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.

its not babysitting stupid

[HealYourChurchWebSit]

Part of the problem is that many schools are staffed with teachers fresh out of school themselves and put into situations that equate to nothing more than glorified babysitting.

The real issue here, and this applies to whether or not we put computers in classrooms or force them to use old-school slide-rules, we've got to get back to teaching kids how to think, analyze and take some mental initiative.

Unfortunately, this usually starts at home ... where we the parents are equally culpable for plunking our kid in front of the TV to keep them occupied while we make dinner.

More information

[Resseguie]

Here is more information along the same lines. It's an interview with Cliff Stoll (author of Cuckoo's Egg and Silicon Snake Oil.

http://www.familyhaven.com/parenting/hightechheret ic.html

If you haven't read his book "High Tech Heretic: Why Computers Don't Belong in the Classroom and Other Reflections by a Computer Contrarian" you really should. It's got some great reading and some things we should think about as we design software.

What can we do as software developers to actually make computers useful in the classroom instead of so distracting? Any thoughts from educators out there?

True--they don't

[xTown]

I used to work in a School District IT department. Computers were thrown at everything as if they were a cure-all, when the real problem was that the teachers were awful. It seemed that the ones who were yelling the loudest about needing computers in the classroom were the same ones who put up signs saying "Welcome Student's" and the same ones--English teachers, mind you!--who were saying, without a trace of irony, "Yeah, me and her are going across the street for lunch."

We need to turn out smarter teachers and give them incentives to perform, like better pay, long before we think about having a computer for every student.

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.

My son's computer class.

[sbaker]

My kid's school (a 5th/6th grade intermediate school) has a beautiful, fully equipped computer classroom - and a teacher who teaches computing only. ...and that's the problem. The teacher knows *nothing* about computers. Practically all the kids know far more than she does.

Because she knows nothing, she dumps 'edutainment' programs onto the machines and has the kids play them continually while she merely maintains classroom discipline.

She spent three weeks (that's 40 minutes per lesson for 10 lessons) having the kids run some kind of 'typing tutor' program. Since all the kids learned to type in 3rd grade (at least as well as a typing tutor program *can* teach), they were all bored to tears with the repetitive exercises.

Fortunately, my son discovered that this stoopid program doesn't disable cut and paste - so he was able to complete all the exercises insanely quickly. Since the teacher allows them to surf the web once they have finished the assignments, he was able to go off and have fun by himself the entire time.

The crowning glory came at the end of the year when the teachers were handing out class prizes - my son was awarded the prize for best EVER score on the typing tutor by the dump computer science teacher - she proudly announced that he'd scored something like 3,000 words per minute with a 0% error rate. Some of the other teachers looked a bit strangely at her - clearly realising that something had gone amok, but perhaps assuming she'd just mis-spoken the results.

This is just one of many gaffes this teacher made. She had the kids "List 10 parts of the Computer". My kid duly wrote stuff like 'CPU', 'ROM', 'Ethernet Ataptor', 'Motherboard' - and the teacher gave him zero on the "test" saying that the correct answer was 'Mouse', 'Keyboard', 'Television' (!), 'Mouse pad', etc. When my kid complained that his computer at home didn't have a mouse pad she told him that this was nonsense and that ALL computers have mouse pads - this dissuaded him from telling her that the monitor is not, in fact, a TV set.

Similarly, she had the kids write down the 10 good things and 10 bad things about computers. My son complained that he couldn't think of 10 bad things. His teacher gave as an example: "They crash a lot" - well, since we only run Linux at home, my son knows that this isn't necessarily true and that it's not the COMPUTER that crashes - it's the SOFTWARE. Inevitably, when he complained he got in trouble.

I've written several letters to the teacher in question (she doesn't appear to read her email - even though it's provided by the school) - with poor results. I wrote and even visited with the Principal to try to get something done - but of course she just says that qualified staff are hard to get - and the State doesn't require that teachers are trained in the subject they are teaching.

So, can we conclude that teaching with computers is "A Bad Thing" ?

No!

Not unless we've carefully checked that the teachers and curriculum are sensibly chosen. Clearly, if my son's school had spent the money that went
into that computer lab in some other way, they'd have gotten more value for money and the kid's grades would have been better...but that doesn't prove that teaching computers are bad - just that they are ineptly managed.

The Economist

[artemis67]

The link is wrong... if you click on it, you are taken to a cybersquatter's page with a butt-ugly picture of Alan Greenspan.

The real link to The Economist is here.

Thoughts from a college IT guy...

[weave]

Hoo boy, have I got a lot to say. But first, let me throw out a disclaimer that I am an IT person in a hier-ed (college) institution and not a trained educator, therefore my opinion doesn't mean squat (some sarcasm, some truth). I'd like to throw out the following observations, points, and opinions on this topic...

• Teachers from all subjects are being expected to integrate technology into their lesson plans. In many cases the students know more about the tech than the instructors. The place I work provides training opportunities for instructors, but many don't seek them out or resist.
• I find limited utility in using computers in teaching some subjects such as English. For example, one shouldn't be teaching how to use a word processor in an English class. It takes away from the core reason for the class. I do realize that people need to type up papers on computers, but that activity should be done in general labs staffed with support people to help students who don't have these skills. However, see below about stressed support staffing problems.
• Grants are usually given for new equipment purchases, not maintenance or infrastructure. In my employer's case, that has meant a large new base of installed systems, which increases the need for tech staff, but since there is no budget for that, tech support suffers. Infrastructure such as networking and back-end servers suffers. And most importantly, the issue of replacement cost is not considered. For example, we currently have 2,000 computers. If you use a 5-year replacement cycle, which I consider not enough, you're looking at having to set aside around a half-million dollars a year to replace equipment. Despite this, we continue to add new labs. Eventually we'll have hallways full of computer ghettos... It's hard to convince people that that fast p4 today will be a dog 5 years from now (or two whenever longhorn or whatever comes out and basically uses a back-end database running on each desktop to store data instead of a file system... ooo, that'll kill a currently fast machine I'm sure...)
• I find teaching vendor-specific programs in a college unwise, for example, programming in Visual Studio or network design using literal examples for a Cisco environment. For example, I wonder about former students who were taught dbase III when that was hot. If they were taught the concepts and theory, they could then adapt, if they were taught just dbase iii, they are now in need of retraining. But that's just a personal opinion.
• Many computer textbooks are horribly rigid and instructors are unable to adapt in some cases. For example, stupid personalized menus in Office apps. After getting way too many complaints like "The print menu disappeared" and trying to tell people to hit the chevron, we hear that the book doesn't say to do that, so we turned off personalized menus in a GPO. Then some instructors using a different book say "The book tells the student to go down to the chevron at the bottom of the menu to expand it, but our system doesn't do that. How can I teach when our system doesn't match the book?" Another example, a textbook that tells students to do create files and dirs on the C: drive, which we have locked down via ACLs. Some instructors actually expect us to toss out desktop security so they don't have to tell students to use Z: instead of where it says C: in the textbook. And speaking of textbooks, a curse to all textbooks that include a CD-ROM that requires software to be installed to use it.
• Computers can be a big distraction in a classroom. For example, students IM'ing each other during a lecture. Some teachers are looking at IT for a solution, which I believe we should offer, but due to staffing shortages, right now everyone is putting out other fires...
• A few years ago, there was a big push to wire every K12 school in the state to the Internet. I remember thinking "Ah, who is going to manage all of this stuff?" One school district in my area has *one* IT person who runs around to about 20 schools. Talk about a job from hell... The schools hardly ever see this IT person, so they often appoint the most computer-literal teacher to handle many of the issues, taking that person away from their main job of teaching.
• One tech I really do like is a single desktop in a classroom with a "smart board", something that allows an instructor to not only manipulate the mouse by touching the board, but also to annotate what's displayed with markers and save the board notes and displays at will to pdf files for later review by students. No desktops at the desks to distract students, cheaper to spread tech to every classroom, and students can practice what they learn later in a lab exercise of some sorts. I have taught evening classes before and I can first-hand testify that a lesson plan that has students repeating what you do on their own desktops drags down the pace tremendously. There is always one or two that claim that their computer isn't doing what you demonstrate and you have to stop, go back to them, and help them catch up.

Re:Google vs. Academics

[HisMother]

> What happens when within 5 minutes I can gain most any knowledge I desire? Well..it kinda breaks down the walls, that is what it does.

Uh, no. Within 5 minutes, you can google for any facts you desire. Knowledge takes work. Want to find a French dictionary? Easy. Want to speak French? Hard. There are many things beyond the basics that need to be taught rather than simply googled.

But I agree with your basic thesis.

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.

Re:Good lord

[Christianfreak]

I don't want to be offensive to you but I think that teachers and principals do need to see this. One of the things that is wrong with the current educational system (in the US anyway) is too many people are worried about keeping their jobs and not making sure that kids are properly educated. It becomes a huge political circus rather than a public service to better the next generation.

Reports like this are a step in the right direction, showing teachers that Math, English and even fine arts are so much more needed skills than calculators, word processors, and MS Paint.

*rant* Now if we could just get school boards across the nation to get their heads out of their collective ... well you know, and legislators to stop passing laws that give more money to districts where kids pass, thus encouraging teachers to pass kids regardless of grades. */rant*

Back on topic ... don't get me wrong I do believe that educational software has its place. Personally I think its something that parents should have at home, or something that should be in libraries, even school libraries. Places where it can be used without taking away from the time to learn the real important stuff.

My two cents.

Re:Certainly hasn't had any effect on spelling...

[registered_user]

I hope that spellcheck is comming soon to slashdot. :)

Seriously though, I think that in the 80s a huge importance was placed upon computer education. The common notion was that everyone will need to know how to operate a computer later in life.

Well, they were partially right. Everyone should know how to operate a computer, but for practical purposes in High School education, that's a 2 hour class with perhaps a semester course in typing.

A computer will do much of the work for you. It will do your math, check your grammar, and allow you to do research from your home. The problems here are obvious. There is little need to do things for yourself. I've found that most children do not have the discipline to willingly learn advanced math and grammar on their own. The problem is two-fold here though because many parents don't have the discipline to discipline their kids.

As for research, I'll be quite blunt. The net is a poor tool for younger students. There is too much opinion and just plain bull shit on the web to be of great use. It takes a more seasoned approach and a level head to be able to filter out the crap, and I don't think the majority of high school kids benefit by using it to do their research work.

It's not a one-size fits all situation however, and it's difficult to administer a solution. If I were in charge though, I'd have one guideline: If your kid has ADD or some other modern learning disability that requires he get special attention in school, his computer access should be limited. Afterall, the kid's problem is distraction, so a computer (with web access is even worse) is definitely going to be a greater distraction than a learning tool.

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.

Re:Not suprised

[GreyPoopon]

I programmed in logo and that was totally useless.

Have you considered that although the language is largely useless for building applications, it's a pretty useful tool for teaching children about how computers work? Logo is good at encouraging modular programming concepts, and is reasonably interactive -- perfect for 3rd graders. And it sounds like they did some stuff that a 3rd grader would find interesting, like creating shapes on the screen.

I'd teach someone at that age Basic not Logo. In Middle School I'd move on to Visual Basic and or C.

This plan isn't going to work for the masses. Yes, there are kids that can learn to program effectively in C during the Middle School years. But many of them cannot grasp it. Of those that are capable, many of them wouldn't be interested in programming -- they'd rather play games. There's a reason why advanced mathematical logic and proofs isn't usually taught until high school. It's because there are some significant changes during adolescence in the prefrontal cortex, frontal lobes and parietal lobes of the brain. The result of these changes is sharper focus and attentiveness, improved executive function and planning, and better spatial processing. Therefore, schools tend to avoid teaching subjects that require these skills until after most of the students are ready.

This would be computer science and they'd learn a few concepts which might help them in understanding algebra

While this is true, I believe it might be better for them to learn the concepts of algebra without the aid of a computer. I've found that among high school students, those that struggled the most to learn how to program had a weak background in algebra. However, let me point out that my evidence in this area is merely anecdotal. IANAEBIKMOT (I am not an educator, but I know many of them). :-)

Computers should be used as a tool to teach math, not as a tool to teach Computers.

I cannot disagree more. Students should be learning the foundations of math without interference from devices that help them perform the math. For the same reason, calculators were normally banned during my school years until students started doing trigonometry and calculus. This was intended to force them to learn the concepts of the math rather than relying on a machine. Want to see what happens when students start using calculators? Take a look at today's teenagers working a cash register who can't even count change back to you properly. I don't see computers as improving this situation at all.

Teachers today treat Computers like they are mysterious

I agree with you here. I think that perhaps the single biggest problem is that the teachers themselves are not familiar enough with computers.

A web connected Tablet connected to everyones desk would be far more efficient than notebooks and the current tools, and a smartboard is far more efficient than a chalk board

I agree with you here. This would be a tremendous advance in classrooms.

you can learn math just fine with just a calculator, you can learn math with a computer

As I said before, I disagree with this. Today's teens are evidence enough. Most of the teenagers I know are using calculators in their math classes and couldn't do math properly to save their lives.

And before some fool comes and says "You dont know math if you use a calculator, you dont know math is you use a computer"

The danger isn't in using a calculator or computer. The danger is in using one before you've developed efficient skills at doing it yourself. The best way to improve your math skills is to practice.

Theres a difference between knowing math, and knowing how to work with numbers, number crunching is not knowing math.

Although this is somewhat true, exercising your brain on some number crunching greatly improves your understanding and efficiency in mathematics. When I was in college, I received a dramatic lesson in this. One of my professors put up a problem that required calculus to solve. The specifics of the problem were dictated by the students, but we were left as a class to solve the problem. All of us had calculators except the professor, who was using a slide rule. He was able to solve the problem accurately on his slide rule before any of us could even finish typing in the numbers to the first part on our calculators. Even those of us with calculators that performed integration were no match for him. Why? Because he did large portions of the math in his head, only employing the slide rule where necessary. After witnessing that demonstration, I stopped using my calculator for all but the most difficult tasks. When I go to a grocery store, I make it a point to add up the prices of what I'm buying in my head -- just to keep my brain working.

So, where do I think we need to see computers? We're already seeing them in use as a library of information. This is a good start. Being connected with people all over the world helps to break down cultural barriers, but I believe this kind of use happens best outside of school. Learning to program is an excellent idea, as most people will use it in one form or another in the business world. How about taking and grading tests? Also, computers are great for self-paced learning, and as such could be the key for allowing students with a wide range of capabilities to learn to the best of their ability.