on substandard "education" games and work on composing some research presentation using some Powerpoint wannabe called "Linkway" or something.
The point is: Most of those kids learned absolutely nothing. Most of them just goofed off in the computer lab. The teacher didnt even really know what the heck she was doing in there.
The morale of the story kiddies: Computers are like an encyclopedia - they are only useful if you are willing to open the cover and explore. Until then - they are useless.
Gam
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
My house has 6 computers, with 5 kids. They are on the net all the time. Usually playing games. When they first got started, I believe it did help. Even the multiplayer games, which we watched them learn about team work. But now we cant get their lazy tails up half the time to do their chores, its always "just a minuite". In general I believe it helps, but only if there is a limited time. If they are on it all the time, it detracts from the normal functions of interaction with other people.
In the 1990's Edutainment came along. One has to wonder whether a product that uses a word as horrible as "edutainment" can actually be educational, but nevertheless, some people bought it.
They found it was useless, because it rewarded people too easily.
Then the internet came along. A resourse contasining all the info kids might need. Shame so much iof it is wrong.
Basic intelligence is not effected by education, or the tools used to acquire information.
Although I agree with you to an extent I do think that exercising the mind will over time improve intelligence. As in, if you spend your whole day solving problems you will become better at problem solving. Similarly, you can train your memory to become better. Consequently, because we usually measure intelligence as a combination of the ability to solve problems and the ability to remember things your intelligence improves.
It is therefore an indirect consequence of better education and better access to technology to have better intelligence. Only because the better education and the better technology will provide an environment that will more likely stimulate someone to improve their intelligence.
f course, someone with no access to education or technology can be stimulated by other reasons and also improve their intelligence.Others are just naturally intelligent.
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10);'
I think there is a valid concern that people raised on computers may not learn how to think critically about the information they are receiving from those computers. I am reminded of an old maxim called Gallois' Revelation: "If you put tomfoolery in a computer nothing comes out but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow enobled and none dare criticize it." If kids don't learn to question the tomfoolery which can come out of computers, then we are in trouble. That's where critical thinking is important.
Onorio Catenacci
--
"And that's the world in a nutshell -- an appropriate receptacle."
--
"And that's the world in a nutshell -- an appropriate receptacle."
-- Stan Dunn
...is solely because computer "power users" tend to be outcasts. Outcasts, as not being in the popular crowd, have a lot more time alone, and spend it learning various things.
I wouldn't say it's as much computers than the social position of computer users.
Regarding antisocial behavior, well that stems from the same thing.
Also check: I doubt it's computers that make kids intelligent, but rather intelligent kids that have a need to learn how to fully use a computer.
Everything does. Making a blanket statement like, "computers make kids smarter" is foolish and absurd, especially when there are so many kinds and ways of using computers.
What is the computer used for? Is it just your standard Win98 box with AOL, Half-Life Counterstrike, Cable modem for pr0n, and mp3 players? In that case, no - it's just another TV set.
Is it instead used for programming, for research and learning, or for writing or composition? In that case, then yes - it helps children expand their minds.
The beauty of computers is that they can do both of these things - they can be an entertainment outlet, a link to the outside world, a research tool, and more. But you can't say PC's in the home make kids "smarter" (that is to say, more inquisitive and willing to learn), unless that is how they are *used*.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Basic intelligence is not effected by education, or the tools used to acquire information. A computer will allow someone to take advantage of a superior intellect, but it will not increase the intellect. A quick intellect will allow a child to grasp the nuances of the computer easier, and use it to a greater advantage. A computer is a tool, not a magical box.
One thing that really bothered me in this was the assumption that a child would become a hacker (by which I assume cracker was meant) which is compleat technophobia. Just because a child reads a book does not mean that he or she is going to run off and become a librarian! I have known several ppl with a very strong background in proging who chose to pursue diff. careers in college.
-CrackElf
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
...well it's not making grown-ups any smarter -- i mean look at AOL!
There are 01 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary, and me.
Berk Watkins
In the US, any bit of information I wanted was a few clicks away. I could use the internet as an extension of my memory. In the UK, each click now takes between seconds and minutes to download, so something that was once a few seconds away, is now several minutes away, especially when I dont remember the exact series of links to follow and have to back track. One might think that it would make the internet just a slower part of my memory. However, the delay is such that it no longer plays any part in my memory - it is too slow to participate in my short-term thinking process. I am having to learn old methods of memory retention, and use "Favourites" a lot more!
This is pure theory, of course, but it is the only explanation I have. If I, an adult, am having this problem, what effect will it have on a child?