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!!!

[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.

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.

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: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.

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.