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.
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?"
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!
Take an example, such as powerpoint. Since powerpoint went mainstream, we have seen the same 50 clipart pics with the same 50 slide changes over and over again. I served as a student teacher (at an inner city Atlanta school) for about 3 months (in order to get a teaching minor), and the worst mistake I ever did was say that kids could use powerpoint for a science project (unofficial) i told them to do. The next day, 80% of my class brought something in on powerpoint. The worst part was they all expected a high grade because they used computers.
The fact is, computers are good as a tool. However, they are not good when they actually start to become the only tool. Kids these days are now thinking within terms of Power Point... "Oh cool, i can use the sliding fade here into the next scene." They are no longer thinking outside of the box.
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 dunno - I feel a lot less creative now that I use a computer all the time.. of course that could have something to do with the booze.
air and light and time and space
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
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
Kids these days are now thinking within terms of Power Point... "Oh cool, i can use the sliding fade here into the next scene." They are no longer thinking outside of the box.
Worse, the time they spend thinking about sliding fades is time they do not spend thinking about the content of their work.
The most useful application of the computer in a school setting is as a word processor, and only when the students are trained to type 40wpm or faster. Yes, that's right: the best use of the computer is as a glorified typewriter.
Why? Because that properly relegates it to "tool" status, instead of "toy" status. Screwing around with PowerPoint does not add quality, detail, nor depth of thought to the content. Fast typing, however, gives the student more time for research and learning.
I would dearly love to say that there are two superb uses for the computer in school, with the other use being as an encyclopedia (ie. Google). However, I don't think the quality of information that is generally available on the Internet is typically better than that of the school library... and much of the information on the Internet is either dead wrong, or carries an agenda that isn't discernable to your average student.
(Wait, there is one other good use: computers make excellent flashcards. They can take rote learning and make it more interesting -- times tables, etcetera.)
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
a game by the creators of Myst that let you explore worlds)!
There's a real world out there that's more fantastic than any imaginary world that some computer nerd dreamed up. Children need to be socialized - yes, sitting in front of a computer stifles creativity.
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
...and much of the information on the Internet is either dead wrong, or carries an agenda that isn't discernable to your average student.
Funny thing is, that's true of most books, too.
Teaching kids that 90% of everything they see, hear, and read is at least subtly wrong seems like a good idea to me. If the Net can encourage critical thinking skills by driving that point home at an early age, so much the better.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Yeah, but how many K-6 or -8 grade kids do you know who can program? Granted, playing on the computer is better than laying around watching TV-- it's more interactive, and most of the time you have to have some sort of reading ability to use the computer properly. I think what the parents are concerned about is that other, more important, areas of the kids' education may be neglected in favour of computers. It's far more important for the kids to learn to count, add fractions, write letters, and colour by hand in the lines than it is for them to learn about right-click menus and mail-to links at this point . Later, after they master basic skills, then is the time to teach them about the wonderful world of computers.
I don't know how many of your parents were like this, but my parents have a rule about the calculator for both me and my younger brother. Before we're allowed to use a calculator for a certain type of math problem, we have to be able to do the work by hand, or in our heads, proficiently before they let us use a calculator. Now this rule doesn't apply to me so much, but when I was in elementary and middle school, it did. And since my parents have & enforce that rule, I know (past experience) that I can, if need be, solve almost any geometry and most algebra problems in my head. Because I learned the math myself before I was even allowed to touch a calculator. Compare that to most of the kids in my class in school-- they struggled with a calculator, forget mental math. They weren't stupid; they just never learned to function without a calculator.
So hold off on the computers till about 4th or 5th grade. And even then keep the computer time within limits. Let the kids learn to read dead-tree books first; let them learn to use their imagination, rather than use the computer to provide one for them; let them learn to do math by themselves, so that the computer/calculator only becomes an easier way to do the math, not the only way. The kids will be much better for it in the long run.
That is what the parents were getting at.
(Sorry this post was so long, but I had to say all that.)
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
Actually, young children are much more likely to take the Internet at face value. Critical thinking skills don't kick in until around 7th grade (e.g. puberty).
Nathan
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.
Actually, young children are much more likely to take the Internet at face value.
Has anyone actually tried telling them not to?
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
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!
Because "education" as an academic field is mostly worthless. Fads, inept psychology, intuition masquerading as actual research, reliance on anecdotal evidence--why on earth would we expect a workable curriculum out of that?
If you asked the teachers in the trenches, they'd probably ask for their class sizes to be reduced about 60%. If you asked ME, which you didn't, I'd say to reduce the class day by several hours, and the school year by half. There is absolutely no need to subject young children to 8 hours a day for 9 months a year to teach a few elementary reading and mathematical skills. It's just cruel.
Skills dont kick in, they are taught.
I was taught critical thinking, its not like it just kicked in.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Sculpting out of clay or play-doh is a free form exercise. It is important to feel what you are intereacting with, especially for a young child. Modeling with a computer program is nothing like it. Computer modeling is merely reshaping primitives to fit into a general scheme that looks like something. There are no primitives when you're sculpting with clay. One of the hardest art projects I ever did was I had to sculpt my own bust. I can draw alright and am a decent painter but I'd never sculpted before. It turned out I could sculpt better than I could paint. I had to put a lot of effort into getting the nose and cheeks just right, I didn't my sculpture to look like some abstract art piece. The eyes took me the longest time because eyeballs are more spherical than just about any part of the body. It was a bit of effort to make an eye that was shaped like an eye. A computer program would have made the shape for me. What does that teach me exactly? How to use a computer? Big fucking whoop. I'm much happier knowing I can take a lump of clay and make it into something that resembles my head.
Teaching children to be office workers? What the fuck is that anyways? Elementary schools aren't vocational training centers. Neither are high schools. Having kids write programs doesn't teach them anything. Having them approach problems logically is teaching them something. I run into far too many people that could not pass a logical thought through their brain if their lives depended on it. Logical thinking lends itself to doing all sorts of stuff including working in an office environment. Office work is thinking and living inside of a box, do you know anyone working in an office that enjoys it? In terms of banality it ranks right about repetitive stress injury prone assembly line work. Autocad to learn math an engineering? That's fucking ludicrous. Give them building blocks and tell them to build something. They'll get more engineering concepts out of watching their sky scraper topple over a dozen times than looking at some lines on a computer screen.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
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
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
Nope. Colouring _inside_ the lines teaches hand-eye coordination and an appreciation of visual shapes. Until you can colour inside the lines, you're not ready to express yourself by colouring outside the lines.
;-) that you should break it! That's where adults have to provide some control over kids - children are born literally unable to associate cause and effect, so they cannot associate shooting their little brother with their little brother dying, it's just not in their range of experience.
It's the difference between someone who drives 100mph bcos they know the road perfectly and are a good driver, and someone who's only had a half-dozen lessons driving 100mph bcos they don't know to look at the speedometer. Or the difference between a kid hitting random notes on a piano, and a great jazz musician hitting apparently-random notes on a piano.
Until you've got an appreciation of what the conventions are and why they're there, breaking them is NOT good. Conventions like "don't drink the results of a chemistry experiment" for instance have a very good basis - it isn't until you have enough knowledge of chemistry to know that the substance you're producing is harmless (or a recreational substance
Grab.
You can teach a dog to sit and you can teach a dog to roll over, but you can't teach a dog to think critically.
I mention this because folklore science tells us that a dog has about the IQ of a 4 year old. Kids aren't just minature adults with less knowledge; they also have different winring in their brains.
By all means, you need to teach your kids how to think critically, but not until they are ready.
On another note, there is also a difference between computers today and computers when you grew up. When I got my first computer at age 5, you had to type in the programs from a book. It was tedious (and ridiculous, in hindsight), but you did learn something.
-a
How to rationalize theft.
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."
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!
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.
-- times tables, etcetera
This is a very narrow view of the role and possibilities for educational computing use. I agree that we don't need our children sitting in front of computers instead of engaging in creative, hands-on activities that push them to develop mentally, physically, and socially. However, I also see that computers can offer opportunities that are simply not available or feasible in any other form. As just a few examples:
In short, the possibilities for computers in education are limitless. Even the research done on computers in education points to the potential of these tools to support learning as long as they are extending beyond drill and practice (which does not help them at all.) The key is how the technology is used. As with any educational innovation, the way the teacher or parent sets up and supports the interaction with the tool is vital to the learning experience. Kids need adults to work with them, to frame their learning, to ask questions that help them tie what they do to other things they know. They need to be allowed to explore things, then have to tell someone how they explored those things and what they learned from the exploration. Kids have to be able to ask their own questions and follow-through to get answers to those questions. In this area, computers offer tremendous possibility. It's all about how they are used!
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.
"If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you?"
I'll bet almost every mother in the world has said something like that at least once in an attempt to get their kids to think critically. Kids don't develope the ability to think critically until around puberty, and there are very good reasons for that. Small children are excellent mimics; that's how they learn the basic skills they need to survive. In order to be good mimics they need to believe that the things they see and hear are important, useful, and correct, and thus their brains are developed in such a way that they do just that. Only after learning the skills they need do they develope the ability to question what they know, which generally leads right into good old teenage rebellion as they explore alternatives to what they've been taught.
It isn't a matter of simply telling kids not to believe everything they see. I think we all know how effective the phrase "Do as I say, not as I do" isn't, and that's essentially the same as what you're suggesting.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.