Slashdot Mirror
No-Tech Schools In Tech Land
manyoso writes: "This article in the Oregonian tells how some hi-tech parents at Intel are opting for a school without computers for their children. From the article: 'Conventional wisdom holds that children can only benefit from exposure to technology', but children, 'shouldn't spend first-grade skipping coloring and learning to keyboard... Emphasizing computers doesn't seem to enhance students' creativity and could even stifle it... We want them to eventually see what a computer can do for them, but only after they know what they can do for themselves.'" Clifford Stoll has argued and written along similar lines.
If anything, I think that computers encourage creativity. If you have a fast mind, the computer might be the only thing that can keep up with you, and think of all the possibilities on a computer! Coding lets you do nearly anything, and you could do graphic design or play imaginative games (I still remember playing Cosmic Osmo several years ago, a game by the creators of Myst that let you explore worlds)! I think it would be ok to do other things *in addition* to computers, but definitely not instead!
"I have not failed. I've simply found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Edison
By the time we finally learned how to use a computer (in 7th and 8th grade, and we learned BASIC programming on TRS-80s), anything we'd learned was already obsolete. Those of us who already knew computers couldn't care less about what we were "learning" in class, and everyone else just saw no point to it. All it really did was take time away from actually learning real shit. Teaching kids how to use a word processor or "research" things on the Internet gives them no advantage at all over somebody who's spent most of their school life in more creative endeavors.
I'm glad I didn't bother learning how to use a PC until I felt like it.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
It seems to me learning how to do things "the old fashioned way" is how we broaden our minds. A computer is a tool, and a narrow one, for interfacing with and manipulating certain types of information. As much as I love my Athlon 1800+, Photoshop is no substitute for for learning how to paint.
:-) That being said, typing classes should be mandated by law. Heheh.
You exercise different parts of your brain doing different things, and much of art and engineering are built on the lessons we learned playing with clay, Lego's and blocks as children. Actually dissecting a frog teaches a hell of a lot more than using an "interactive" multimedia CD on the subject. Doing long-division by hand is the only way to really understand what that division key on the calculator really does.
Let's keep it real, folks.
Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
Learn the basics first. The computer should suplement, not replace.
Fight Spammers!
I've noticed that the more a parent spends time with computers, the less important they think it is for their children to use one.
As a parent who spends all day on the computer, I feel they are nearly useless as teaching aids (except for programming, naturally). That's particularly true for small children.
People who don't spend time with computers tend to (it seems) mystify them. Perhaps they think there's some profound skill in moving a mouse around.
B
I'm a little frightened for young kids today. I know too many parents who will buy a beeping thing with buttons before they throw a ball back and forth with their child or at least supply Legos. Even "educational" games and television programming will drain you if its ALL you do. I'm almost 22; thank god I grew up before most of all these beeping gadgets were on the market.
sig
The kids of these Intel workers probably get lots of exposure to technology at home. Perhaps they feel that the schools are mearly teaching their kids to use computers rather than learning with them, kind of redundant if the kinds are already experienced with technology. They probably feel the need to ensure that their kids can write essays and do research without computers rather than locking them into this medium for life.
I stole this Sig
I spent my "formidable years" in small religious private schools of varying quality. The one consistency amongst them was the shunning-upon of calculators and other such aides. The forced development of street math and the fast thinking that comes with it carried over very well to other parts of my life.
"You're never ready, just less unprepared."
It completely ruins the ability for a student to do basic math skills. I teach college-level classes in which lots of math is involved, and I've seen kids use a calculator to add 50 to 50.
The voices of wisdom speak!
I am a father of 5, and we home-school the children. At first, we thought that having all the computers around the house (I am a freelance programmer) along with educational videos would allow us to accelerate their progress - boy were we wrong.
Educational games do little more than encourage the kid to click on stuff randomly. They couldn't remember what they saw in a video 20 minutes after seeing it. And they lived their day around TV shows and video games... nothing much happening.
But, after we mandated "No TV - No computer games" - we saw stunning improvements! Suddenly they took an interest in their environment. We saw sharp improvements in their creativity and curiosity. They also behave MUCH better towards each other - much less aggression and infighting. Additionally, they took/take a much greater interest in reading, music (other than top 40s), etc.
Since then, we've done some research, to find that children's psychological development reaches a real understanding of abstract concepts beginning at around age 12-14.
To expose kids to abstracts, (such as the images on a TV Screen or computer) rather than "real" things (like play-dough, the sand pit, Legos) etc, deprives them of basic understanding of these "real" things then making it more difficult to understand abstracts later.
So, despite my very strong tech background, I do not feel that computers and "technology" should be introduced to kids until at least Jr. high.
-Ben
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Ok, computers used to be a great motivational tool, because they were a novelty. Kids would use them because they were new and cool. Well, wake up folks, its a new century and just about everyone who wants one can have one at home. Most kids (even poor kids) grow up with one now. It's nothing new, and just because you put your stupid flashcards on a computer doesn't mean Johnie is going to want to learn.
The novelty of computers has worn off, there is no magic bullet here. Teaching is all about the basics. Lets face it, some things are hard to learn, and even harder to teach, and no computer is going to take the place of a trained and creative human being.
School districts that waste tax dollar buying laptops for every student pain me no end. These are teaching tools, no more, no less, and there is no value in a 1-1 computer student ratio, anymore than there is value in a 1-1 blackboard to student ratio.
Certainly computer skills should be taught, just like reading skills, math skills and arts are taught. But there is no value to allowing computers to encroach on other subject matters, no value in allowing computers to be the delivery mechanism for all information. A learning and research tool, no doubt, but the end all and be of education they are not.
-josh
The whole point is not that we should 'ban' computers, but they should be regulated to a role - just one skill. Computers should be a -component- of education - like art, music, etc... Certainly, it is crucial to have exposure to things 'off screen,' but it is equally important to be familiar and comfortable with computers
My ideal situation: hands on (one machine per kid) twice a week for about 3/4ths of an hour for K-3rd grade, typing and lego programming in 4-5, and use of comps for programming, research and word processing during 'free time' (and programming / literacy classes) in 6th grade untill high school
It seems quite stupid to teach kids research skills without computers! Sure, the library is important, but the computer makes using the library more productive.
Moreover, the internet is, realistically, a critical component of *any* reserach these days!
My parents did not want me fooling around on their computer becaus my dad felt I'd screw it up real bad (because he didn't know much about computers). My dad also refused to let me access the net cause he felt all I'd do was check out some pr0n. Well, when I finally got the money (17 years old) I bought my computer and internet access. I'd already been around on BBSs so I thought I new some... Oh shit was I wrong! Nowadays I compare myself to some of my friends and I have to say that I estimate the age for learning about computers to be around 13-14 years old. Later than that and you've got a hell of a lot to catch up.
.02$
Creativity is VERY important and I totally agree that a young kid should stay the hell away from computers, especially that every program I see being designed for kids is usualy idiotic anyway compared to what caring parents can provide.
just my
Imperium et libertas
Autocracy and freedom
When I took physics in high school, the school had just acquired a number of laptops and different types of electric devices for measuring forces, distances, etc.
Using some program on the computer, we were able to obtain very accurate measurements of acceleration, force changes, etc. compared to time and what not. Without the computers we would have had to have used various rules and stop watches, and hope that we came up with something that was similar to the expected results.
In cases such as these, where computers are used as a supplement to learning, instead of the primary focus, I think that they are very beneficial to the classroom. However, if the computer is doing something that could be done just the same without a computer, I see little need for the computer, and the student would probably be better off without it.
What?
Two large groups of school children (and one control group) were chosen. One of these group had massive "IT" training. The other group had massive music training. A year later results clearly showed that the "IT" students had not enhanced their creativity, formal reasoning or anything else of interest. The music students, however, had enhanced creativity, analytical thinking and other areas of significance enormously. They also seemed to get along better with each other, and to be more content with their lives than people in the control group or in the IT group.
Unfortunately, nobody took much notice of this study, although it was huge. Probably because it didn't show the results the politicians wanted it to show. Nowadays there's a lot of "IT" training in elementary schools. I have, however, yet to come across a normal elementary school with an increased number of music lessons.
This was in Sweden, by the way.
"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok
Wait a minute. You said "No TV - No computer games" and this somehow validates your point? I think not. Would you let your kids hang around playing poker all day and that would be OK because its not electronic? And what does TV have to do with the debate?
My friend, it is you that is mired in confusion.
If your children use the computer as a learning device, they will indeed learn the concepts of mathematics and improve their reading and writing skills much quicker than without. Assuming you guide them properly. Perhaps it is you who are ignorant of the power of the computer? You gave them games, but did you give them Mathematica?
Computers and education frequently comes up in Steve Talbott's NetFuture e-zine, which can be accessed on O'Reilly's web site. Here's an example article from an indexed list of NetFuture articles on the subject.
A 1998 study by the private Educational Testing Service of nearly 14,000 fourth- and eighth-graders found the more time students spent practicing math using computers in school, the worse they scored on math tests.
I had several teachers who would tell me something along the lines of "a calculator/computer is a useful tool, but you need to be able to figure out if the answers it is giving you are right". I even remember that there was some emphasis on "estimation math".
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
Buy the kid $1500 worth of legos at age 6, as opposed to a computer. And keep them away from the TV at all costs.
Maskirovka
Actually a scientific study shows that school isn't good for the development of children below the age of seven years.
I sure as hell hope they're not learning to mangle English, either. "Keyboard" is a noun, not a verb, except in Jargonville.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
And the last time he taught in an elementary or high school was...?
For somebody who is trained in astronomy, he sure knows a lot about child education...
Part of the problem with our schools is that people who were children or have children or went to school instantly think they know what is wrong with our schools and how to fix them. From mandatory testing to "moments of quiet reflection" to millions of dollars poured into IT infrastructure while the walls of the school are crumbling to home schooling... all of which are just manifestations of somebody political or cultural agenda. Nobody ever asks what the people who are actually trained in education what they need in order to better educate our children.
If you ask them, they would probably tell you that to do their job all they really need is support from the administration and from the parents, decent textbooks and a comfortable, non-distracting environment for the children to learn. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.
creativity cn be applied in the digital world in new ways that aren't possible in the "real world"
compare creating 3d virtual models of an item with sculpting something out of clay or wood.
I had a hell of an easier time picking up programming and computers as a young child compared to trying to learn new things now.
What we need is 3rd graders who can use autocad to learn math and engineering concepts, or grade school age kids colaborating on someones thesis project, researching new ideas...then we'd have some creative juice flowing. How about 6th graders writing math or spelling games for 5th graders?
we need to do more than teach them how to be office workers, computers should be taught by a teacher who knows more that how to install the latest 'learing adventure' games. perhaps laptops on a roving computer lab cart could let one Computer-EXPERT-teacher move from class to class for 'LAB Time' instead of trying to sit a pc on every desk with teachers that don't know as much about how to be creative with a computer.
look at me share my opinion/view/insight all over the world via slashdot, that wasn't so hard to grasp now was it?
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Albert Einstein once said something along the lines of, "It's amazing that curiosity survives the rigors of a formal education." My only problem with computers in the classroom is that the kids aren't permitted to play with them. Their interaction is extremely structured and regimented out of fear that they'll break the software. Honestly, though, kids that young can learn the same stuff with legos, bricks, and crayons. At that age, the only thing I'd have them do with computers is basic exposure (maybe some learning games, touch typing games, just stuff to get them comfortable). That's mostly an issue of expense, however, and I'm sure that will disappear in the future.
;)).
In the meantime, the best way to encourage creativity is to get the hell out of the kids' way and let them be creative! If they come up with some wild eyed theory, don't just tell them that they're wrong, help them find out for themselves.... (cutting rant short to go study
BlackGriffen
In the 80s in Lynn, Mass. there was this program where smart elementary school kids were taken out of class once a week and went to another school across town and taught advanced studies. For example, I remember we learned about prime numbers in the 4th grade. The other thing that was there were a bunch of TRS-80 color computers on which were taught programming. It was great. It was BASIC and simple, but the things I learned in those classes in 4th and 5th and 6th grades I still use every day.
Even though I went through high-school without a computer, as I got into college and got my first 286, it was intuitive how to get it running. Going to school for design and journalism, I was always the guy who could get the Mac networking working or recover from some error. And now I'm a programmer having switched to technical consulting after college to pay the rent and "magically" having the aptitude to do so.
My point is that the technical training I received as a child was as valuable to me in my life as any third language I might have learned or some musical training, and it was much, much more useful than "knitting a pair of socks with yarn I dyed myself" like that kid in the story. I think this will only continue to be true in the future.
-Russ
If anyone is reading this and has any idea what Project Summit was, please inform me, because beyond having spent a bunch of time in the program, me and my parents don't know much about it or even if it's still going on today... Thanks.
Me
Ignoring my computer class there are only 3 classes in which I have used a computer.
1. English: Here we used computers for writing essays. In this case they were very useful as they allowed we to work must faster and better explore my topic, and also make my nearly illegible handwriting a non-issue.
2. Math: In one or two classes we worked with a program involving the relationships between angles in circles, this was also very useful as it helped demonstrate the principals in a manner easy to observe.
3. Social(History for Americans): Here we used computers in two ways, for one we used the Internet as a research tool. This was a great learning experience as it taught us to discriminate between the veracity of various sources (as opposed to the library where we were exposed to a much narrower array of for the most part more "standard"? material). It also gave us better exposure to a much wider spectrum of opinions (when we could find it (((search for relevant material)+ (slow Internet connection))!=fun). Our social teacher also showed us various powerpoint presentations (and DVD's of war movies but that's another story;), these did have a strong effect and helped to drive the point home.
My point is that technology can be a useful tool but only when utilized properly, you don't know how many kids I saw diddling the period away in computer class instead of doing work. I had a great experience with a limited amount of technology in the classroom. However in all of these cases the focus was not the technology but what we were doing with it. I think the problem emerges when teachers and school start using technology for the sake of using it instead of using it to enhance effect the concept or ability to do the work.
I stole this Sig
Balance to me means a kid should do finger painting, bang on drums or some other musical instrument, read books of all kinds including philosophy and religion, math, science, 3-5 foriegn languages and programming.
Kids are growing up stupid because the adults treat them as if they are stupid. Kids grow up with a lack of creativity because teachers and parents are too lazy or afraid of looking stupid to really try. The failure of children to grow and learn in a balanced manner is the result of our (adults) failures. There's no magic bullet to solve this problem and there's no easy fix. Politicians and school boards need to start thinking of long term solutions and not short term "what will get me re-elected" strategies.
Spending millions on stupid common sense research studies would be better spent on reducing the ratio of classrooms and giving teachers more training and less micromanagement.
The reason computers arent useful in school is because almost all teachers are completely ignorant of them. If they were made available in a more natural way with competent educators around then computers in the classroom wouldnt be such a colossal waste.
(perhaps this goes back to how horribly underpaid teachers are)
Although I learned nothing from shcool computers, I did aquire a taste for programming at around 8 years old, outside of school. (You know you are a hardcore programmer when you give a presentation on binary arithmetic in elementary school)
What these parents arent saying is that they will be making computers available to their childern outside of the school, and that they will be knowledgeable mentors to the curious. That's what matters.
That's an interesting argument. You must have made someone a bit uncomfortable, to get marked "Redundant."
Interestingly enough, there's alot to be learned in poker - skills of reading human behavior are not ones taught in public schools, as they aren't "book" learning. But, as Mr. Gates, and many other marketroids have shown us, are no less valuable.
These skills comprise the heart and soul of salesmanship - a most valuable skill, fundamental to the operation of a successful business or organization.
How does watching "Simpsons" or "Friends" teach our children even that?
Perhaps you can see why I'd much rather have my children play poker than watch TV?
-Ben
PS: My teen sons (13) are learning PHP and Python. Please re-read my post!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Students are required to hand in essays with references from computer encyclopaedias and typed with specific formatting.
So, kids must learn computers because teachers now require research papers to be created on computers? I hope they teach them circular logic, too.
There are some pretty advanced computing concepts that come into play that must be taught.
Learning to use Word 2000 isn't exactly advanced. When I find a class full of 8-year-olds who can write me a nice stored procedure in Postgresql, I'll agree with you...
technology is real shit, kids have to learn it too.
Why? So they're ready to join the working world? It doesn't take 18 years to learn how to use a word processor and read email. My generation did fine without being taught.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Kids *need* to develop important skills through 8th grade. Computers need to be a part, but not early on. (games are enough!) Time spent reading writing and thinking is time spent honing ones mind. Time well spent.
My own childhood was spent in a small town in the country. Lots of time playing in the woods, reading, exploring, camping, sports etc... School was similar. Nothing high tech, but the learning happened anyway. Today, plenty of things are easy without using a computer, and I like it that way.
Blogging because I can...
Yes, but a TRS-80 and older computers are much different then a computer of today.. also politics are different.
First of all, the students are given a LOCKED-DOWN machine that they are only able and allowed to point and click at stuff that the teacher says they can. This is usually includes Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office, and maybe a typing program. If a child does express any kind of interest in learning how to use a computer, does anything past the teacher's knowledge, or even looks at it in a funny way.. that child will be suspended for being a 'cyber terrorist', 'hacker', or other 'bad' words.
'wall' isn't hacking, but I know more then one kid who has been suspended for their ability to 'hack into other's terminals and write stuff to them'. I'll admit that doing 'wall' is pretty immature and isn't what the teacher had in mind, but to be considered a criminal?
Now, when you went to school.. computers were creative, they involved creativity and learning. Personal computers at that point weren't much more then hacked up toys for hackers.
Give the child unix, don't lock it down (further then it already is). Don't give them root.. but give them unix. They CAN grow, learn, be creative. Unfortunately, Microsoft Windows is meant for drones.. it does not encourage any kind of creativity that you describe.
Apple does still have some (limited) power amongst schools, and they do have execellent educational discount programs. In my honest opinion, OSX is the best thing that they have to offer children. A fun learning environment for the smart kids, with all the bells and whistles for the drones.
I remember learning the basics of arithmatic from one of those little learning calculators - I used it a lot. I think that little thing was the beginning of what I loved about Mathematics.
I also remember learning to read with the help of a Tape device with buttons that formed a menu - it was called a "Talk 'n Play," I believe.
A few years later (about third grade) I started using the computers, and learned about the order of operations, flowcharts, and basically everything that I needed to know to start thinking about writing programs. I also read at least 8 novels a year for from third grade on until about my 9th grade year (I don't actually remember how many I read anymore; that was a while ago, so I did a low estimate).
When I got to use an X86 finally, I really took off, learning things left and right.
Whats the point? Computer-like learning interface enhanced my ability to learn and accelerated my education.
If you ever read anything about learning, you must know that there is a special case of learning: the untainted learner - the person who fundamentally desires to learn as much as possible in an area (or in all areas) with whatever means of learning are available.
For these people, the best way to teach them is to try to transfer the knowledge to them as fast and as much as possible, and they will work hard to absorb it. This is exactly possible with today's computers and computer-based learning interfaces. They are totally designed for this.
It IS possible to work on gaining knowledge without worrying about learning "computers."
This is not always the case, however, and certainly doesn't apply to most learners. Usually, its much better to give a little bit at a time and give periods of absorption.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Computers in first grade do solve one problem...
;)
Coloring in the lines...
Instead of trying hard with that dull crayon to color within the lines, one click with the fill tool in photoshop and you're never outside the lines again
------
zap.....
I did badly in school, and nearly dropped out, I discovered computers, and did a complete turn around, I switched schools to one of those new alternative schools which had alot of computers, 2-3 computers in every classroom and guess what, I nearly made honor roll, graduated with a scholarship etc etc.
I dont think computers matter in first grade as much, first graders however can use computers to help learn certain subjects.
Reading.
Math.
History.
These 3 subjects are easier learned on computers. How do i know? Because i never learned a damn thing about any of these 3 subjects from a text book.
Example of how to get a kid to learn from a computer, send the kid to the computer lab or to the computer inthe classroom, make sure its internet connected. Ask the kid to research say dr martin luther king, the kid will go from website to website and learn the very important art of how to gather information and learn on their own.
The kid will find 4-5 diffrent pages on Martin Luther King, the kid will then write up a paper based on these pages they read complete with bibliography.
After the paper is typed up (this is much much faster than doing draft1, draft2, draft3 in handwriting and teaches your kid how to type)
Your kid learned to type, learned to read, and learned history all at the same time while learning to use the internet and learning to learn without being guided by a text book.
This is how i learned history.
Math can be learned using computers as well, for younger kids an interactive math game would be great. For older kids who know the basics, teaching them computer programming would be great. Computer programming teaches kids to solve problems and thats what math really is, it also teaches attention to detail, something most people dont learn until they get a job and get forced to learn it.
Reading, the best thing a computer can teach, is reading. Let the kid browse the net for fun, knowing all during this time the kid is learning to read.
Honestly, I learned to read from playinng role playing games on my Nintendo, reading magazines for video games, and other fun stuff.
People learn to read when they discover somethinng that interests them and dont know how to understand it.People do not learn to read by using coloring books, and reading generic childrens books, people also dont like being forced to read.
With computers, everyone can read exactly what they want, a teacher can be around to help guide them, when they find words they dont know (I still do this evven now) Teach them to go to a dictionary search page and enter the world and now they know what it means. Using classic dictionaries are slower and its silly for kids to be forced to learn about words they already know (Open book and go look up these words and write the definition) The kid learns nothing doing repetitive tasks.
How do I konw? Because i didnt learn much in school mainly due to boring repetitive tasks, If i do something once or twice, i know it, i dont need to practice it for weeks, the internet would allow someone to prove they know what they know, you cant use computers if you dont know reading and math, and the act of using the net unless its for pornography, is research.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
HACKERS......a lot of 'evil' hackers that I have talked to all have said they started using and loving computers at an early age. They were writing BASIC programs since they were 6 and other things of this nature. Could it be that getting involved with computers so early deprived them of the time to learn about the rest of the world and mature as upstanding citizens? I was first introduced to computers and BBSes as a freshman in high school and ever since I have had little concern for trying to maintain an active social life with all the 'cool' people. I was more concerned with playing Carmen Sandiego, Simcity and Tradewars. I apologize if my use of 'hacker' was not in accordance with correct geek definition.
Well thats because kids have to be TAUGHT to use computers to learn, its not going to be instant.
Tell them to use powerpoint, but list the steps.
Research your information using the internet.(gather information)
Create new information from gathered information.(dont forget to spell check)
Create useful graphics to explain the information
The last part, put the information in order.
Before you tell a kid to use powerpoint, find out if the school even teaches a class on powerpoint. If they teach a class on powerpoint then the kids know how to use powerpoint, if they dont, then its your job to give them a crash course on how to use power point.
Its sorta like giving a kid a text book and telling them to use it to learn, some kids will, some wont. Your job isnt to collect work and then grade them, your job is to teach them the proper method to create good work, the way to learn while creating good work to prove they learned.
That should be the goal, not their grade point average, not how much work is completed, but quality work.
I'm not a teacher, but ive had my ups and downs in school, and from experience, my success in school came when i learned how to learn using the tool i was most comfortable with which happened to be computers, not everyone can handle computers, not everyone can handle the text book, but everyone learns somehow and everyone can learn to handle text books or computers.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
From about year 1 to year 7 (I'm 24 now) I went to a waldorf school (they are known as steiner schools here in Australia), and never really used a computer till around year 10 when I had to do some cad for my design and tech class, from memory we didn't have a computer at home until I was in year 11 (my parents are still hopeless with computers so definately weren't techies).
Going to a steiner school certainly didn't hold me back as a programmer (current job though I want to get back outdoors a bit more), it also probably made me more inquisitive about constructing things and pulling things to bits to figure out how they worked, both real things and computer things.
I really enjoyed going to a steiner school, we learnt a hell of a lot about the bush, art (not as in art history, more about doing stuff ourselves) and sports, mostly as enjoyment rather than competition (eg going bushwalking, swimming in the river etc.), though we did of course play soccer at lunch, the lack of competitive sports as part of the curiculum hasn't held me back at all when it comes to sports (I compete in sailing on an international level).
because of the totally different method of learning I had a bit of a shock going into a public school halfway through year 7 and coming across algebra and strict timetables etc.
something which I'm not sure if it's because of the school I went to or what, though I very rarely play games on the computer, never really have, always use it for making things or learning rather than as a form of entertainment.
Word processor? hahahaha
Ok, word processors are ok, but if a kid learns to properly use the internet, nothing compares to that.
Powerpoint is perfect for presentations if a kid knows how to use it.Adults in corperations use power point all the time and they dont get distracted by pretty colors, what are you thinking?
Power point is a tool, a tool that if properly used, can produce good work. Sure a kid can be like "oh cool a computery gadget"
but a kid sitting in front of a text book can do the same thing, space out and daydream all day.
At least by allowing them to be creative you have a better chance at keeping their attention on something thats most likely boring as hell.
Computer a toy? TV is a toy too and schools used TV, pencils can be a toy, when i was in school i would spend my time drawing stuff because yes even the pencil can be a toy.
Paper can be a toy, ive made paper airplanes in class.
Anything can be a toy, the goal is to teach a kid to use it as a tool.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Yet you post anonymously. Keep in mind that not everyone in here lives in the U.S. and so yes you're going to find a lot of spelling errors.
Students must develop skills, you can't just magically show them a series of steps and expect them to comprehend and recreate them for their own work.
Yes, you can. It's called mathematics. Also phonics. Also diagramming sentences.
Learning how to use a word processor is absolutely no different. It isn't a creative task, like learning to make decisions or become curious about the world around them like some other subjects (such as arts and sciences courses) teach them.
Learning how to use the big beige box in the corner doesn't develop kids' brains.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I actually taught, in a college honors course, a section of this book by Stoll (I think it was this one), and I was surprised by the class' reaction.
Why? Me, being a techie, figured: "well all these damn-ass smart freshman should love computers and want to use them in the classroom 24/7! w00t!!" Interestingly, most of them hated the idea of having computer-mediated instruction (guess they didn't know the class was computer-mediated) at any level of education.
Conversely, less-adept college freshman like the computers, until they realize I can shut off their AIM remotely.
Point is, computers are by no means a panacea to real or perceived educational ills (a la Stoll), at least not until educational technologists figure out the best way to use them, and that may never happen.
--- There is a man in a smiling bag.
I got hold of an old IBM 'Letter Quality' impact printer and hooked it up to my TRS-80 - I used typing paper; one day, one of my teachers complement me on having the perserverance and skill to use an old typewriter.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
I sat in the hot tub at the YMCA last week listening to a former telephone company repairman (retired about 10 years ago) tell me about how much better off the computer industry because of Microsoft's innovations and that they obviously make a superior product.
I love how people who have no training or experience feel perfectly qualified to offer their "expert" opinions.
For those that home-school -- do you also do surgery on your kids? Do you fix their cavities? My mother used to cut my hair -- and I hated going to school afterwards.
And we have Clifford Stoll -- a second rate astronomer -- passing judgement on how schools educate.
Computers are not miracle devices, they are tools just like anything else. Used properly, they do make a significant difference, especially in early education. They are not a replacement for parent involvement or adequate school funding, but they are very worthwhile. Blanket abandonment of technology in education is no better than unquestioning praise.
Stupid people will be persecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law.
I read the article in the paper on the bus this morning on my way to work. I had a few thoughts:
As another posted mentioned, people who don't understand computers are the ones who think we need to teach computers. Sometimes that can be true - I think everyone needs some exposure to computers, because (and I say this after having done technical support for about four years now) people who don't have exposure to computers tend to fear computers, and people who fear computers will completely turn off their brains and disregard all common sense when any piece of technology is nearby. There are brain surgeons who can't decipher a plain-English dialog box simply because they believe computers to be too complicated to understand. Exposure to computers in a non-threatening (preferably non-Microsoft) environment would solve this problem and make the world a better place - and in fact, I've noticed a gradual decline in blatent stupidity over the years, as people use computers more.
However, what children should be taught about computers are concepts, not applications or specific tasks (you can use tasks to teach concepts, but be careful of the lines you draw). For example, teaching word processing (using Microsoft Word) is good, teaching Microsoft Word (which is used for word processing) is bad.
I remember a great game for the Apple II that let you set up a series of machines to rotate and punch holes in a square, and you had to figure out what it would look like when it got through to the end. That helps students to think, and really has nothing to do with the computer itself - the computer is just a tool for the simulation, because it wouldn't be a very practical game to play in the physical world.
Teaching programming is great. It teaches students how to think in a way they're not used to thinking, and that stretches the mind. Again, whether they're using BASIC or C or Python or VB or Java isn't that important (although some of those languages have annoying bits that get in the way of learning concepts, and I think it's helpful to start with a simpler language like BASIC before tackling a complex one like Java).
Too many schools have gotten technology grants that let them wire every classroom for Ethernet, but don't have qualified staff to make use of the computer lab they already had. Politicians think a computer in every classroom sounds like a great ambition, but don't realize it's really pretty useless. How do you make use of one or two computers in the back of a classroom? Sure, a couple students can type a paper while the rest of the class is working on projects without having to walk down the hall to the lab or library, and maybe with an LCD projector the teacher could use PowerPoint to illustrate a lecture (yeah, as if teachers have time to make PowerPoint presentations). That's about all I can think of.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
When most teachers barely know how to use computers to begin with, how can you possibly expect them to be able to utilize them effectively in the classroom? And what about all that crappy educational software out there? Who writes that stuff? Who designs the interfaces? Educators? I don't think so. At best, an educator might be brought in as a consultant, but they probably aren't all that involved in the day to day development. I can assure you from personal experience that the hackers that write the software and design the interfaces are clueless when it comes to good educational design...
At any rate, I would say that the jury is still out on this issue. It's safe to say that what we're doing right now is pretty bad, but I'm not convinced that it will remain that way.
Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!
Movies alone can verify why schools should prefer art over tech:
Shrek:
$47M cost
noticably imperfect animation
cool plot and voice acting
made $600M global (including DVD and VHS purchase and rental).
Spirits Within:
$140M cost
near-perfect animation
lifeless plot and voice acting
made $100M global (including DVD and VHS purchase and rental)
The numbers alone prove what our schools should teach.
- What are problems in American schools? It is often discipline, lack of attention, poor study habits, the unwillingness to sit down, in a disciplined manner, and learn.
As far as I can tell, he really doesn't have any experience teaching, which means he is basing this conclusion not on emperical evidence, but on his own assumptions.Being a colledge undergrad who has recent memories of my public school days, I'd say one of the biggest problems any educational system faces is making the class interesting. Kids won't learn if it's boring as hell--and no, I won't accept that some stuff is just plain boring. Everything can be made interesting.
Were it not for access to a computer in the early years I would have been moved to a "non-academic" stream. Why? Because I'm dysgraphic and was unable to write my answers down. (Dysgraphia is a syndrome that spawns from the same physiological causes as dyslexia but primarily effects the putting of characters on paper, rather then the reading them off of paper.) My verbal IQ was over 20 points sperated from my written IQ. They worked this out after I started typing my homework, and suddenly started getting the answers right because I could concentrate on the _thought_ process, rather then the physical process of writing.
I would be horrified to think that children to come after me would be without this incredibly enabling technology.
On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
Leave those kids alone!
All in all you're just another brick in the wall...
I'm 32. I got my first computer when I was in elementary school. It was a Timex/Sinclair 1000. It was interesting, and started my interest in computers . My next machine was a Commodore 64, then two Amigas. Maybe it's because of the creative opportunities these machines offered, maybe it was that I was always artistic, maybe it was because I was musically inclined, or maybe it was because MY DAD PAID ATTENTION, but I think I turned out fine. I draw, paint, play sax, write, and think logically. Exposure to computers didn't stifle any of this, it enhanced it. Computers are a tool and a creative outlet for me. The problem with computers comes at the same time that it does with TV, or games, or daycare. If a parent thinks that all little Johnny needs is a computer and Internet access to learn everything he needs to know, sure, the kid will probably fail. But if the parent takes an active part in the development of the child, computers can be a valuable resource. As can the other media listed above. I'm getting really sick of the current crop of parents looking for outside influences to blame for thier kids not turning out right. John Walker Lind, Dillon Clevold, etc... These guys didn't exactly have the most attentive parents in the world.
-Sam
Using a computer hardly keeps you from exploring the real world. Quite the opposite. I've found use of computers stirs a thirst. If you explore the Internet, a game such as Final Fantasy, or an encyclopedia on cd-rom you encounter new ideas and you want to fill that need anyway you can. It's the same as reading books. Sure you can say that reading to much keeps you from living your life but more often reading leads you to study the world on your own, travel, and in general think about things more.
If you think that computers stifle creativity then obviously you have never created anything on them. It could be true that there are few tools a young child can use to be creative but if that is so the solution is to write more programs children can use in a creative manner. A crayon is not creative but put into the hands of someone it allows them to be creative. A computer should be the same way.
Using a computer should be a social experience. Children should use them together both in person and online. A good deal of the problem is so called protective laws make it difficult to make a child-oriented place for children to be social online. As if by closing all the worlds playgrounds you could stop child abuse.
"At what price learning? At what cost wisdom?"
"The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life."
Kampus, by james e. gunn
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I agree you should know the basics, addition, multiplication, subtraction and division, the BASICS.
But i dont think you need to know advanced maths in your head. Use a calculator and master the calculator, it was created for that specific purpose, most adults dont remember all the advanced maths.
I remember the basics, thats all thats needed.
You cant really properly use a computer without knowing basic maths, i mean how can you do stuff if you dont know how to add and subtract.
Oh course people should learn that, mainly so they can handle their finances if they dont have a calculator. However i wouldnt make it a rule, i'd make it an addition. While its good to learn the calculator, its better to learn how the calculator works, i'd teach the kid to use the calculator, then show the kid what the calculator is doing.
make the kids ask questions, because then you know they truely want to learn.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I'm just afraid the majority of 'teaching computers' in the younger grades is just an updated version of the 'educating for the sweatshop' mentality schools had during the Industrial revolution.
Most of the computer curriculum I've seen seems to focus on how to use computers. How to use a mouse or how to save a file, and less on how to create, or how to research.
We are reaching a point where even the lowest jobs will require computer skills. If we focus too much on these skills at younger ages, we end up producing skilled workers for menial jobs at the expense of a broader range of learning experiences.
Sure, we'll be preparing students for the workforce, but at the expense of the intellectual capital of society's future.
The Internet is generally stupid
Thats what the current system refuses to understnand.
Theres no theory on how kids think, just a theory on how the average kid thinks.
accept the fact everyone thinks diffrently, while most people may do best in the enviornment which you project, or in think in the way which you describe,
When i was growing up i wasnt average, i learned in my own way, teachers thought i would be a failure and drop out and i surprised even myself when i graduated with scholarships.
All it took was switching schools to an alternative school which allows a person to learn in whatever way works.
Theres no standard when it comes to thinking, allow a person to think and learn in the way which works best for them, and stop trying to decide which works best for everyone.
Thats what i have to say, the brain develops in diffrent ways for everyone, for me, i'm good at things i never thought i'd be good at, my brain developed in a weird way, i went from being a total failure in school, i went from being a kid who only played video games and did stuff that was fun, to being a computer genius adult who knows a few programming languages and understands the most complex areas of computers, science and technology.
Really i say ask the kid how he wants to learn, and teach him in the way he wants to learn, kids learn best when they are learning by themselves.
funny how a kid can memorize hundreds of pokemon at age 6 yet people think the same kid cant memorize some math or learn programming, its not their brain thats problem, its the style in which they learn stuff, pokemon, video games, toys, that stuff is interesting
if learning was a game, kids would learn faster.
If i were a kid and i could learn any way i wanted, i would choose to learn from video games and computers, i did most of my learning that way and if i would have started as a kid i would know so much more.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
this comes up every so often, and is sheer speculation with no basis in fact.
it is someone's - in one case cliff stoll's OPINION - and the only reason people listen to him is due to a random opportunity to be the first at tracking down a pretty nasty hacker. the shower scenes and fatality made it titillating, but he's no more a pundit than the rest of us.
please - whenever people bring this up - play the old name game ("frank frank bo-bank, banana fana fo fan, fee fie fo fank... frank) and replace COMPUTERS with ANY OTHER ENABLING TECHNOLOGY USED IN CLASSROOMS - THAT'S RIGHT - JUST ASSERT THAT
-- PENCILS STIFLE CREATIVITY,
-- BLACKBOARDS STIFLE CREATIVITY,
-- PHOTOCOPIERS STIFLE CREATIVITY,
-- LAMINATORS STIFLE CREATIVITY,
-- PROTRACTORS STIFLE CREATIVITY,
-- CUISINAIRE BLOCKS STIFLE CREATIVITY
-- MICROSCOPES STIFLE CREATIVITY
A case can be manufactured for the truth of each of these assertions. Trouble is, folks who assemble these straw men forget one very important tenet of education:
There is no best way to teach.
There are many ways which are successful, with varying situations, students, and classes, but there is no best way.
Being a teacher is in large part being a problem solver - you have a bunch of resources, a bunch of kids, and a bunch of desired outcomes. And being a good problem solver means knowing which strategies to emply for any given moment / situation / personality.
Consequently, it is folly to simply toss out any method(s) of instruction or expression on principle.
Unfortunately, this whole debate is usually framed as a guns-or-butter argument - which it isn't.
And while we're at it - a growing number of districts no longer have kids learning keyboarding as a regularly scheduled activity.
And for two cases that can be used to refute the generalization, here's how I have put it to parents and clients I've dealt with:
First - the importance of form in determining specific instructional strategirs - the specific example of music classes - remember your music lessons? What did you do in them? Mostly you attempted to recreate a piece of music, just as the author did it, no mistakes, very little expresion or improvisation. Yet music is one of the subjects lauded as "creative" - and most of what you do is mere skill building. You didn't go to music / band / suzuki to compose your own music -you simply mimicked the form - played heart and soul etc. - until you got it right.
Transfer such an approach to language arts - and you'd have the equivalent of having a room full of kids copy the first page of Moby Dick over and over again until they could do it flawlessly. That teacher would be out the door in short time. So form DOES matter - not all subjects can be optimized through the same instructional strategy.
Graduate now, to a music classroom full of keyboards and midi-enabled computers / sequencers / samplers. Now you can create music of your own. Notice the work CREATE - Now you can play with notes, patterns, entire symhponies, burn your own CDs, in record time, and with greater flexibility and ease than if you had to scribe each note on paper (or hire a copyist).
Yes, people will now put forth the argument that Beethoven didn't have a computer and look what he did - eventual deafness and all. Problem is this argument implies that if Ludwig HAD access to a computer he'd have been a lesser composer. Irrelevant and unsported conclusion.
As for trhe broader idea - when I was in grammar school, we expressed ourselves academically in two ways:
Book reports / essays
Shoebox dioramas full of clay things.
You had such a narrow window of expression, your work had to fit a very small number of forms.
Now we can hand a student HyperStudio or PowerPoint or Flash, and they can express themselves through printed workds, sopoken words, sound, music, the world's best graphics, original graphics, movies, 3-D animations, the list goes on.
Which is more creative? While the structure of the older two methods might be held up as a sort of academic haiku, with the accomplishment detemined by maximizing expression within the narrow form, it doesn't address the more recent benchmarks of creativity - for instance Paul Torrance's measures such as fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration - the amount, range, newness and depth of creative work.
Plus - a piece of Intel thinks computers stifle creativity? Do they watch their own ads? Enhanced creativity is most of what they push.
Seems like there are some deeper issues here that aren't seeing the light of day...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I think a lot of the posters have hit it right-on when they say the problem is that kids are taught how to use the computer in a specific fashion. They learn MS Word or Excel, completing tasks and so forth, without imbuing much about a computer aside from that it's another tool.
This isn't totally useless, a lot of people just need a cursory level of familiarity. But the thing is-that kids learn when they play. I don't think it's good to exclude computers from an environment, but, I think it's bad when adults try to micro-manage how a computer is used. As many have commented, "skills" people learn quickly become out of date.
Kids are by nature pretty inquisitive, so if you give them basic pointers (teach them Python tell them to find StarOffice if they want an application suite-don't force feed them apps you think will be practical), they can learn much better on their own.
Of course, people also remember some kids will never really take to computers. They'll learn to use apps and not be scared-but it's not going to be their cup of tea in the end. That's fine too.
NO gods, NO governments, NO [OPTION]....
But just about *everything* important is learned during the first five years of life - after that, it's just a bunch of fleshing out. If you want your child to have an innate understanding of *anything*, it's best to start early. I think the basics of computers, math, spelling, and yes, "humanity" should all be taught in pre-school - even if it's only in rudimentary forms. That's what provides a base for everything else children will learn in their lives.
Last post!
if one thinks about it. Chances are relatively good that if one's parent works at Intel, one would get plenty of exposure to technology at home. Computers at school would add little new learning to students in this environment.
I believe computers at school are far more important in places where computers at home are far less prevalent. My understanding of the goal of computers at school is to prevent the high school student from showing up at their first job and not feel comfortable working with the box on the desk. That can make the difference between a job with future potential and a job flipping burgers.
If I had computers at home, the last thing I would want my tax dollars spent on at school would be computers that will not add to my child's education. Pretty obvious, I would think.
When they are little we should be reading to them....in an animated style. When they are a little older we should be taking them to the library. When they are teenagers, we should be bribing them with cash. Whatever it takes.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
But that doens't mean that MY path to 'success' (which includes my first born at 20, and 3 kids by 25), should be duplicated to the world.
Like I said, I have 3 kids. The eldest (8) has no interest in computers, and likes to watch Animal Planet after her homework is done. She's a mostly loner at home, but the leader with her friends. My son (5) likes computers, Dreamcast, and Cartoons.. that doesn't mean that's ALL he does. He actually spends most of his time playing with his 2 year old sister.
Having a kid in 2nd grade, and another one entering full-time Kindergarten in the fall, I think schools need to concentrate on LEARNING. 1st grade was a crock. 2nd grade is better, but they don't teach the kids right and wrong.
"4+4 = 9.. Well, you're close.." No. it's wrong. 4+4=8. They don't do that.
And if the kid doesn't learn 4+4=8, but they do ok in other areas, they're moved on to the next grade, where, hopefully, the next teacher can 'work' on the student.
It's fucking pitiful. The whole school system needs a make-over. When I was in 2nd grade we ALREADY had multiple reading groups.. From Advanced on down. What happened to that? (and my kid is in the same district I was)
I realize all kids aren't the same, but the way 'averaging' is being done now, kids who don't want to keep up (like myself) get through school much easier than those who work hard, with just as much to show for it.
It's funny and sad.. flunkies doing good = honor students doing good AND flunkies doing bad = honor students doing bad.
In the end, both have a piece of paper that says they met the requirements to get the piece of paper, and both have just as real a chance at success or failure.
So if life is what you make it, why isn't there more 'custom' schooling?
No, I will not home-school. I thought I was a social wall-flower, when those kids grow up, they need to AVOID social contact. It's just better for the rest of us.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
People who place limits on their themselves become limited people. Rather than absolutely ruling out a given tool such as a computer, just moderate it and use it wisely. Dont worship it, as many educators have, nor demonize it.
I work on a major children's website, and, according to focus groups, know that parents use it as a babysitter. It's a way to keep Junior occupied while dinner is cooking, the TV is on, or mummy or daddy "needs a break". Sure, we make the content educational, but we can only do so much without the interaction of the parents and children.
Two of my close friends have had children in the last two years. One has chosen to spend time with the child, playing with him, and showing him non-computer activities. He's turning out to be a well-adjusted and bright child.
The other child has more electronics than I have! For Christmas, she received her own computer keyboard and software, in hopes that she would become a genius through computing. My gift to her- a set of pots and pans and a teddy bear.
"Show me on the doll where the bad man touched you."
As the father of 4 kids (ages 6-14) I hope I can speak with some experience rather than conjecture. It has been my experience that IF the computer is positioned as simply a TOOL to an end, it works fine in the educational process. A couple of positive examples: My 9 year old daughter loves the songs on the JumpStart series Spanish. Does she remember every vocabulary word, NO. But it has helped her gain a very accurate pronuciation through fun repetion. My 6 year old watched me and learned how to play Ages of Empires 2. I am confident it increased his ability to handle simultaneous complex problems. Now for the counterpoint: In our family the PC is NOT the primary focus. Each kid is involved in learning and enjoying music (all 4 enjoy our lcoal symphony). They understand that in order for your mind to work, you have to care for your body. Growing up in a large family (with lots of drop-in friends) they learn to work together. Recently my 14 year old expressed interest in programming. Once I made it clear that programming was about using logic and he was still interested, we began with VERY simple logic and graphic manipulation. He enjoys it, but still knows where it fits in life. So, my conclusion would be: keep it in perspective.
The school I had my first son in taught cursive writing before they taught print. The argument was that print is so easy that they will pick up on it naturally without spending a lot of time on it. What they fail to consider was that learning to print developes a lot of basic motor skills that are need to form letters on paper. Today, my sons writing is borderline illegible, and that is with me sitting beside him coaching, screaming and pulling my hair out. ( I know it's not his fault, and he is trying really hard...doesn't make it any less frustrating.)
My point is that newfangled ideas and gimmicks (which are all that computers really offer), should have to withstand the same stress that the scientific method puts on scientific claims. It should be widely accepted only after reproducible results are corroborated by several parties. Computers in the classroom haven't been shone to produce any beneficial results in a reproducible manner.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Well, as a matter of fact, it seems to be law in the U.S. that you're not even *allowed* to home-school your own kids unless at least one of you doing so has a bachelors degree. Therefore, unless you're married to someone who does - or you're getting outside assistance someplace, you're not legally allowed to home-school your children anyway.
Personally, I find this rather insulting. Government, once again, proposes to know better than the parents know what's best for the kids.
Alas, it's the law...
Yeah, but it's not the law. At least, not in California.
The main issue (at least here) when running a school, either for other kids or just your own, is whether or not you want to accept state funds.
If you do, there must be an accredited teacher involved. If not, and you are willing to "go the course" alone, this requirement isn't there.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Knowing how the government works, I'd bet you could have a bachelors in Automotive Repair and you'd be 'authorized' to home school.
So much for government protection.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Although I'm not the first in line to promote government regulation, I think it's absurd that you would find fault in this. Children, no matter how much parents would like to imagine they don't, should and do have rights independent of their parents' wishes. If we didn't somewhat regulate how parents would home-school their children, can you imagine how this might be, and is, abused, or how the brightest child of some otherwise tepid gene pool might be smothered?
Children certainly have a right to a good education, and they there are too many parents out there now who think that they can provide it. Many parents (read, the ignorant side of fundamentalist Christianity) would rather kids never even be exposed to the possibility of any truth but the one that they expouse. I, for one, think we're obligated to make sure kids have more options than this.
Here's a perspective from my personal experiences.
I worked for a public school system that was loaded with computers ( about 4-5 per classroom plus labs of >20 machines ). Some teachers were dependant on it a teaching aid, other used them once in a while, while some ignored them entirely. Some teacher took a active part of using the computers ( as have the students do word processing or research ) while others used it as a reward ( which is where myself as a tech really hated to go ). In most cases, it seemed to me that the number of computers in a school were inversely perportional to the acedemic achivement of the students.
It all comes down to how the computers are used; it shouldn't be more technology, but rather better use of technology. It is beyond me what is needed by a school that could be resolved by some lower-end machines with web browsers, word processing, and that's it. Most schools out there with any computers made in the last 5 years will handle that. And they don't need 5 per classroom either; maybe a lab for an entire classroom to work and then (maybe) a few machines on carts with projectors for any teacher presentations. Kids in elementary schools need basic skills and not how to render images in Photoshop or make Powerpoint presentations. Computers in the classroom are to much of a distraction and an easy way for lazy teachers to deal with unruly kids.
Putting computers in classrooms is just advocating that our lives should revolve around the computer and the internet. That is definitly the wrong focus for schools.
That aside, even as a trained and certified teacher (albeit certificate lapsed) I can agree with the notion that computers are no panacea. In particular, even today, 10 years after computers became common in classrooms, few curriculum materials effectively integrate computer usage with the material that must be taught in order to meet state requirements. The computers are still an "extra", and with state requirements going nowhere but up, there just isn't much time for "extras" in most classrooms.
As far as "they do make a significant difference", do you have a reference to a study showing such? The last time I looked (admittedly, five years ago), all double-blind control-grouped studies that compared the effects of adding computers to, say, the effects of adding peer tutoring to the classroom, showed that non-computer interventions such as adding peer tutoring to the classroom increased performance as much as, or more than, computers. Only shoddy studies that do not control for expectancy/placebo effects show any advantages for computer, and there only in the short term. Note that virtually ANY intervention results in short term gains, due to the placebo effect (often known as "expectancy effects").
In short, I find little advantage to using computers in the elementary school classroom. "Kill'n'drill" is better done with flashcards and kid pairs (hint: 3x5 index cards, let the kids make'em and decorate them, no need to buy'em), guided practice is better done under teacher control because computers can't see what kids are doing with their hands or hear what kids are saying with their mouths, about the only thing that computers add is cachet'. I freely admit that I'm not up to date on current research in the area. If anybody has current research (as vs. 5 year old research), feel free to refer to it. Just wanted to point out that computers are no panacea, and that while computer skills are useful and valuable, they aren't all that a school is supposed to teach.
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
in 1984 when i was 13 i was a serious computer nerd. i had spent three summers at National Computer Camps (toby zabinski's brainchild), and was programming in 6502 assembly.
//e. funny thing, the kids never asked for a PC, they were happy with their atari 2600s.
several of my parents' friends wanted their kids to be computer savvy as well, so they purchased computers for their kids. three examples come to mind: one kid got trs80, another a c64, a third got an apple
then the parents all hired me to teach their kids how to program. it was the most embarassing thing i ever had to do. the kids didn't care at all, and i was only 13, what the fuck did i know about teaching? all that the kids wanted to do was play games or go outside. still, i made 60 bucks a week, which was a lot in the early 80's.
the part that bothered me the most, besides the kids telling their friends about me at school, which led to even more abuse, was that the parents would BRAG about how their children had a private computer tutor. i kept thinking: i'm a tutor? i'm not teaching them shit! and their parents are bragging about it!
needless to say, i endured the embarrasment for several months and made enough money to buy a modem and another 5 1-4 floppy, but i think that mentality is still there: force a computer on to a kid and make them learn how to use it in hopes of striking paydirt.
i agree with the folks in oregon: if kids are taught balanced art and science curricula, sans-tech, computers will be a snap when they are older. one could argue that computers employ abstractions (files, menus, desktops, etc.), but i think a mind trained to think in abstraction through art and math wouldn't have a problem with something as simple as a garbagecan icon.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
As to whether home schooling produces anti-social kids or whatever, I have no opinion. I've seen it used in a number of ways. For example, the Louisiana law is sometimes used by "parents" who wish to exploit their kids as slave labor in the family business (fishing, farming, or whatever), who have no intention of teaching their kids how to read and write because it would "just give them airs and they'll leave the farm". CPS can go after these people for neglect, but CPS is too overloaded dealing with kids in danger of being killed or severely injured to spend any time on neglect. On the other hand, I've met some home schooled kids who are as articulate, broadly educated, and sociable as anybody else. As with all kids, it mostly depends upon the parent, not the way they're schooled or by whom. A good parent will make sure that his kid gets good schooling -- whether at a traditional school, or via home schooling.
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Home schooling regulations vary by state. What you say may be true for California (and is certainly true for my home state of Louisiana), but may not be true in some East Coast states that figure that they know how to raise kids better than parents do.
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
OK - granted that kids will spend hours in front of a computer - but that's where the teacher comes in - by being a facilitator to learning, no matter the form - and the judicious use of appropriate software.
Because remember - we all spent hours passing notes, doodling in the margins of our books and binders - students always have and always will find a way to keep occupied in the face of dull instruction.
The creativity is not involved in firing up anything - it is what you do when you get there. How many kids remember reading the book The Oregon Trail - masterful writing, and take a peek at who did the illustrations - You can count them on one hand. I've taught college tech classes where upon firing up Oregon Trail to do a software review, 20-year olds light up like kids again and sponteneously rattle out strategies and details theyt haven't seen since middle school. Not bad. Of course ther's a line to draw, they can prolly remember details of Galaxian too - which does them no further good. So again, it depends on the teacher and the school and the district's choices.
Computers are a tool - a saw can be used to build a house, amaze people in a magic act, or to kill.
It's all in the choices.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I'm a former teacher who left the field after three years. I have criticisms too of education curriculum and research, but your criticisms did not seem to be based on any real knowledge of the field. Thus my question. And yes, there DOES exist good research. There's far more bad research, but the good research DOES exist. We know far more about how children learn nowdays than we knew, say, 40 years ago. Unfortunately, very little of that knowledge makes it to the classroom -- mostly because parents say "that's not how they did it when I was in school, if it was good enough for me, it is good enough for my children" and insure that no real reforms happen.
_E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Theres more computer programs than Powerpoint. Theres lots more. And also you forget about the internet, you are discussing and learning about stuff on slashdot and you think your kid cant be discussing something about history or math in a similar kinda site?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The computer = the real world. Yes you can make real money using the computer. Talk to real people, and do real business.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac