Computers Not Working In Education

salimfadhley writes "BBC Radio 4's current affairs program 'Analysis' is reporting [realaudio] [txt transcript] on emerging evidence that computers have harmed, rather than helped educational progress. There is still much debate among even the most enthusiastic supporters of schools technology about how computers should best be used. Despite record investment in computers in the USA and UK, recent studies (not the ones funded by educational software companies) have shown a significant drop in core subjects (Math, English) in schools that place strong emphasis on Information Technology. Evidence also suggests that whilst information technology has great potential in the classroom, teachers have not yet found better use for computers than as a big library. Very few schools have been able to use the new technology for cultural exchange, or to build practical educational networks with other schools. Teachers do not know whether computers should be seen as an exciting but peripheral educational 'accessory', or if computers can actually be used to solve the most pressing problems of literacy and numeracy - the sorts of things that get kids through exams." The Economist had a similar article a month or two back, about Israeli schools that had similar results, along with an interesting comparison between how people see computers now, and how people in the early 20th century saw film strips in the classroom.

Comments

I was a victim of technology!!!

[mustangdavis]

I was encouraged in high school to use calculators since my H.S. was trying to go "high tech". In fact, we were REQUIRED to use them on tests .... if you didn't, you were going to fail due to a lack of time to complete the exam.

Then I got to college ...

Now keep in mind, I was a pretty good math student (scored perfect on the SATs in Math ... English was another issue ... and why I didn't get into a good school), so this is a good example in my opinion.

I took my first college Calc II exam, and of course, used my calculator for it. In all fairness, it was a difficult exam, but a fair exam. I thought I would be "joe slick" and finish quickly by using the latest and greatest graphing calc. available ... and I finished WAY before the other students in the course. HOWEVER, when I got my exam back, I got a 54%!!! Every answer was correct, but in big, red letters at the top of the paper, the prof wrote "This is what you get for looking at your calculator so much!" ... then he wrote "I need to see a few more steps and where you got some of these answers".

Needless to say, that was the last time I used that calculator for anything but to check answers (or to get answers and reverse engineer them) :)

My prof was right though ... kids today need to learn to think for themselves BEFORE they begin to use technology as a crutch ....

.... but at the same time, we live in a technology laced society ... so which is more evil ... to force kids to learn, but not teach them technology, or to teach then technology, but make them helpless without it ....

It is an evil world we live in ....

It looks like technology is like women ... can't live with it, can't live without it ...

Just my 2 cents ...

Re:I was a victim of technology!!!

[johnalex]

My wife doesn't really understand why I'm getting worried about my daughter's math skills (or lack thereof). She's in first grade, and she has almost no math abilities. If you ask her to add numbers together without paper - even simple stuff - she resorts to her fingers. Her school uses something called "Saxon" math. The teachers read the math lesson off a piece of paper!

When I was in first grade, my teacher used flash cards to teach us the simple stuff: adding and subtracting numbers under 20. We later learned how to extend those skills to include more complex operations; it seems once you learn the simple stuff, you can build on it and apply it to the complex math. So, I'm starting my daughter on flash cards at home. It's not high tech, but it's effective.

Re:I was a victim of technology!!!

[TheWanderingHermit]

The problem is that most professors want to see your *work*. If you just gave a few steps and -voila- an answer, they usually don't appreciate it.

I used to teach high school Math (Algebra, Geometry, Algebra II, General Math). I made it clear to the students from the beginning how important it was to show their work. On a 5 point question, if the student gave me an answer without work, they'd get 1 point (maybe 2 if I was feeling generous). If they showed their work, and it was mostly right (maybe they missed a + or - or one small mistake), they'd get 4 out of 5. For high school students that is often hard to understand -- all they can think about is the answer. For Algebra I, for the first half of the year, they still can't understand why they can't just do it in their head.

Each day I'd collect the homework and grade it on participation. If the work was there, they'd get a 2, if it was poorly done, or only 1/3 to 2/3 or so done, it'd get a 1. I'd add these up at the end of the year and get a percentage of how much of the homework each student did that term. That would count 20% of the semester grade. I even added a homework line -- a 2nd phone line w/ caller ID and an answering maching so students could call and get their assignment or leave a message for help on an assignment and I'd call back as soon as I could. (The administration HATED this and told me to disconnect it ASAP. -- I didn't -- could you see me telling the class, "The homework line has been stopped, per order of the administration." ??) There were several calls to check assignments, but in about 3/4 of a school year, only 1 call for help. It stopped the "I couldn't do it because I didn't understand it" or "I forgot what it was" excuses!

As a teacher, I needed to know the process to get the answer. Especially in Algebra I, where they didn't want to show it. I needed to know they were learning the tools they would need in the 2nd half of the year or for Algebra II.

True, there's graphing calcs and such, but if you don't understand HOW to get the answer, you're just listening to a machine. That's no better than the Borg. (Remember Isaac Asimov's story about someone who realizes 1+1=2 always -- and stuns the world that you don't need calculators to do math?)

There's also the other side note. If you give me just an answer on a test, how do I know if you "did it in your head" or copied it off someone else?

In Math, especially, a student needs to know the tools to get the answer. That's what they're learning in Algebra I & II and Geometry. If they don't show their work, you don't know if they're using those tools.

Well, duh

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the thing: Teachers do not know ... if computers can actually be used to solve the most pressing problems of literacy and numeracy - the sorts of things that get kids through exams." Computers cannot, on their own, solve any problems - they can perform complex calculations, sure, but you have to feed them the exact steps to follow. If kids do not understand the principles behind something as simple as multiplication or division, say, how do you expect a glorified calculator to help them? Sure they could use it to divide 22 by 7, but do they understand why they are doing that? Sure they can use spell check on grammar check, but is that any substitute for actually understanding sentence structure or knowing how words are properly spelled? That is how you solve literacy and mathematic deficiencies. You have to work at it - technology isn't the magical panacea everyone appears to think it is.

You don't see architectecture schools talking about how power actuated fasteners are changing how they teach, do you? Of course not, they are just tools that save on labor. Computers are the exact same thing, and the quicker people realize that a computer is just another form of tool, the quicker everyone will realize that there is nothing mystical about them and their operators. Realizing this will help to devalue the artificially high prices of computer "engineers", cut down on overhead drastically, and provide just the shot in the arm our stock market needs to rebound.

I don't mean to bash on our dedicated teachers - they are doing the best they can, given their abilities and environment, but hyping up computers as a replacement to study isn't a good idea. There's a reason we weren't allowed to use calculators until Calculus class when we were in school, and that is why we hand to hand write exams without a dictionary available. It is nice to have technology available, but it should always be as an assistant to aid the individual in his work- it should not direct his work

Reservoirs not processors

[Gyan]

Computers should primarily be used as an information reservoir.

You have to tread carefully when students start using them as active information _processors_ . Then you start to wonder what the net effect on education is.

Quite a number of intel employees think so too...

[jacoplane]

According to an article on TechTv. A quote:

Because they are both high tech professionals, Paul's parents say they know firsthand the addictive nature of computers and the Internet.

"They are somewhat addicting, and for young children that don't have all of the faculties that we have as adults, I don't think they can determine how much of something is not good for them," Baldridge said.

Command line v. GUI

[Anonymous Coward]

Its been my experience (as a web development instructor with a private post-secondary school) that teens these days, despite the stereotypes, actually posess LESS computer literacy than geeks of my generation.

I learned DOS and UNIX on the command line. Windows and Mac will stunt your understanding of how a computer works, and make you think only of pushing around cute little icons. WIMP interfaces make people WIMPISH. They can't understand how the computer works, so they end up relying on 'geeks' to fix their problems.

Teach programming to everyone and teach kids a command line in school. Make them understand the technology that they'll use every day of their lives. Let our kids develop some computer savy and BRAINS.

While working on a grant at SDSU, I heard of an instructor in Maryland who found that her students who used a DOS-based PC to write english papers received better grades then did the Apple Mac counterparts. A 2 year study found that she was correct in that the DOS-based PC users used larger words, had a higher wordcount per sentance, and used more complete sentence structures. The students were enrolled in an English class because they didn't fail the entrance exam but also weren't good enough to bypass the English requirements altogether. The English department at the university didn't determine exactly what was going on but figured it was because at a DOS-prompt, you have to think about what you need to do next. In a GUI, you are prompted.

The DOS-based users has the DOS prompt staring at them and THEY had to figure out what the next step was. When they got to the wordprocessor they were already in a higer thinking mode then when ICONS lead you thru the task.

Once you're well versed and trained in the skills the computer is HELPING you with, you don't need to have such a bare-bones interface to get to what you want to do. Teach kids how to think and they will take off from there.

Re:Interesting, but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the BBC Basic's were cool, you quickly aquired a working knowledge of basic just to operate the things, and the software was clever enough so you kept learning even after you knew more than the teacher, I can remember using the turtle to learn geometry and the Doomsday book, however we couldn't get /. on them... which is why they probably turned out to be such sucessful educational tools.

Credit where credit is due

[Ogrez]

Computers are, and always have been... Tools. The ideas that a tool can/could teach children to think is great, but I think that the primary responsibility of teaching children to THINK, to reason, to make decisions is still primarily up to the parents, and in dual income familys alot of times it falls back on public education. The public education system is not up to the task for alot of reasons that I wont go into, so they try for computers, expecting the tools to do their jobs for them. No matter how great the tool is, if the child cant make the right decision to sit and learn from it, the tool is useless... Fire in the hands of the village idiot is no tool, but a weapon of mass destruction. "and on the 8th day, god said "let there be script kiddies" and the immature sprang forth from the earth".

not all bad

[digitalhermit]

I've tutored K-12 and college-level students for several years and have been in a lot of classrooms. One thing I've noticed, especially in education challenged South Florida, is that the school system is trying to use computers to make up for the lack of real teachers. The second problem is that most educational software isn't.

For example, many of the reading comprehension titles are no better than the workbooks from before -- read a few paragraphs, answer a few questions. In fact, they're often worse because the workbooks allowed the student to respond with a sentence describing the paragraph rather than clicking a multiple choice option.

I do think that computers are useful in post-lecture studies since it allows students to work at their own pace until they understand a topic. THis is especially useful for mathematics.

Learning to write using computers more efficient

[alekd]

In Norway there has been a study that shows that children learn to read and write faster using personal computers. Pupils who learnt writing on computers exclusively until the 3rd grade developed both better writing skills and quality of content of their writings. Oddly enough the children who put off writing with pen and paper had better hand-writing as well. The hypothesis given to explain the results were that small children had not fully developed motor skills, and learning to write by hand for that reason could be both frustrating and more time-consuming.

Check out this article from Aftenposten (in Norwegian) for more:

http://www.aftenposten.no/utdannelse/article.jhtml ?articleID=395751

Re:Not suprised

[Theatetus]

Schools tend to take away hours from maths and physics for teaching computer "science", so that would explain enough. Pity that MS Word is considered more important than algebra.

True dat. But only because they teach computer "science" (how to use particular applications, etc.) rather than computer science (creating and analyzing computable algorithms). When I was in 3rd grade (yes, 3rd grade), I was in a Montessori school that had a great computer lab (well, great for 1983). We had a class in computer programming for all the third graders as part of the math class. We programmed in Logo. The first week we got to play with the computers and learned to make squares and stuff (repeat 4: fd 50 rt 90). For the next 2 months we didn't touch the computers; we wrote out algorithms on paper. The next semester was the same way, but with Forth instead of Logo.

The end result? I still design applicative programs, no matter what language I use. I still debug by proving the flaws in my algorithms rather than by examining memory. I still program with pencil and paper before I touch a keyboard. I like programming that way, though it doesn't always go over well with the "we need e-business solutions to leverage our key synergies" crowd.

Who was it that said "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes"? Computers can be good tools to supplement pencil-and-paper analysis of algorithms; I haven't seen a school since that used them that way, though. They mostly teach how to research on the Internet (a useful skill, I admit) and how to make pretty slideshows.

Definitely, but they still are useful

[BlueboyX]

Nowdays it is too easy to goof off on computers rather than use them for educational purposes. In fact, it seems that current 'educational software' is mostly a bunch of cartoon chrud with a little bit of math etc. here and there.

An elementary school math tutor for the kids who were behind asked me to make a math tutor computer program that wasn't cartoony etc. Getting exact details on what she wanted was like pulling teeth, but in the end we wound up with a piece of software that was kid-friendly (meaning easy for them to control, some kids have coordination issues when it comes to moving mice) and actually helped improve their math abilities.

One thing that I am quite proud to have worked with is the AR Program (Accelerated Reader). The concept is to have point values and difficulty values for most of the books in the library. Kids check out whatever books they want (they are strongly encouraged to use books of an appropriate difficulty level) and can take computerized quizzes on them. The kids can trade in points they earn for candy and small, cheap toys. It actually works! I would have imagined that the kids would have gotten tired of it quickly, but the teachers take it seriously and the majority of the books in the school library have AR quizes available.

I have volunteered in several elementary schools, but in the one where they emphasized this AR program I regularly saw kids leaving the library with books and actually eager to read them. That is a very big thing; getting kids modivated to learn/read is one of the biggest problems in educational. This computer software is not advanced; it could be made to work on an AppleIIGS, but the fact that it is actually getting kids to read (and to like it!) is profound.

Re:Good lord

[WPIDalamar]

I was just kidding around when I had made that post. But seriously, when you read the transcript the story isn't as bad as the headline. A lot of questioning if software is good or not, with arguments both ways. The big problem that was mentioned is teachers not understanding how or where to use computers. There are places where they can be useful, and places where they are not. Teachers need the training to make that distinction. It really does come down to the teacher.

Very Unsurprised

[Dr. Evil]

I am very unsurprised by this.

Computers are useful if you are teaching subjects which necessarily require them.

Computer Programming, wordprocessing, keyboarding, Drafting/CAD, video editing and photography are all subjects for which I have seen computers effectively used.

What do these have in common?

You don't teach them in elementary school!

I really think that computers in elementary school classrooms has more to do with principals obsessed with whiz-bang technology rather than anything to do with a "need" to "teach" students something they couldn't learn without them, or couldn't learn as quickly or effectively.

I hear arguments about basic computer literacy... but basic computer literacy is difficult to teach, I don't think it can be taught properly in the current classroom environment. That is, kids need lots of time alone with the computer. You can't develop that literacy a little bit at a time with multiple kids to a system interrupted constantly by a teacher who doesn't understand the technology.

To me, the first step in teaching somebody computer literacy, is getting them to overcome the fear of breaking something. Most teachers I've met are still at the stage of "Just click the icons... and hope it doesn't crash."

I can't wait until people realize that computers in elementary school classrooms are a stupid idea.

Re:True--they don't

[Christianfreak]

The underlying problem is deeper than even that. The main reason we don't have good teachers is because the good ones get fired.

I have a friend who used to be a middle school English teacher, one of the best teachers I've ever known, he employed a variety of methods to get kids to learn. He did lots of different "cool" things like after reading a story, having the kids go in the hall and draw the story on huge newsprint scrolls.

He also didn't take any crap from his kids. They acted up, he disiplined them according to school policy (detention, office, etc). If a kid didn't participate or didn't do the homework, he failed them. If the kids at least tryed to learn he did his best to help them (and those kids passed).

The result? He was fired. Why? Because he made the other teachers look bad, and too many of his kids were failing and being disiplined. Why would teachers pass kids that weren't even trying, or refuse to disipline kids that are troublemakers?

Because at least in Texas laws have been passed that give more money to schools that have high rates of students passing and high attendence. If a kid gets disiplined and eventually suspended, the school gets less money. If the students don't make the grade its better to curve them up because then the school gets more money because they passed. Teachers are encouraged to ignore disipline problems and pass failing kids regardless of grades. Good teachers that refuse to follow the system get canned and we're left with people who only care about paycheck and will happily hand out passing grades.

Students figure out this system too and don't make an effort to learn. They don't have to. The troublemakers bully other kids around without thought of consequences, all of which probably helps to foster the rampant school shooting problems as well.

Re:Not suprised

[Theatetus]

Great? I programmed in logo and that was totally useless.

Well, I can't help you there. It's a surprisingly powerful functional/applicative language; most people only know about using it to draw little pictures because that's one of the easiest ways to teach kids.

Logo for third grade? How old were you? 10?

I was 8, like most people in the 3rd grade.

I'd teach someone at that age Basic not Logo.

Basic isn't a functional language. It forms bad habits; too many side effects, and not enough distinction between functions and subroutines.

In Middle School I'd move on to Visual Basic and or C.

Well, first off, this was long before the days of Visual Basic (thank God). Secondly, VB would probably be the worst language to teach someone algorithmic analysis except maybe for Smalltalk. As for C, I did learn that in Middle School, and the teacher was surprised that I used recursion when most people would use iteration (thanks to Logo and Forth), which tended to simplify my programs.

This would be computer science and they'd learn a few concepts which might help them in understanding algebra, it would be part of a pre algebra type of class to learn programming.

Ummm... yeah. Replace "algebra" with "discrete mathematics" and you're basically repeating what I said

Just like a calculator is far more efficient than Pen and Paper, you can learn math just fine with just a calculator, you can learn math with a computer.

Well, we disagree then. I don't think you can learn math very well if you start out using calculators or computers or any "black box" that gives you answers when you give it questions. Kids should develop mathematical discipline first.

Problem solving ability has nothing to do with it

[HanzoSan]

Just because you are good at problem solving does not mean you are good at math.

Just because you memorize the answers does not mean you learn the process.

When you learn the formulas to math, you know that learning the multiplicaiton tables was an absolute complete waste of time, this is like using your brain as a number crunching calculator, when we have calculators which can do this, so why do the math in your head? Why waste years learning the multiplication tables when you can learn the formula for multiplication and then use addition to solve multiplication problems?

Addition is multiplication, Addition is also Subtraction, its all the same thing! You only need to teach ONE formula and it would teach all of these things instantly.

Or you can give people problems and tell them to solve them without giving them the formula, and waste years of their time while they memorize the answers

Why memorize 2+2=4, and 4+4=8 when you can just memorize A+B=C?

If A+B=C is addition, Multiplication is just A+A=B(2+2=2x2=4) repeated Addition.

Why should you bother memorizing the answers to repeated addition problems? Why not just teach them that its repeated addition and let them use what they already know to solve multiplication problems on paper?

If you want to memorize tables you can also memorize square roots, you can memorize the answers to fractions, you can memorize as many answers as you want but none of them will matter in the long run if you dont know the process, the formulas, the rules.

i am a classroom teacher

[b17bmbr]

since i am a classroom teacher, seventh grade in fact, let me add some points that are important.

• technology decisions are made by the people least able to make them. district administrators get there by seniority, whatever, not on tech. merits. plus, with such emphasis placed on tech, there is money to spend. so it's a desired job.
• most teachers are not technolgoically proficient. they will only tecah what they know. thus, if say Word has helped them write a worksheet out better, they will have the kids use that.
• most principals are not too tech savvy, and most, sadly, are concerned with appearnaces. thus, "kids using comptuers" sounds great. and it plays well in the press.
• finding good technological people is hard. face it, schools don't pay as well. sure, there are lots of other benefits to schools, but money is not #1. and even though we are in a slow IT sector, most tech poeple hired in schools got their jobs during the boom, and are not likely to leave. plus, replacing people in a school district is VERY HARD (another "benefit")
• education is awash with fads. cooperative learning, authentic assessment, whole language, you name it, it's there. technology is just another "fad" in education. "we're using technology", sound wonderful. eduaction is a place horrible for new "ideas" that sound great, and work for shit. nobody ever bothers to, nor actaully cares to, look for resutls.
• relating to point one, companies will easily throw around freebies in return for purchases. i have seen district tech people brag about their getting tons of software (oh, i don't konw, xp pro, vs .net, office xp, etc). or, those damn software catalogs say buy 10, get three title free.
• import staement.controversial.*;
  
  many teachers(remember i am a public school teacher), lets face it, have a very easy job. having them bang away on a computer for a few days, especially if there's a lab tech in there, makes it a piece of cake.
• 
  it's not that technolgoy should not be in schools. i am finishing a masters in instructional technology. it's just that beaurocratic problems and inertia make change damn near impossible. for instance, are district had spent lots of money on an netrworking infrastructure, moving towards, as our former, now retired, (and clueless) tech admin said "fewer, more powerful, servers". this at the time that that the indsutry was moving towards more, smaller, servers, disrtributed computing. so did we change. no, inertia. so, get to your school boards, they are elected you know, and demand accountability.

The REAL problem

[Reziac]

A lot of you have said the same thing, but kindof beat all around the subject without getting to the real point, so I'll put it in plain language:

Computers in the classroom do NOT teach the subject matter to the kids. They only teach the kids how to use a *particular set of desktop applications* (not necessarily even anything about the computer itself).

Second, as only one person pointed out, and as has been largely forgotten by the educational system as it stands today -- after presenting the subject matter, it must be drilled, and the drilling must be done such that the learner has to interact with the drill, if only by writing it down with their own hand (NOT by typing/clicking it -- different neural pathway, so doesn't work to embed the information). Why? Because rote learning is how you make the subject matter STICK in kids' brains. And if it's boring at the time, tough -- do you want them to really remember it or not??

Third, as only one other person touched on, the issue of discipline in the classroom has gone by the wayside, and given how easy it is for most kids to get more interested in bypassing what's allowed on their computers than in the subject matter, computers exacerbate this. Now the object is to keep kids "interested" -- and it's clearly not working. The old method of "you will sit still and learn this like it or not, end of discussion" may not have been "enjoyable" but it WORKED. Make up your minds -- do you want to keep kids entertained, or do you want them to grow up into competent adults? Because you can't have both.

Want to fix the problems generated and exacerbated by computers in the classroom? Easy. Restrict computers and in-school computer use to one place: the classes that are specifically *about* computers.

That won't do anything for the more-basic issues of bad teachers and bad school systems, but at least it will stop masking the problem.

Long ago I taught math(s)

[panurge]

And I have the impression that it isn't taught any more in the US and the UK. Rote learning, multiple choice exams have destroyed a lot of the challenge of teaching as well as being taught. And teaching doesn't pay enough to be a worthwhile career for most people.

Expecting underqualified teachers to teach challenging subjects while requiring them to use unfamiliar hardware, someone else's idea of appropriate software, and an unstable environment (email, messaging) when no-one has really thought out the necessary changes to classroom behavior and trained teachers appropriately...well, I think it's a recipe for disaster and I'm extremely relieved that all my children are past school age. With luck the system will have changed by the time any grandchildren are old enough.

A true story. A few years back I briefly considered going back into teaching. To be exact, I considered doing a course that would have qualified me to teach teachers to use IT in the classroom. There were two problems. First, the college turned out not really to know what the course content should be. The person in charge was a pre-IT trained educator, not a computer scientist or an educational psychologist. Oh, and second, he admitted that there was no guarantee that the Government would actually fund these training posts.

In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is looking for the way out.

Computers are a WASTE in school

[SoVi3t]

Seriously, I remember being in High School, and they had the computer labs upstairs, and computers in the library. Everybody gets on them, and they usually know WAY more than some halfwit librarian or teacher, and so they just do some multitasking, making it look like they're doing work, and just surf the net, or play Drug Wars. And when they do computer classes, they aim them at people who have no computer experience, which isn't fair. I remember completing most of my Computer Science classes in 10-20 minutes, and then having to sit there for another hour and a half while the girls and stoners stumbled through Borland C++ or QBASIC or whatever God awful piece of out of date trash they fed to us. It costs the government too much money to keep all the computers in the state/province/country up to date, so kids will always have to deal with near obsolete programs, at least until they reach University or College...

computers helped me

[gyratedotorg]

am i the only person here who was actually helped by computers?

programming in high school helped me tremendously. if it werent for computers, id probably still be wondering what things like algebra and calculus were good for.

if used correctly, computers can be quite effective in teaching students to use logic to solve complex problems.

Computer Distractions

[Sinus0idal]

Many similar distractive affects of computers can be seen in the workplace.

Take PC's in the home for example. How many home owners of PC's actually use their computers for anything other than wordprocessing? I would imagine way over 50% of PC owners would be better of with a word processor. Where am I going with this you may ask? Well, a word processor is much more restrictive. With a word processor you can't wander off onto the internet or start downloading music instead of doing your work.

I think computers in the school/college and work place environment all need greater restriction. Most of the computers in the schools and colleges I've attended are just standard windows builds. This provides a ridiculous amount of distraction. All these machines need have installed are the applications that are required. Not solitare, not MP3 players etc.etc.

I am now at University, and finally after going through 15 years of the education system, I am seeing computers used in the way they should be. No longer is there a teacher handing out sheets on how to use powerpoint which they don't understand, then wandering off to the front of the class while the rest of the students go online or play games. Finally motivated students who actually want to learn about computers, sit down and actually use the facilities to their potential.

At the end of the day computers are only a tool. Schools need to recognise this, and not force computers into areas of the curriculum in which they are not effective by praising teachers that do so. Computer equipment should be available to those who want to learn about them and see them as an effective tool, not those who are forced to.

I think we have all gone online or played a game when we are supposed to be working. What chance is there of getting school children to concentrate on work without them being distracted?

Re:In other news

[sparrow_hawk]

Ironic addendum: at my school, last year's AP Calculus class scored *lowest* on the *calculator use* part of the exam, not the conceptual stuff. Myself, (taking AP Calc this year) I find myself just automatically resorting to pencil and paper because I don't need the calculator anymore. Feels liberating!

(And a rousing "Amen!" to the "Technology isn't a magic bullet" theme that's been running through this thread; we were preaching it years ago, but nobody listened.)

Welcome to the 19th century

[Lovejoy]

I'm a little angry, so forgive me if I get haughty. I didn't respond well to "rote learning" as a kid.
Second, as only one person pointed out, and as has been largely forgotten by the educational system as it stands today -- after presenting the subject matter, it must be drilled..

"Rote-drills" only work for the small percentage of kids who are wired for that kind of learning. And many of those kids won't focus their attention enough to learn even then.
As a result, bright, precocious, successful kids become more successful. Some truly brilliant kids who are developmentally delayed, who have ADD, who have different intelligences are relegated to "career tracks" where they will not blossom. So when the pathways develop that allow for higher math learning, for example, the kid's already in some vocational program learning to be an MCSE. What a waste!

The old method of "you will sit still and learn this like it or not, end of discussion" may not have been "enjoyable" but it WORKED.


It really didn't work that well. It worked for lots of kids who were in school, who were suited to it. Remember, lots of kids dropped out during the "glory days" of instructivist rote-drills. Lots of kids finished school at 8th grade, then went to work in factories or farms. These are the kids who were wasted on "rote drills." Sure, some of them were just unintelligent. But many of them weren't suited to the 19th century education you advocate. That worked well in the 19th and early 20th centuries. We had lots of laborer jobs. Now we have an information economy. We just don't have that many of those types of jobs anymore.
We shouldn't just throw away kids who don't respond well to rote learning. It's a very narrow view of learning and very elitist.

Want to fix the problems generated and exacerbated by computers in the classroom? Easy. Restrict computers and in-school computer use to one place: the classes that are specifically *about* computers.

I guess that would be the easiest way to do it. It's probably the easiest and quickest way to be eclipsed by Europe and Asia. How about doing more research and figuring out how to make computer assisted learning work?

Now, if you're truly interested in what real educators have learned about the educational process, you can do some googling on the following topics:

Constructivism
Multiple Intelligences
Ed Tech theory

And here begins my rant about Slashdot, and parent poster, please forgive me if I offend. Lord knows I've said and written some incredibly stupid stuff - orders of magnitude worse than what I took offense at in your post.

Why do we tend to write things like "Of COURSE, any IDIOT would know that XXXXX would solve YYYYY problem?" Do we think that the experts in the field are all sitting around with their thumbs up their fannies? We have a huge field of research in this area. It's fine to share your opinion. That's what Slashdot is about. But come on, don't be so arrogant about it - like the solutions are SO OBVIOUS, ANY IDIOT could figure them out. We are working on the solutions while so many others are just whining and griping.

Inform yourself, do some digging, some reading. Problems are almost always more complex than they first appear. Solutions are almost always more difficult to achieve than it seems they should be.

End rant.

Re:Good lord

[Luyseyal]

The most important educational software I ever used was:

1. Logo (i.e., turtle graphics programming)
2. Oregon Trail

Logo taught me about controlling the computer and doing fun stuff with it that didn't come prepackaged. Oregon Trail taught me to enjoy working with the computer and in groups with other kids in solving basic problems (e.g., whether to float or ford the river, etc.).

We didn't use these in the classroom, though, but in the computer lab. I don't see how they can be reasonably integrated into the classroom with class sizes as small as they are (small compared to college lectures, e.g., where a laptop with diagrams and whatnot the prof is looking at can be a helpful aid).

-l

PC in class BAD, PC at home GOOD

[Baracus]

Like practically all of you, this study comes as no suprise to me either. When I was in K-12 back in the mid 80's to late 90's the only thing I remember using a computer in class for was playing a game. I never wrote a single paper at school using a computer, nor did I ever use it to do research. Having a computer in the classroom meant one thing to students and one thing only... games. And the funny thing is none of the teachers I've ever had discouraged that attitude, or more accurately, encouraged the perception of the pc as a learning tool.

I've always beleieved the pc (like tv) has had minimal impact in my acquisition of knowledge because a pc cannot teach you to think. It is the attitudes and actions of the teachers and parents of students that set the stage for their apporach and attitude towards education.

That being said computers cannot be ignored as a tool for aiding students in becoming educated (internet, online encyclopedias, word processing, desktop publishing, blah, blah). For that reason I think school districts shouldn't spend money in purchasing and maintaining computer labs and should offer incentives to the parents of students by supplying them with vouchers to make purchasing a computer for their home more viable. That way the cost of maintaining/upgrading equipment is transferred from the school to the student who is the actual user of the equipment. After all, if a student has purchased a study guide to help him perform better in math or english and if it requires special software to be installed why shouldn't he be able to do so? Let the use and upkeep of computers be the responsibility of those who use them. A voucher system would also give students the opportunity to purchase a computer they are most comfortable with whether it's a Mac, pc (windows/linux), desktop, or laptop. Why should the student be forced to do his homework a certain way using a specific computer/application when he has a choice?

In my mind, there are a vast number of reasons for schools not to have computers in the classroom and having a voucher system in its place. From my own experience, a voucher system for purchasing a computer would have greatly eased the buying process of my family's first pc and I am absolutely positive that is true for millions of other people out there.

Optimal use of computers in the classroom

[istewart]

I think the best use for computers in schools is as a replacement for the textbook... not necessarily as a subject unto themselves. In my school district (Tracy, CA), there have been a lot of complaints over students having to carry large amounts of heavy textbooks (at least one, sometimes more, for each class). A single elementary school in the district is set up to be a "technology magnet school" and all the students get to use a district-supplied laptop. If every student in the district got a laptop, tablet, PDA, or some form of access to electronic copies of the physical textbooks they have to use now, I think this would greatly reduce the number of parent and student complaints, as well as textbook storage problems. Also, when the information in a textbook becomes outdated, the book itself has to be replaced. With an eBook, only the copy of the file on a central server needs to be updated (patched, not necessarily replaced) and those changes will automatically be distributed to each client accessing the file. I think this would be a much more optimal and focused use of computing technology in schools, as well as a definite step forward in the educational system.

As for emphasizing IT as a subject, I don't think it's absolutely necessary for every student. At my old elementary school, we went into the computer lab for at least one hour every week. We played Mario Teaches Typing for 15 min, and then used the rest of the time to type up a writing assignment that went on our english grade. We also had educational software such as Bailey's Book House and DinoPark Tycoon (???), and Internet access through buggy, crashprone Netscape 2.x. I think this time could've been much better served had typing skills, Internet access, and other such things had been integrated into some other curriculum rather than standing on their own. The students could learn more about the subject at hand while still acquiring useful computer skills.

I also don't doubt the value of certain educational software. Some of the teachers I have right now and have had in the past lead me to believe that an interactive CD-ROM would be more educational than a human literally reciting verbatim from a textbook.