Slashdot Mirror
The Flickering Mind
What's bad: The first 350 pages of The Flickering Mind are as depressing as anything I've read. In case after case, Oppenheimer describes politicians' and educators' mindless acceptance of claims by technology pundits and technology companies. The sheer number of tax dollars poured into worthless software and soon-to-be-obsolete hardware is appalling The fact that so few lessons have been learned in 20 years beggars the imagination.
Those are my words, not the author's. The book's examples are laid out in very plain, factual language. No raving rants, no wild tangents. Just record after record, study after study, interview after interview.
Oppenheimer has researched the book by interviewing teachers, students, former students, educational software employees, district policymakers and government officials across the U.S. People with hands-on experience using things like distance-learning systems, CD-ROM-based textbooks, math and reading games, multimedia software, student laptops, school intranets, web-based research papers, and dozens of pieces of educational technology.
A recurring theme in these interviews is how computers either make formerly easy things harder (like classroom discussion), and hard things avoidable (students who know how to copy-paste don't have to construct sentences).
"One English teacher could readily tell which of her students essays were conceived on a computer. "They don't link ideas," the teacher said. "They just write one thing, and then they write another one, and they don't seem to see or develop the relationships between them."
The many interviews give The Flickering Mind a personal feel, and make the reading easier. In many ways, it's like a record of the author's travels from school to school. But one of the book's great strengths is Oppenheimer's unwillingness to rely on anecdotal evidence. Much of the book is devoted to analyzing studies of technology's impact in schools. A good chunk of these studies are commissioned by firms that sell educational software. Not surprisingly, they tend to be shallow and nonscientific. Many pages are spent pointing out flaws in this research. This becomes important when Oppenheimer turns the same critical eye on studies which support his own conclusions. An interesting sub-topic of the book is how very few truly objective educational technology studies exist.
All the evidence against computers as useful learning tools wouldn't be so alarming if computers didn't cost so much. But educators seem especially blind to the continual costs of staying on the technology bandwagon. There are two faces to this problem, and The Flickering Mind addresses both. The first is schools cutting faculty and programs in order to purchase hardware and software. The second is local and national governments granting subsidies and to companies who promise to assist schools with technology. In both cases, taxpayers foot the bill.
The Flickering Mind relies mainly on educators' own criteria for determining how technology helps learning (can the kids read, write, and do math?) But it also takes time to puncture the oft-recycled dogma that society has a shortage of graduates with high-tech skills:
"When employers who were fretting about this gap were asked what skills mattered to them, this is what they said: Most important of all is a deep and broad base of knowledge. "Want to get a job using information technology to solve problems? Know something about the problems that need to be solved." This statement reflected the sentiments of nearly two thirds of the Information Technology Association of America's members. Following far behind this priority was "hands-on experience" with technical work, which less than half the nation's IT managers considered critical (Most apparently felt perfectly capable of teaching those skills on the job.)
What's good:
All is not Luddite doom-and-gloom. The Flickering Mind is careful to highlight the areas where computer technology helps kids learn. Many schools do benefit from computers--as long as the computers are in central labs (not in the classroom), and not networked. One school has a senior-level class in which students build the computers used in the labs. Programming classes are valued by upperclassmen with an interest in technology careers. Some educators have made adjustments, like the teacher who removed all but a single-size font from the machines "so the students can write instead of wasting time adjusting the text".
The final third of the book is an uplifting counterpart to the ignorance and frustration described in the first two thirds. Oppenheimer gives details of visits to several schools which buck the trend of embracing technology as an end in itself. They use computers, but not in the class:
"In an aging brick building on New York's Upper East Side, a dozen teenagers of varying ages, half of whom look like street kids, pull their desks into a circle as their teacher distributes several thick handouts. "You're killing trees," one student complains."
"Yes," says the teacher. "I'm killing lots of trees"
After the students have spent fifteen to twenty minutes with the handouts, discussion begins. The debate is constant and heated. Whenever the dialog bogs down or goes off course, the teacher quickly interrupts. "I want to hear some pieces of evidence here!" he insists.
A university professor contrasted former students of this school with others she'd met: "I've had the experience of asking students a question and there's a one-sentence answer. And it's not a question of shyness or dumbness, but the person hasn't learned how to develop an idea. How to make a statement and then qualify and describe and give examples and illustrations. Each and every one of these people could do that."
Conclusion
The Flickering Mind is one of the most well-researched books I've read. It is well worth checking out from your library. It's even more worth buying, because you'll likely be re-reading it and lending it to your friends.
You can purchase the The Flickering Mind from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, carefully read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Methinks the submitter doesn't speak with educators and politicians all that often. It's simply absurd to suggest that your typical educator or politician blindly believes that computers are the solution to America's education woes.
One wonders about the reviewer's credentials if this is how he frames the debate surrounding the use of technology in our schools. This is a complex issue with no clear answers--not some good vs. evil Joes 'n' Cobra brawl.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Astronomer Clifford Stoll similarly makes compelling arguments against computers in the classroom (libraries as well) in his books Silicon Snake Oil and High-Tech Heretic.
I saw Clifford Stoll in person at a lecture given in front a group of librarians. He animatedly pointed out, with his lecture notes written on his hand, that in the distant future the jobs that people do will still require old-fashioned learning and hands-on experience.
"If I were around even a hundred years from I now I wouldn't want to visit a dentist who's learned his trade from a CD-ROM," he explained, "I would want a dentist who had hands-on experience at a dental school."
He talked about how software packages make the outrageous claim that they can "make learning fun," when actual learning takes self-discipline, hard work, and effective human teachers.
As for me, I love being able to order books from the library online, and have them sent from faraway libraries to the one down the street from my office, but I still sometimes feel a bit cheated that I had the Dewey Decimal System and its card catalog lookup method drilled into my head from an early age, only to have the latter removed from the library and replaced with a row of computers. When our library system first implemented this change, the computers were far more difficult to operate than the alphabetized drawers of the card catalog. Nowadays, with the web-based system, it's much easier to find exactly what I want, but I still sometimes miss the thrill of the hunt, as it were, flipping through cards organized by subject, title, and author, searching for just the right book.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
I rate this book a.....Q
What I don't understand is that schools spend thousands and thousands of dollars to upgrade technology, but they still don't have any teachers that are worth a damn or teachers that are severly underpaid. Seems like schools also forget the fact that that computer is hard to use if there is no decent desk to put it on. I've had classes that use desks that were here when the college was founded. There's not enough room on the writing surface for single sheet of paper. WTF?
[ ]
Computers were absent from my grade school years, but as the years passed, computers became more pervasive. By college, my major was computer science & engineering. The only things that I learned from computers were how to program and how to use a computer to get things done.
Computers did not teach me how to interact with other people. They did not teach social or moral skills. They provided a fraction of the education I needed. Computers will never be able to replace the social education that every person needs.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
The biggest problem is that teachers are trying to continue to teach the same way they have for the last hundred years only adding computers into the mix instead of trying to alter the approach entirely. Most teachers I know hardly even know how to work a computer.
That is, the concept that we will ever create some kind of technology that is so far in advance of what we already have that we won't know what to do with it/it will be a panacea/it will become sentient and try to take us over.
BLING BLING. Meet the architecture that's changing everything.
I don't agree that educators for the most part belive blindly in the technology. I do, however, have much experience in this area. My mother and wife are both primary level teachers and have been at the forefront of "education in the classroom" initiaves. All of which failed to one degree or another. I often spent hours helping them setup systems that broke with no support. The only thing I remember as positive is when my 6th grade teacher got two TRS-80 Model I computers back in '79. We were invited to go after school every day and learn BASIC. That started me off.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
... in the same way that books are.
I mean, if you don't know how to read, them thing 're useless.
-pyrrho
Teachers are just being stubborn. They have to change with the times. Instead of grading a paper "F", grade it "OMFG n00b".
Instead of grading it "A", grade it "<3".
When the kids get rowdy, instead of trying to yell over the crowd, just write "STFU kthx" on the board.
Change with the times, people.
I've read heavily in the research on computer assisted instruction and related topics.
In general the usage of computers has been horidly awful, and the software design has been attrocious.
Bad implementations are not the same as bad concept, something which many critics seem to have difficulty distinguishing between.
LetterRip
Author and submitter sound like they're a bit grumpy over this whole computer fad thing. "Darn kids and their technology! Why, when I was your age, I had to write my reports on *paper*... with a *pencil*!!..."
C'mon... the only success stories in schools were where the comps were not in the classroom, and weren't networked (how do you print??) sounds fishy to me, and smacks of some serious anti-tech bias, IMHO.
"Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
I've always thought the best way to a REAL education is reading the classics.
Whether they be Dickens, Shakspear, Aristotle, Newton, Tolstoy, Darwin, Hemmingway, Galileo, or whoever... Reading the classics is what creates minds that think about solving real problems and doing great deeds.
Everything else is just skills, and skills can be easily acquired by minds that are anxious to solve problems.
of course, artists create art whether or not they are in art class. whereas no-one will build the next generation of robot soldiers unless the market has a glut of engineers and scientists to burn through at half-wages.
b-i-t, t-e-r, & j-a-d-e-d... I'm so pissed... I'm so pissed...
I worked for a school district for a year, doing computer support. Computers are good for writing papers. And the Internet is good (sort of) for research. For general "learnin'"? No. If you want to learn about COMPUTERS, then yeah, they're great. But most educational software is nothing more than an elaborate set of flash cards.
I'm sure if I hold my breath, it will happen before I pass out and bump my head against the desk. Here I go ....mmmph...mmmprhu .....BAM!
Owww. Thanks a lot, /.
Meanwhile, personal computers are now on their second generation of students, their capabilities change every year, as does what is needed to know to use them and The Future is all about them. It's not astonishing that teachers haven't quite figured out what to do with them.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
But you can actually structure your essays better when you can first type out ideas and chunks of sentences, and then restructure until they form a coherent, logical progression.
Unless you like to handwrite endless drafts, handwritten work would generally be more confuse.
Now, really, perhaps these are nonlinear times. I have a class with a philosophy professor who keeps on saying that mind is hypertextual, and he`s fascinated with the possibilites of nonlinear argumentation. Not John Negroponte or some hypermedia freak, a 60-years-old Medieval Philosopher scholar whose idea of a fascinating subject is the Summa Teologica.
I gotta say I learned all my english and all my french on the net (it's not that bad, check my post history), and have generally learned to write better and been more exposed to intellectual, structured debate than I'd ever be without it. Moreover, I've had contact with all these scholars from around the world who research subjects that interested me at one point, and learned about many research areas I didn't even know that existed.
Of course, I've also seen a lot of freak pr0n, but we were discussing education, weren't we?
So far, computers are good for teaching children how to use computers. They are not a panacea for teaching any other subject. For some, they are a useful tool-- you can proofread English papers, do research, and math more quickly perhaps-- but they have generally not meant that students learn these things to a greater degree. In that sense, computers "in the classroom" is a stupid idea on par with a mimeograph in every classroom. If you can afford a classroom with a $70,000 teacher at the front, the teacher is the better learning facilitator! In areas where computers actually help, the computer is the classroom.
Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
Rebooting, reinstalling, and restarting far cry after those things with the long arms get me.
The problem with Computer education is that they use computers for every area of studies but they don't teach them how to use the computer as a tool. For Science Class students will use computers to virtually dissect a frog. But when it comes to doing a calculation they will still reach for the paper. Or what happened in college there was a student working on there math homework in the computer lab, they were using the application called Maple (for those who dont know about it it is a fairly powerful math program) now he needed to do some simple arithmetic so he went around asking people for a calculator. Not even thinking about using the calculator that comes with almost every OS on the planet. Or in maple where you just need to to type the formula in and follow with a ;. He was trained to use the computer and Maple just as he was taught but it never occurred for him to use the computer for a problem that wasn't required for class to solve. But because the teacher are so inflexible about computer they don't teach the students to use the computers as a tool. They just use them as a way to sit down and grade papers.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
When I was in school and still today (as I have family still i school) they may have technology but don't know how to utilize it. They make bad purchases and dont' use the full potential.
Bad use example: School buys a lab of computers. Computers come with antivirus software for free as part of the bundle but school still buys second antivirus license at $100 per computer. Was a waste of money.
Not using full potential example: The business computers class teaches the bar bones of office but not how to use it for some very common business tasks.
Then there is as has been said here several times of there is more than computers to do things. At my kid sisters high school they do almost all their research online and are taught to rely totally on that. Bad idea. If I am going to do a biography report on someone I would go get the biographies. There is more out there that they aren't learning now.
Evolution or ID?
You need good people teaching good things to good people to get good results. We barely pay the teachers, and so we scare away lots of good people from teaching. Our curriculums are weak and far away from reality. We raise our kids without a parent at home using the TV/computer as a surrogate and feed them non-stop hyperactivity chow, and so they are more or less unteachable.
Computers won't fix this situation. Maybe if we fixed the other 3 problems, they would make a good situation better.
Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
There is one really compelling application of computers in grade and middle schools: The various typing tutor programs. Back in my day (boy am I old!) we had electric typewriters, and learning to type was as mindnumbing as can be. With computer programs it is still mindnumbing to a degree, but it has been made more compelling, AND the tutor programs adjust to your skills and revisit problem spots right away. It still takes perseverance and lots of repetition, but it isn't nearly as dreary as it used to be.
Other than that, I fully agree with the gist of the reviewer's description of the book.
- Christoph
When I was 7, I lucked out. My elementary school was one of the first in the state to have computers for students to use in the library. This was, eh, about 1980-81 or so. Apple ][s, to be exact. Three of them. They were available for students to use both during and after school.
Within a few weeks of their being installed, the demand was high enough that the librarians had to set up a list where you had to reserve blocks of time in advance. On monday mornings, I used to go to the library, and allocate time every day afterschool for that week.
By the time I was in 4th & 5th grade, I used to stay after school so long the custodians would have to come and kick me out.
Once I got to college, I decided I wanted to be a Unix administrator. My choice of career pretty much guarantees a salary well above the national average, and even above the majority of IT-related positions. Had I never been able to sit around and hack Lemonade to paint the sky red on Wednesdays, or hack Swords & Sorcery so that I was immortal, I would have never learned how to code, how to be creative, think logically, or be involved with computers in any form.
At every step of the way, there were computers in every school I went to. By the time I was in junior high, I was writing Risk/Empire'ish stuff. It taught me how to think strategically, and introduced me to languages other than BASIC. Things snowballed from there. Fast forward 15 years.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
Yes, that one.
For college students this situation is the most acute. You can purchase practically a laptop per year for what texts cost.
People consistently undervalue teaching, seeing it as one of the first things to cut (never any of the "important" programs, just our kids education) whenever there is any budget bumps. They intrinsically disrespect the profession.
But please, do keep peddling your unsupported, "I said it so it must be true", AC load.
I am finishing a masters in Ed. (Computers and Ed. Technology) and this book was a big part of my thesis. I have been involved in my school's technology for years. This book should be required reading for every princpal and teacher. Sadly, he exposes the "education industrial complex" (paraphrasing Eisenhower) and highlights many problems with our education system. I could go on, but that's my thesis. Schools need to go back to the basics, readin', writin', 'rithmetic. Literacy and critical thinking should be the goals of school, and if the kids never even touch a computer in school, they won't miss a thing. Though I do believe there should be a technology component, where kids do learn basic computer skills.
I might also suggest Jane Healy's "Failure to Connect" and Clifford Stoll's "Silicon Snake Oil". Please take it from me, I am a high school history teacher, and I see this problem as wide scale.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Coming from a Math/Science magnet school where the administration believed the school itself was responsible for the success of it's students, this definately hits home. Over the years, the school made it a point to put a computer lab in every classroom. They seemed to think that if there was a computer to use, it would make everything better.
So, they blindly added hundreds of donated, underpowered PCs to our network. More often than not, they were used for downloading pr0n, playing games and cheating on tests and homework. Not only did they take up valuable classroom space (where new desks and books would do much more good), they proved to be more of a hassle and a distraction to both teachers and students. (Especially those few students responsible for maintaining the network)
Teachers were required to post grades using one of two online grading services. More often than not, the teachers complained about the hassle and speed of a P90 with 16MB running NT4 than praising the marginal advantage of accessing grades from home.
Without looking into actually securing the network, the school let loose a swarm of worms and virii. The solution, "If you want to bring your own work in on a floppy, it must be run through NAV by the computer lab teacher." I guess they only travel through word docs on floppies...
Eventually, they cut a deal with some company to install TVs in every room in exchange for advertising time in the morning. The company would broadcast a short spot of news, play some advertisements and generally just push the product of the moment in the first 10 minutes of every day.
Anyway, I'd love to rant some more about the joys and "success" of having computers in the classroom, but there's just to much to list.
Personal anecdote here: way back when I was in high school, the PTA scraped together some money to buy a dozen Apple II computers for an after school computer club. The following year they were incorporated into a computer lab, and a course was offered as an elective for us nerdy kids, but computing wasn't part of the general curriculum.
Anyway, for my final project in that course, I wrote a program that could take a term paper draft and size requirements as input, and then it would produce an expanded draft to meet those requirements by fiddling with margins, word and line spacing, and finally by inserting nonsense phrases if necessary.
I submitted the source code, a sample input (3 1/2 pages) and the output, a 5 page English paper (which had been graded "A")
The teacher gave me an "F" on principle, or maybe because I didn't properly comment the code.
I even used that program to expand this one-line post.
More music, fewer hits
The same year my school district initiated retirement incentives resulting in the loss of practically all the senior teachers was the year they put through a $4 Million bond issue to put computers everywhere. I personally witnessed the superintendent of the district say "how can you expect fifth graders to do 3 digit multiplication without a calculator?". The quality of education there dropped like a rock over a 20 year period, and went from producing Westinghouse champions and World Physics Olympiad champions to producing lots of mediocre high school graduates.
While I know some smart people go into education, a lot of not-so-smart people go into education. People who tend to avoid the rigors of academic hard work. Thus, they are prone to fads and promises that say, "you don't _have_ to be academically rigorous! Our system will make it easy for you!"
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I've also talked to administrators, parents,
and students from primary and secondary schools.
There is *brilliant* work on this by Seymour Papert
(see the book The Learning Machine and Lego/Logo)
and many, many teachers who also develop software.
Yes, there are profound problems with technology
in schools-- as in our everyday corporate world--
and tech is not a magic bullet for everything.
Need starting points? Try my site School.Net
and please suggest improvements and additions.
Cheers, Joel
>He talked about how software packages make the outrageous claim that they can "make learning fun," when actual learning takes self-discipline, hard work, and effective human teachers.
Cats and dogs can't survive on instinct alone. Both need to have learned hunting skills. How do they acquire them? They play.
Play is how mammals learn. They expend enormous energy in play. If play weren't a vital function then non-playing creatures would have taken over the world through sheer efficiency.
"Self-discipline, hard work, and effective human teachers" could be a description of what happens when humans "play" soccer.
Learning *is* fun, inherently. We're programmed for it. Any healthy young child is constantly exploring, taking things apart, and asking "why?".
The great mystery of our educational system is how it has made learning seem like a chore.
Maine spent millions of dollars giving every school kid a fucking laptop. Every kid in the whole goddamned state. That right there is plenty of evidence that either politicians, educators, parents, or all three believe this.
Now there's a scary thought.
Computers will have done for education what television did for parenting.
Distance learning, offshore development, outsourcing, everything; can all be traced to a neglected education system in the U.S.
We don't pay our teachers much, so most of our intelligent people are going on to other jobs where their brains get them more money. Teaching could became a coveted profession like being a Doctor or a Lawyer.
But instead, we're paying our teachers low wages, and chipping away at our long standing scientific advantage over the rest of the world.
Who needs to pay for this? Every citizen, but those with more must contribute more. The problem is that well-off citizens can just send their own kids to private school -- screw the rest of the kids -- and then vote at the school district meetings for minimal budgets, so their school taxes go down. In some districts, housing and school taxes are so expensive that by buying a house there you are essentially paying for private school for yuor kids, and poor people cannot afford to get into that community.
Vouchers are not the answer, as all they do is take money away from the school that need it the most, and give it to schools that are already rich enough to provide a good education. It just serves to further separate the rich from the poor.
What we need is for washington to put its foot down and say "Enough!"
Listen, those of you who've made it big in America: It's not just your own hard work that got you where you are in life, it's your education, your community, your country, and your fellow citizens that made this environment that allowed you to have a chance at all. So stop whining and help out your fellow man; pay 1% more in taxes, so that poor kids can go to better schools, and lead better lives. Heck, you'll probably make up the lost taxes in the money you save by not being robbed or carjacked by some kid who dropped out of his drug-laden junior high school to become a thief.
I'm spent.
$8.95/mo web hosting
Are they good or are they wack?
Yes.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The best way to learn how to type fast is to do IRC or IM. You have to type fast to keep up with the conversation, and you have to be accurate or you sound like a doof. A great app would be a communication tool (maybe using gaim) that would gauge accuracy and speed during a conversation and show it throughout to both yourself and the other person. You then compete to see who can get the higher score. Simple, interactive, social, and effective.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Hmm... maybe because I reasearch in this area I feel a little concerned that (according to the review) he only spends a third of the book discussing the research where technology has been successfully applied to teaching.
Intelligent Tutoring Systems from Carnegie Mellon, the US Naval Academy, the University of Western Australia, the University of Canterbury, and a number of others have been deployed successfully, and studies have shown learning improvements in students that use them over control groups. In the literature, Koedinger, Anderson, Hadley and Mark's "Intelligent Tutoring Goes To School..." (1997) paper often gets cited as one example of this.
Most engineering courses appear to be considering some kind of automated tutoring / online interactive simulation. There is good reason for this - not to replace the teacher but to replace the situation where the teaching staff do not have time to give proper feedback to homework assignments.
Similarly there are a number of successful cases of deploying technology in the classroom (without taking attention away from the teacher).
I give an instant 9/10 to any book that puts politician and "flickering mind" in the same sentence.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
I attended a "alternative" high school for a bit, and nearly everything was computerized. The materials were done over NovaNet, and specifically say "These are to be used for reference, and not as a replacement for the book".
The books were not available, and we were quite literally set up to fail. It was impossible to even pass without taking tons of notes (I have my library barcode number from when I was 5, all my credit cards, my blockbuster card, and discount card #s memorized, so it's not my memorization skills at fault). This was the school for failures, too.
As for why I was there, a bad case of ADHD - I literally couldn't pass my classes. It was not because of tests, but because I couldn't focus long enough to finish the homework.
What country do you live in. Obviously not the US. Teachers make embarassingly little money. Class sizes increase because the population is increasing and there is no room to put the kids. There are schools here in the city that have classrooms in trailers in their parking lots.
And most schools are struggling to find teachers, especially in math and science, since people in those disciplines can make far more in the private sector.
Granted, I have not read this book myself.
However, the problem isn't that we have computers in schools or *gasp* networked computers.
The problem is simply that most educators are (and I speak by experience both from an academic and a tech-support perspective, everything from kindergarten to grad school to a retail computer store that sold consulting and support to schools) incapable of properly instructing people to use computers.
Face it. I'd venture to say that most educators (and almost certainly most politicians) have _not_ grown up with computers, but are rather attempting to synthesize computer technology into their policies and curricula. This is a good thing, but they simply don't have the _feel_ of it; this is something that comes with vast amounts of experience with computer technology.
Handwriting essays? Give me a break; I wrote my grade-school essays on IBM XTs and printed them out on dot matrix printers whenever allowed. When it wasn't allowed, I wrote them on the XT and then copied them onto paper after they're done.
I would venture to say that few things suck harder than drafting essays by hand. Don't like a paragraph? You're screwed - rewrite. Don't like that paragraph? You're screwed again - rewrite. Not to mention that I can type ~100wpm, and I can only handwrite about...I dunno, 30-40wpm if that. Better, my hands aren't being contorted around some pen, but rather drifting in a pseudo-natural position above a keyboard. This hurts so much less, and I can write longer without needing to take a break while being more productive. I fail to see a problem.
A lot of people are scared of technology, but the US education system has far bigger problems (lack of funding, lack of instructors, etc) that are to blame for poor academic performance.
To add a last little rant, the network thing is idiotic. The future, and the past, have always been about networks. You're teaching your students programming, but they don't have any idea of how to do network programming? You're teaching them how to use computers, but god forbid they learn any of the _important_ facets of network use, like basic networking hygeine (virus scanners, firewall use, maybe how to do spam filtering) that will help to slow down future network chokage.
Ugh. I just find myself having a somewhat visceral reaction to this, considering that I literally grew up with computers (since I was 5) and _in spite of_ crappy education systems, I find myself in possession of a master's degree and a high-tech, managerial job.
Pardon any organizational or grammatical flaws; this is off the top of my head.
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!
Pah, who needs education when you've got google!
Spoken like someone who has never been a teacher.
In one locality I know of, wages and benefits are not, by any means, a "good" wage. What's paid is great for probably 70% of the teachers -- who are the secondary wages earners in their family. For those who are the primary (and often only) wage earners in the family, the pay is minimal for a three person family, and minimal for a four person family even when the teacher has a master's degree.
We're not talking about a small town here, we're talking about one of the larger cities in the state.
Sean.
I have watched my children being taught with computers in the classroom, computers in a separated "lab", and computers at home. Much of what the author mentions is very real to me.
The amount of time spent changing font types, font sizes, paragraph alignment, etc. is added time they could have avoided. Typing speed is a severe limiter for a long report -- and "teacher says it has to be typed/printed". Spell-check and grammar checks give an impression that they don't need to check their own work. I end up reviewing and marking the errors to make them correct them.
The educational software that they found so fun when they were younger fit into two categories - something they already knew and was easy OR something they hadn't learned yet and had to ask for help with. There was no actual instruction on HOW to do things - just little games using the skills.
========
Perhaps the scariest offshoot of this is how computers and software are implemented everywhere else (businesses and government). I've seen people spend hours working on a document that should have taken them 20 minutes. I've seen people who don't bother knowing how to speak or spell because the word-processor will do it for them. I work with people who claim the computer makes them more productive -- when I also know they spend more than 50% of their day online surfing sites completely unrelated to their job and get less done in the 50% they actually do work.
I'm not a Luddite by any means - I use my computers for maximizing my productivity. I even try to teach my children how to avoid the pitfalls by making them hand-write their rough drafts, research from books, and have a preset format that is used for all documents.
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
I agree with this guy *and* Cliff Stoll. The educational arena need to be an electronic-free zone. Until you get to college, the only real use computers have in education is for teaching programming. Short of that, they are a violent distraction. Maybe the last couple of years of high school you get to use a calculator. Maybe. Unless you want to start teaching electrical engineering in high school -- that would be cool, and a valid reason to have computers around, but then they'd have to teach mathematics.... REAL mathematics, like vector calculus and complex analysis.... which means the teachers would have to learn it....
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
The current generation X'er, who was born in late 60's or early 70's,
can be said to have been born into the Golden ABC Age.
I write of the Age Before Computers. When I went to my quite-average
elementary school, there were no computers and we were taught to use our minds.
My Junior High School years saw the coming of our FOE, Fall of Education.
The first computer I used was a Radio Shack TRS-80 Model I. This comment
is not to one-up anyone by saying I used this computer, but rather to point out
that this was a school computer. The class involved learning to program in BASIC.
High School brought with it increased skills, knowledge, and Apple II+ computers.
The school library and certain teachers possessed an a computer which became
adjuncts to learning. During High School, the decision to focus upon Computer
Science/Math was formed, and upon graduation, such became my major course of study.
What is the point of this rambling? That during my formative years, my education
focused upon training my mental skills and not my mouse-gesture abilities!
My abilities of problem solving and knowledge acquisition were given a solid
foundation by training my brain and not learning how to accomplish rote tasks
better suited for a factory worker.
The educational system is slowly awakening to the fact that computers have their place.
Facilities such as Elementary School (and other early-stage institutions) are places
which should focus upon teaching fundamentals. Computer use should be a rare thing
so that children become familiar, but not dependent,
upon computers.
My daughter's Montessori Academy, allows students to use a computer one day
per week for less than 30 minutes. The formation of a self-sufficient mind
is the foundation of all personhood.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
ITs how they are used. If you throw a computer in front of someone and expect them to learn, well, they are fucked.
If they are treated as one of many tools in an educators toolbox, that would be very good. In high school chemistry class, we got to do some experiments on some old Apple II's that the school couldn't afford the expense or safety risk to do. Those are things that without those computers, we simply wouldn't have been able to do more than just read about, but with them, we got to do the experiments and see what happens. Perhaps not as good as doing the experiments with actual chemicals, but a hell of a lot better than just reading.
We're trying to reinvent something (schools) that exist today much the same as they existed 100 years ago. We're trying entirely different things here. Most of these attempts are doomed to failure. But that doesn't mean we stop trying! Eventually, as we find the things that work and the things that don't, we'll have an evolution towards the things that do. And the overall quality of computer instruction will go up. The problems we currently face are many:
- trying something new (always hard!)
- untrained oldschool teachers
- faddish adoption of technology for technologies sake
- the inevitable problems of reinventing PART of a process while leaving the rest the same (i.e., real computer-assisted education is going to shake a lot of paradigms, including class size, what a class is, what a school is, who can take what class when, what a teacher is, who a teacher teaches, when a teacher teaches, what teaching means, what it means to be 'in school,', etc. etc. Changing one variable - throwing computers into a school - is not enough)
- a predatory marketplace looking to dump tech for $$$ in education
- poor understanding of integration of an entire software stack for students individually and a school community as a group
- quick-hit political projects
- and much, much more
The only way to work through these problems is to try, fail, and adopt an attitude of "fail faster." In that complex environment of change and reinvention and failure and occasional success, we're going to hit on a number of different models that work. And then education will really start to change. And then, I think, students (how do you define those btw?) will really start to benefit. The key point is: chaos and failure are part of the process. Don't bitch about it - encourage it.The reviewer is wrong; open source can obviously help reduce the cost of this educational waste. If you're going to waste, you might as well waste efficiently.
Why do I say that? Because like software, nobody knows really knows how to make education work. But everyone has their pet theory. Education is intensely faddish. Look at open plan schools, phonics, and what to do with computers.
For studies which really look into this, as in software the key predictors aren't teaching methods, amount of funding, technology or anything like that, but the people involved. The biggest predictor is how parents feel about education, and right after that is the teacher. But influencing parents is hard, and finding good teachers is hard (especially in the numbers we need to staff schools), so schools go through serial flings with methods and ideas they hope will be silver bullets and address all their ills. Unsurprisingly, these silver bullets fail, and the school goes on to try another.
I'd suggest that realistically, there's very little a given school can do to improve. It's really a societal problem. Society needs to give up on quick fixes, convince people that education matters, and realize that it's the people that matter.
Well then just read Bob the Angry Flower. you may still be bitter and pissed when your done but at least you will know not to try to escape Ur-Quan space in a Vux Intruder.
That was ralph wiggum, dipshit.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
"Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and make deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat...apart from inquiry...individuals cannot be truly human. Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention."
-- Paulo Freire - Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1993)
Professor Alfred Bork has, for the last 30 years, stated that the educational system that we use around the world is out of date. That the way we use technology today is a waste of money. He supplies a solution, but not in the old framework that teachers and politicians think. Not in the teacher orientated system which was thought out in the 12 century Italy and is still practiced today. Just think about that. We use a system that's almost a thousand years old in a world with 6,5 billion people!
A drastic overhaul of the global educational system is needed. Professor Bork has some very decent thoughts about this on his site: http://www.ics.uci.edu/~bork/papers.html but first read the interview with Alfred Bork: The Future of Learning
(...No no no, he isn't part of the collective.)
Spoken by someone whose spouse is a teacher and has seen the greedy union thugs bankrupt public education.
"In one locality I know of, wages and benefits are not, by any means, a "good" wage"
someone earlier posted the average teacher wage for 9 months. Projected over 12 months, that is $55,000!
Someone said that Music and Arts are important. Im currently in a public school system and let me tell you; those classes are worthless. Free thinking is only possible to about.5% of the population of a public school as it is. When you put that .5% in with the other 99.5% of the population in that music and art class, it ruins the .5% that had little or no chance in the first place. Its my opinion that we should remove those classes from the curriculum, and focus on the important things. Math, Science, English, and Foriegn Languages. 90% of all students are complete morons; and thier wasting 90 minuets a day learning how to "feel" and "interperet thoughts". WASTE OF TIME!!!!!!!
And the Sith shall Rule Again!
In the 20 years I have followed computers as educational tools, I have yet to see a single credible (ie: not vendor paid) study which showed a benefit from using computers to teach normal kids normal subjects.
Once we get into special areas, things change.
For instance there have been many studies which show huge benefits to below average kids, where the computer can be used to implement repetitive teaching techniques.
Similar positive results have been documented for fringe topics and above average students.
Most of these fringe areas can be reduced to the simple phenomena of the computer being used to make up for a teacher shortage. None of the studies I have seen argues that the results are different from what would have happened if sufficient teachers where available to implement the same amount of teaching.
But still not one single study have shown a consistent, tangible benefit for normal kids in the normal basic subjects {$native_language, math, science}
Many studies and reports have pointed out tangible damage.
Considering how much money has been spent, that is a pretty disturbing scientific basis.
Anectodal evidence is distributed slightly different: All the good news is about things which are going to happen. Once the computer have been rolled in, we practically never hear good news.
Combine this situation with the recent study out of Chicago which documented that for each hour of television toddlers watched per day, they had 10% higher risk of ADD at age 7, and we have a really disturbing situation at our hands.
Poul-Henning
PS: And as somebody who is old enough to have written a lot of text on a type-writer, I can personally attest that it makes you think a lot more about the text before you write.
Poul-Henning Kamp -- FreeBSD since before it was called that...
The high school I attended in the late '90s had a pretty good supply of newish macs (mostly used for lunchtime gaming), but the typing class was on a farm of Apple IIs, using a word-processor instead of a typing program, and books that were designed for typewriters--and half the class was spent on typewriter-specific tasks, like how to center text, configure tab stops to make tables, and anticipating line-endings and hypenation rules.
It was quaint even then, lessons on how to churn butter or use a straight-razor would have been more useful and relevant.
And $55,000 is a lot of money? Somebody offered me that as a salary and I would roll on the floor laughing. That would barely cover my mortage after taxes.
I haven't been actively involved in the education system for a while but I can agree with the reviewer's summary of the book author's findings... at least in spirit.
Someone has cited they had a difference of opinion with educating professionals in that computer skills are a primary need versus science and math. I feel similar to this slashdotter except that I feel stronger language skills are needed primarily in our education system.
If nothing else indicates it to me, it's all the people around me who have difficulty forming good sentences... and in fact, as another slashdotter related, an English teacher was able to tell if a writing was written on a computer rather than on paper based on style and [lack of] structure. I think it's a tremendous weakness we are developing on a national level.
Consider that for most humans, they language they speak is also the language of their thoughts. Their thoughts are encoded by their native language... mostly. If their coding skills are weak, then it seems natural to understand that their thinking skills will be similarly limited. A lack of language skills may very well link to a lack of many other skills which are needed in day to day life.
While I cannot deny that math and science skills are required for more advanced formations of the mind, but a stronger basis in language should be imparted than is already. The computer (as understood by lay people) isn't a thinking machine and isn't a teaching machine and certainly not yet a learning machine. I believe, however, that many people believe to the contrary.
I see it as a communications medium first and foremost and I think that's exactly how it should be used in our schools. I think blogs should be institutionalized and even graded and commented on by our teachers. If it were an on-going, ungraded process, it could prove to be invaluable for developing language skills... which is the encoding for most people's minds.
set the kids in front of a tv with a dreamcast and a copy of typing of the dead
Gee, I live in a small town, and my friend Mark, who teaches chemistry at a local public school, recently sold his motor home. They enjoy their new custom-built home (with a special room dedicated just for his wife's quilting) so much that they don't travel anymore. Of course, travelling with a seven-member household is a bit tough. Fortunately, the oldest two children have moved out (aren't a part of the household anymore. That means that you add two to seven to get the size of the family .... raised on a public school teacher's salary).
My anecdotal evidence beats your anecdotal evidence, throws it to the mat, climbs on the ropes and pancakes it.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
> Many schools do benefit from computers--as long as the computers are in central labs (not in the classroom), and not networked. [Emphasis mine.]
Not networked? This would mean a student's access to information is limited by their school library (or nearby public library, if they have transportation). In my experience, school libraries don't have a very expansive and/or current selection. I would argue that the Internet is an important supplement to the school library.
They don't know how to use it either. Utilize is for impressing teachers. Use "use" instead.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
WTF ? Is this the richest nation of the world ?
The Raven
America overeducates its population. It's not about education itself. It's about getting more education than the other job applicants. Young Americans are thus locked into a futile, expensive competition that most of them are inevitably doomed to lose. Education has become an arms race, and as with other arms races, the only limit on cost is how much money is available.
The material that a K-12 student has to learn hasn't changed much in 50 years. Material K-9 students learn (reading, writing, and math) hasn't changed probably in a century. Chances are that a 10 year old text book on European history, physics, English, or Math is probably still good today.
But teaching the same stuff to kids year after year doesn't make someone a "Leader in Education". In order to be a Leader (heads of education departments at the local and national level) one must have "Vision". And of course this Vision doesn't come from updating history or science texts, or finding better ways to teach kids critical thinking. Leaders have to come up with "Visionary" ideas, like Computer in Every Classroom, or Laptop for Every Pupil, or Creation Science, and every other fad/scheme that garners broad *political* support.
Our K-12 system suffers because politicians are running the system.
In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
There are some uses for computers in the classroom.
:P
Do you really need a computer in every English classroom? Not really.
Are computers nice in say a Math classroom? Yeah.
My Multivariable Calculus professor uses Maple to show us what surfaces in R^3 look like and what partial derivatives and multiple integrals look like in R^3.
Now sure she could try and draw them on the board, but it is much easier to visualize what you should be doing when you can see a solid in R^3.
There are uses for technology in the classroom , just not that many
Your mortgage is >=$4000 a month? Damn, you live in a nice house. Or you live in LA/SF/NYC.
One example: it's been found in the laboratory that when two similar tasks or pieces of info need to be learned (e.g. A and B), that interleaving study/practice of them (e.g. ABBABAABABA) results in better longterm learning than blocking (e.g. AAAABBBB), even though interleaving appears to slow down the learning process. Another example is that it's better for longterm learning to have learners try to generate (come up with on their own) a piece of previously seen info, rather than simply re-reading it, even though generation is harder and, again, may appear to impair learning at first.
This kind of research, with a strong foundation in cognitive psychology, could be extremely important for all kinds of education. But specifically, we're using some web-based educational software as a testbed for this. Computers may make implementing something like interleaving or generation a lot easier to implement in real educational contexts. If we can use computers to harness the power that knowledge of the human mind gives us, then they can be terrific learning tools. Without using that knowledge, computers could easily do as much harm as good.
Here's our project website: http://www.psych.ucla.edu/iddeas/
(There has also been a lot of research on 'multimedia' and learning; see studies by Rich Mayer at UC Santa Barbara)
I am in favour of computers in schools. I write software for non expert users to use in a production system. I spend most of my time increasing the complexity of my code to make the applications simple to use by computer illiterate workers. I look forward to the the day where the computers are taken for granted and are as exciting or intimidating as digital watches are now. The only way you can get there is if children grow up taking them for granted and lose their fear. My daughter has had computers in her class since she started school. She is now ten. She now Knows how to make Quick time VR's, web pages and edit movies etc. To her these are not exceptional things. These methods are useful additions to her communication tool kit. You have to realise that the old pencil and paper method was not with out faults. To those people with dyslexia or those like my self with handwriting that even i can't read, written expression was very painful experience that closed a lot of doors for me. If I had access to a word processor then at least my teachers would have been able to read what I was trying to say. With regards to reading, The vast majority of text I read now is of the screen. Computers are the best way to handle the enormous amout of information that resides in electronic format. Books only real advantage is portability and power consumption. The problem with cut and paste answers in essays, is purely the result of the education system not knowing what questions to ask, in an age where every one has equal access to information. Examiners no longer know what they are trying to measure. Perhaps in the future students will be marked on there abilty to craft google searches
back in my day we printed on LP1
I said barely cover my mortgage. I pay about $2500 and I live in a townhouse. In total my expenses are about $3500/month including electric, cable, groceries, etc. And that is living an hour north of the city in a relatively small townhouse.
And I am really scared about our school system if you think that someone making $55,000 takes home $4,000 a month. After Federal, State, FICA, FUI, etc. I would be lucky to walk home with $3,200.
My anecdotal evidence has thrown your anecdotal evidence into a vat of acid and is giggling as it slowly burns away, writhing in agony.
You have to type fast to keep up with the conversation, and you have to be accurate or you sound like a doof.
There are a surprising number of doofs out there.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
"open source won't help a bit" But open source and cowboy neal are the answer to everything.
Second, teachers can spend hours after class going over tests/papers/paperwork/report cards. And of course they then have to plan out the next days lesson plan.
these days you don't have Apple ][s in the classroom. you have wintels and hacking stuff is considerd a suspendable offence. Not to mention the first programing class in my school is offered in high school.
One of the fundamental problems about using computers to educated is that it is much harder to be a pro-active learner, since it removes the capacity to physically engage with the medium. Rather, students who learn on computers tend to be passive learners, receiving the information as just that - information, rather than ideas. Because they can't write on the medium, physically interact with it, they are passive: eyes open, they take in the information as from a television. Since the point of education is to teach the mind to actively and thoughtfully engage with ideas, not simply process information, computers as a pedagogical tool can be contrary to the true purpose of education.
His articles have been hawking this stuff for years - and he repeatedly points out the failures in the system.
He leaves out large chunks of successes and the instances where there is little data to support change because in many of these areas there was no pre- to do a pre- and post- on.
For instance - ask students how often they were able to read current events - once a week when the weekly reader or the once-a-week newspaper (if their teacher bothered to do an NIE program), then ask them about the current accesss they have with a computer on the net.
For instance - the fluency in expression that the students see - music composition, digital art, etc. In music you have removed the need for a specific athleticism with a specific instrument and freed the students to compose - you'd be amazed how many there are - and this is Pre-Garageband. Compare this to the flutophone bands we all had to endure.
When most of us were young, we had two methods of expression, papers and showbox dioramas. If your vision of the world or your expressiveness didn't fit into one of these two molds, you were doomed.
For every anecdote Todd holds up about teachers and students on the low end of the scale of facility and effectiveness with electronic learning, there are just as many of not more that can show you glowing examples of where it works.
As for Cliff - he's a pretty good astronomer, but that hardly makes him an expert in the rest of his rants. His invented predicament about the dentist trained on CD-ROM instead of hands-on is a red herring. No one is suggesting that, but for a close comparison, look at the gains from virtual imaging made in anatomy - Cliff needs to spend a week in a med school anatomy class and see the quality of the anatomical structures in the cadavers that are usually found - pencil-sized biceps, untracable nerves and blood vessels, muscles so atrophied as to be indistinguishable, and then have a go at the Visible Human project and similar tools.
A lab full of kids surfing and IM'ing until the room sounds like a casino truly sucks and is hardly worth spending money on.
Networked students, properly managed and led by competent, trained educators is worth the effort and money.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
First question in my mind: Was this English teacher's snap judgements about which essays were "conceived on a computer", whatever that means, ever checked against reality? Or was it a case where the test method was verified by "internal evidence" (i.e., counting exactly the same factors that led her teacher-dar to bleat "conceived on a computer" in the first place, as if it were a second, independent verification that ruled out the possibility of a false positive? Beware of that 'internal evidence' phrase; every time I see it, it seems to amount to "I have no actual evidence for the assertions I'm making, but they fit the way I already believe things to be, which is good enough for me.")
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
and computers can't fix them.
So the latest thing to blame the failures of a coercive education system designed on the factory model that serves only a few of the many learning styles and punishes the others is: (taadaaa) technology!
Woo hoo. Take all the computers out of the schools, put all the abstract basket weaving back in, and then sit back and read how that was a dismal failure too (and not only can Johhny not read, but now he can't even punch the right little pictures on the McD's register).
Our schools will continue to fail most kids, most of the time, until we find the political will to re-design them for the modern era.
Can't wait for that, homeschool. Online homeschooling is growing by leaps and bounds. But do it via the social constructivist model that actually works:-).
Computers, used correctly, can be a great benefit to education. Take a look at the Teach Scheme project as an example- among other things, they use programming to help teach math. Educators, however, have to get a few things through their heads: 1) They're teaching life skills, not jobs skills. You don't need the latest and greatest of anything. I learned to write using Wordstar 3.0 on an 8086- Word 2 for Windows on a 133 MHz Pentium is enough, you don't need a 3GHz P-4 with Windows XP. Remember that your average 9th grader is still 8 years from entering the work place- so 2004 technology will be as obsolete when they land their first job as 1996 technology is today. And those 3rd graders? They're 14 years away from getting a job- today's technology will be like using 1990 technology. Windows 95 vr.s Windows XP doesn't matter. 2) Everyone needs to be taught to program. This isn't just a class for upper classmen (notice the *men*) looking to go into technical careers. I don't think 2nd or 3rd grade it too early to start teaching everyone to program- this is the point of the Logo language. And the earlier they come to it, the less strange it will be! 3) The computer needs to be used for more than rote memorization drills. This is the number one failure I see. Computers are, first and foremost, problem solving tools. This is why programming is so important- the *child* should be figuring out ways to get the computer to solve problems in the field being taught. With mathematics, this is easy- add a couple of graphics routines, and all of a sudden geometry comes alive. Algebra is all over programming. The computer has fascinating abilities as a musical instrument. Etc. As someone who was originally taught to write with pen on paper, I *hated* writting. One mistake and you had to copy the entire page over. Until I discovered computers. Opps- mispelled that word? Just go back and correct it. Hmm- that paragraph is in the wrong spot, let's move it. Don't worry about the details, get the ideas down and fix it later. This is still how I write (it's how I wrote this posting). And instead of hating writting, I enjoy it. Of course, this requires a lot more computers. Which is why it's important that school systems not buy the latest and greatest (which always cost), but instead can get by on seriously obsolete hardware. Lots of counter examples, of computers incredibly enhancing education, exist. See especially The Children's Machine by Seymore Papert. But notice how these success stories tend to follow my guidelines much more so than "traditional" education does.
The problem with computers are the idiot end users who still think in terms of computers as being magic. They probably do not realize it. Even IT people (bosses) I have worked for before think in terms of computers as magic. As long as people say it can be done if you just put a computer to it, this waste will continue at all levels of government and business.
There are very useful computer games out there (learning tools). But they do not make an education, only a small part of it. To make an education, you start with reading, writing, arithmetic, music, art, athletics (not sports) and socialization. These develop the mind in the most critical areas first. Believe it or not, language and physical learning are linked in very fundamental ways. Slashdot Posting and Google
Computers are only useful when the brain is to the point where they are able to be used as a tool. Education by gaming is mostly unsuccesful because the games are written to sell to our lazy entertain me desires, not to our educate me needs..
The other problem with computers is administrations pushing administrative work down on teachers via computers that eats up time they do not have. This I see much more often. Good record keeping on our children in school is important to the needs of the child. But, that requires smaller class sizes, and that means more teachers, less computers.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
Well put, the schools aren't failing most kids because of technology spending, their failing most kids because they aren't designed for learning.
Human learning should be as fun as monkey kids have chasing each other around the trees, that's how we're programmed to learn.
Now some kids like sitting in neat little rows and listen to teach drone on and scratch on the chalk board. For them, the schools are great.
Most kids though learn better in other ways, by doing things they find fun, and they deserve better than the current school model can give them. And when they don't get it, they cause all the trouble we see in the schools!
Seems to me that rather than a tool, the net would in fact be an excellent exercise in critical thinking to study in school: give the students any topic, ask them to research it (using all sorts of resources including the web), then analyse the findings. Did you double-check the facts you found? Is the source reputable? Are the arguments backed up by proper references? and so on...
Or have them study the topics of privacy and anonymity: how do you enforce them? Discuss free speech vs accountability... Piracy vs freedom of information... Copyright vs innovation...
Play role games using online forums as an exercise... Set up a Wiki Wiki and have students come up with an essay collaboratively... Then sabotage it and let them rescue it using moderation, caching, version control, password protection...
It would be foolish to ignore computers and the internet in the education system, it's just that you need to take into account the new challenges and opportunities they represent.
"In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
Because of this, I am likely to make better decisions about cryptography. I will not confuse a stream cypher with a one time pad.
Now:
More and more, my education is coming from the Internet.
I believe we need to rethink the whole concept of school, and what it is for.
Oh, and take points for using acronyms like IANAL, STFU, RTFA, et cetera.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Too many of them do this during the school day. The lesson plans were designed back in 1978 and they see no need to change them, so there is no work on this front. The tests and papers? They have other students grade them during class time. Thanks to the tenure system and union protection, the school can't fire these so-called "teachers".
This is why expanding public education with vouchers is so necessary: so more of our children can be taught in schools that are free of the public education problems: schools where teaching is a priority instead of getting rich at taxpayer expense. The unions more or less admit that it will improve education, and that the real reason they oppose vouchers is that private schools don't force teachers into the union.
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.
Those who can't teach, teach teachers.
Those who can't teach teachers, administrate.
Computers are a great tool and like any other tool they are not appropriate in all situations. Imagine a brain surgeon trying to use a rip saw to cut granite. This is like most teachers trying to teach literature using the computer. However, there ARE appropriate uses:
1 - Teaching design skills. Students can easily change graphic objects and fine tune a design. Instead of saying "Next time try to put the visual center a little lower" the teacher can say "Try making this text darker. It will lower the visual center."
2 - Math based homework. The computer gives the questions and marks the answers. Variables are randomized so students can't copy each others work. Students learn by doing and I couldn't possibly hand mark the amount of homework I give. The results have been spectacular.
The Syracuse Teachers Association has filed a complaint that would end an effort by its own members to provide extra classes to assist failing middle school students.
In one school, three teachers teach an extra period without extra pay. At another school, sixth-grade teachers volunteered to teach an extra period for no additional pay to keep classes small and give pupils more class time. But the program ended when the union complained.
The union contends their opposition will "help" the students by preventing the teachers from being spread thin.
"People are losing sight of the fact that we're in the business of educating children," said one parent whose child is getting extra help.
Shows you where the teachers' union priorities are. You can't even bring up the phony issue of "exploiting workers": the workers in this case initiated the program, but the union stomped on the workers in yet another case of unions quashing worker rights.
The problem isn't the computers or other technologies which are invading our schools. It's the environment of Academia, where bad teachers can't be punished, good teachers can't be rewarded, and there's no incentive beyond getting their students to get at least 800 on their SATs. Don't even get started on school boards, PTAs, and other obsticles to education. The rot is in the roots, and there's no saving this tree except to cut them out and replant.
I read a theory once which I believe to be the best idea to ever fix this system. Don't give teachers raises. Instead, upon entry into the work force each of their students would be tithed 1%-2% of their pretax salary, pooled together to then be divided equally among their old teachers. Theoretically, the better the teacher's job is done, the better their students will be paid, and thus the better teachers will be rewarded appropriately.
I've seen schools complain that they don't have enough money for teachers while handing out laptops to students (that don't survive the year).
I've seen the same schools literally dump older computers in the garbage.I don't have the clear answer, but the problem is clear. The people in charge are more interested in what will keep them in charge than what will help the teachers teach.
Free Mac Mini Yeah, it's
I am both a teacher and a computer advocate. In fact, I teach programming and operating systems at a local technical college.
Are computers the answer to our woes? Heck no.
Computers are just tools. They are a means to get to an end. In the right hands, a computer is a powerful tool. Programmed properly it will do wonderful things, limited only by the imagination (and the pocketbooks) of the program designers and coders. But it can't do everything.
People in power and people in ignorance think it is the messiah; but they don't know a computer is only as good as the program behind it. And it's support. Again, programmed and used properly it will do what is desired. The problem is (a) not everyone knows what they want, (b) the programmers still make mistakes programming, and (c) people don't use them properly. This is a case where a workman can blame the poor tool.
There is a long road ahead before we will see what computers will really do. These past 50 years of computing are just a start. For you younger readers, look back to today from 40 or 50 years out and see where we are. You might be asking the same questions we ask here-- but I hope not.
As for educating people-- leave that to real live instructors, teachers, and professors. Spend that money you put into computers into raising the teachers standards and salary (you know they deserve it). Don't spend it on a piece of hardware that will be obsolete in 18, 36, or 54 months, just so you can replace a teacher. Shame on administrators who think like that.
OK, I'm riled up. So I better quit now.
The first sentence is unclear. Is the teacher looking for a one-sentence answer or getting one? The clauses ("asking..." and "there's...") aren't parallel, either. The second sentence refers to the individual omitted from the first. The third sentence is a fragment. The fourth sentence refers, presumably, not to anyone mentioned in the previous three sentences, but to some other people; "these people" evidentally don't include "the person".
Might the problem be that the students have incoherent teachers as role models? You aren't going to learn to write logical arguments if your teacher doesn't link ideas or develop the relationship between them.
Way back in 1984, I helped our middle school art teacher setup an Apple II with a "drawing" program. His idea was to slowly build the computer into his curiculum and allow his students to learn about what he (correctly) saw as the single most important development in the graphic arts industry after offset lithography. He saw the computer as a means for artists to use color and form without regaurds to material costs.
Twenty years later, the program he established is still going, but with the shift to outcome-based education in the late 90s, the program morphed into a pre-training course for page layout. Instead of artists, we get techicians. Instead of creativity, we get competencies. The program is shown as a success by the school district, but the teacher views at as a dismal failure.
stfu you white piece of sh1t!
The fact that we are having this discussion through a computer, in near enough to real time, seems to contradict your view. You have just interacted with my post in a non passive way. I think this highlights the error of the thesis that computers don't help education the slashdot system is extremely educational, far more so than many of the traditional means and it is only accessable via computer
I'm a school's technology teacher (previously a software engineer), and I've been on and off researching this topic, and experiencing. If used right, computers can be a great asset in student learning. The best example I've seen so far is the use of a graphic organizer (Kidspiration for example) to let the special education kids give themselves a voice. These are kids who have trouble writing paragraphs due to their disabilities, but thrive when set down using Kidspiration. However the majority of teachers here just let the kids type up their essays on them which is sad. I've been trying to push them in a new direction, but some refuse/don't want to learn. Those that do use the technology in a creative/fun/educational way have engaged kids that are actually learning.
Don't get me wrong, many teachers deserve to be paid a livable wage and receive the respect, support, and neccessary authority due to a professional educator, but if someone is just going to sit there like a glorified babysitter and pass moron after moron because they've either given up on this mass of spoiled, parentally ignored brats or too stupid to think of a creative and effective way to actually teach said brats, no amount of pay, respect, or "experience" (read: tenure) is going to make them an effective teacher.
Not noteable, IMO a rubbish article.
....but don't learn them from Newton.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
The problem is that many want a black and white solution to gray problems. The problems facing todays educators cannot be solved with one solution. A few years back both the Wall Street Journal and 60 Minutes looked at one of the best public schools systems in the nation: The Department of Defense schools for military families.
At first, you would think that they would be one of the worst performers. The students are uprooted every few years as their parents are transferred. A majority of the students come from families that live just above the poverty line.
But the students rank among the best in the nations when it comes to test scores. The gap between minority and white students is almost non-existant with a high percentage of the students being minorities. Eighty percent of students go to college.
How do they do it? Some answers given:
More money is spent per student than in most public schools. Parents are heavily invovled with the education. Discipline is almost never a problem. A higher percentage of teachers have masters than most other schools. All these factors intertwine.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The union was protecting all of it's members AND the kids by getting the school board to pony up the money to make sure that this isn't dependent on the good will of individual teachers but is budgeted and planned for.
Why are the vast majority of these anti-teacher screeds AC?
I've gotten this crap from writing teachers since high school. They always complain, giving you vague critiques such as "you don't link these ideas" or "these ideas aren't developed enough". Then when you ask them specifically how to 'better develop' these ideas, they can't give you an answer. Usually they show you an example of 'good' writing, or give you more vague, useless advise. If there is a method, no one yet has explicitly verbalised it, in my short academic career. You either have it, or you don't. If you don't, ol' teach can't help you.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
With LyX, you get clean-looking output without having to tweak a ton of settings. It's very useful as a tool to get straight down to the business of composition, without worrying the output will look a mess.
Rhetoric.
The benefit of a classical education.
-- Cerebus
I have actually taught computers to children. There are two roads to take, all others lead to the mistakes the book uncovers.
First, use the computer as the tool it is meant to be. Use it instead of a typewriter, for example. Nothing beats a computer for teaching children how to type. It's also good for administering automatic rote quizzes. Et cetera.
Oh, and as an information tool. It shouldn't replace actual books and encyclopedias, but it makes a great adjunct reference tool. But it's use in this area needs to be monitored, or it becomes merely another "glass teat". (you don't teach kids how to multiply by giving them a calculator, so why teach them how to research by giving them the web?)
Second, use it to teach computer science. As in programming. Logo is a great learning language. Children will learn algorithms and logical thinking. For older (or brighter) students you can use a "real" high level language like Java, Python or Ruby. Or set up a small LAN to learn about networks. Or learn HTML, CSS, and ECMAscript. The trick here is that you're teaching about the computer, instead of through the computer. Of course, this requires considerable knowledge on part of the teacher.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
It's simply absurd to suggest that your typical educator or politician blindly believes that computers are the solution to America's education woes.
You discount the real reason for public school: Dumbing down the general populous to make obedient factory workers and soldiers.
Don't take my word for it, read the works of those people who founded the forced public schools.
I can whole heartedly recommend the works of New York State Teacher of the Year John Taylor Gatto.
The public school system in America is working perfect for what it was designed to do.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
My particular "screed" defended the teachers against the union thugs who actually filed a frivolous lawsuit to prevent them from teaching.
"Second: The school should have been paying the teachers to be doing this instead of depending on their volunteering"
This particular school district already pays its teachers hansomely, and there is no money left.
"The union was protecting all of it's members AND the kids"
Don't kid yourself. The union was acting against the kids. It cut off an educational path, and never restored it.
"My anecdotal evidence has thrown your anecdotal"
At least it refers to real situations as opposed to stuff you are just making up.
The best solution to the union vs education problem is to make teaching a "right to work" profession. Make union membership the choice of each teacher. This will protect teachers from being forced into political groups that have nothing to do with the job itself.
"Technology" is just a word and a very fuzzy one at that since so much could fit in that category.
Have a process that has goals and clear reasons for why those goals are chosen. When tools are picked out, they should strictly support those goals. Picking out the technology beforehand is not a goal, it's a conclusion!
The hardest part is finding out what to do and what not and why since that requires listening, failing, talking, and not repeating the same !@#@$! problems again and again! The term 'best practices' is abused often, though the idea is still important.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
One the surface, this sounds like the same whingy crap that I found in "Digital Hemlock". Some luddite doesn't understand how to use a computer and doesn't like the fact that they're "forced" to, so they compile a list of reasons why Computers Are Bad (mmmkay?). The author of Digital Hemlock pretty much called all the higher-ups at her university incompetent. I didn't get all that far through it, but there are echos of it in this review.
How can you be so sure? I mean, computers (and the software to run them) are merely tools that can be innappropriately applied (as this book puts forth), but I have reason to believe that open source will help students to learn, at least more about computers.
Haven't you seen a nifty piece of software and wondered "how did they do that?"? With closed source, you may never know, but with open source you can easily get the source and learn from it.
Nathan's blog
This sounds like a well-done homage to the original techno debunking book: Theodore Roszak's The Cult of Information: A Neo-Luddite Treatise on High Tech, Artificial Intelligence, and the True Art of Thinking . This masterly work traces the wild-eyed yarns of techno-fetishists and their singularity fantasies right back to the dawn of the cimputer age. It's especially noteworthy for debunking lots of the 1950s and 1960s predecessors to the current crop of techno fetishists that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s and that are usually held up as examplars.
Da Blog
> The book sums up America's past 20 years of
> false promises, senseless faddism, and wasted
> millions in attempts to computerize the
> nation's education system.
On the other hand, certain other types of...education...flourished thanks to it.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
What framework would that be?
What framework could that be?
It depends on the size of the voucher in the program. Many provide enough for the poor to attend. Yet, the anti-education lobby (NEA, etc) opposes these, too, because it means the growth of schools where teachers are not forced into the NEA.
"public schools would be left with fewer dollars to teach the poorest of the poor and other students who, for one reason or another, were not private school material."
No, they would not at all. The public schools are left with fewer dollars AND fewer students, so they still have the same money for education. Some voucher programs in fact demand that some of the money still to go the public school for students who do not go there anymore.
If you were really concerned about "the poorest of the poor", you would not want them to be stuck in inferior schools. You would want vouchers so they can improve their education.
Until recently, I worked in an EFL (English as a Foreign Language) school in East Asia. Unfortunately, the school and much of the country where I lived are now in the throes of Computer Aided Language Learning (CALL)-philia. Schools are looking for ways to keep students coming back, and computer programs that teach English are one of the big hooks.
Unfortunately, it doesn't really work. Students are given exercises to do on the computer that amount to low-quality worksheets, but with audio and video. The computer can't correct writing, and the only help it gives to pronunciation is letting the students listen over and over to themselves -- something that could be done just as well with a tape recorder.
Students also use online chats and compositions to help their English. The chats are clearly not going to do much besides ingrain their already excessive use of AOL talk. The compositions are better -- it is actually good for them to get practice writing in English on a computer -- but this is hardly something that needs to be done online.
The main promise of CALL is helping busy students who can't come to regular classes, but even here, a computer can't give the kind of personally-attuned feedback that a physically present teacher can. Until there is AI, CALL will be largely a waste of time, in my opinion.
Edward DeBono was televised a couple of weeks ago on the national press club highlighting once again the need for thinking skills to be taught. I routinely teach my 2yo that, computers are dumb and start from there.
On a side note the most interesting comment DeBono talked about was on original idea generation. He commented that when companies cannot compete with price (India, China), when skill competancy has been commoditized, new idea generation becomes the differentiator. Teaching, how think early is even more important.
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
In my experience, most public school teachers had a spouse who provided the real income in the family. So if there was enough supply of these privately funded teachers to fill the classrooms, would you still think teacher salary was based on supply and demand?
What you have in elementary teaching has is a market supplied with teachers who are funded elsewhere, by other means of income. You must admit, your rather narrow view of the economics of the situtation is skewed.
Also, I can't believe you haven't analysed this in your "supply and demand" calculations, but they could only possibly apply to private education. In a world where the taxpayer pays for public education, free market rules of supply and demand cannot possibly be meaningful because there is no direct connection between buyer and seller. If there were, extremely competent teachers could demand higher salaries based on their compentence. In a public taxpayer-funded system, that cannot possibly happen.
Therefore, the best solution is to create standards for competence and pay all public teachers a livable wage.
I agree to a large extent that technology is not the problem. What is a serious problem is that most classes are taught by teachers with little *understanding* of the technology. Consequently students with computers at home may be more adept than the teachers. This leads to control problems such as students using net send to discuss exam questions....
Additionally, you have the tendency to teach to the exam rather than promote creative thinking (I think that the fact that music and art don't fit this model is a major reason why they are so underfunded). So the computers are used to try to spoon feed the students the ability to pass tests, which computers do remarkably well, but at the cost of *education.*
But one questions: How do you make students more responsible for their own education? The answer I think is to try to ensure that we do have more teachers, so that each student can receive the individual attention he or she needs. I don't knwo how I would handle being a teacher. The current system does not allow for excellence, though a few excel despite (rather than because of) the current system.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Do you not see your own brand of blindness here? I readily admit I'm a math and science geek, and love both. But I will also say that math and science are completely useless to a LOT of people who could not care less about it, and in fact, it's OKAY that they don't care. Very few things in this world require science or high-level math past arithmetic.
While you have a point that math and science, as such, are required for very few of us, a basic education in these topics is very important to be successful in today's society because they are disciplines which force one to be very specific and careful about the framing and communication of ideas. This skill is very useful for managers (as is statistics training which none ever seem to have), engineers (as well as math and science), technical support people, etc.
Of course there could be other disciplines that could have the same effect. Perhaps an introduction to case law.... But then that would be as much or more work than the basic introduction ot the sciences that people get in school.
The question is: What are we trying to teach people to be? Data-entry clerks? Educated thinkers? People who can get a minimum-wage job? What intellectual disciplines are important to help them be able to handle the information in this role?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Why would you want to use a system for organizing books that requires that it be drilled into your head from an early age? that is a big beef of mine when it comes to school and public libraries. The Dewey Decimal system is an arbitrary system for numerically categorizing books.
I MUCH prefer the Library of Congress system, as it is more scalable and actially *makes sense.* Perhaps schools shoudl be drilling the better system into pupil's heads so that they actually learn how to organize information rather than trying to force it to match arbitrary numeric categories which resist subdivision.
I do agree that learning takes discipline and hard work. Aquiring knowledge becomes, however, fun in itself rather than requiring a computer to teach you how to play games that supposedly relate to real life.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Two things come to mind after reading this thread...
One, teachers are rarely computer literate. This is changing slowly, but generally speaking the third graders know more than they do. As a direct result, teachers are unable to utilise these resources effectively and they become a serious problem. Internet access in school classrooms does not help this at all, the number of times my kid sister has messaged me from school to "chat" amazes me.
Two, children are not learning how to communicate properly using these resources. They definitely resort to one word or one line answers, and consistently fail to know how to dig deeper into issues. Online resources like Google don't help - yes, Google is a godsend to you and I, but at the age of 15 these kids don't have a clue how to research. If the answer isn't in Google, they assume it doesn't exist. Not good.
Third, lack of math/science education is bad news for us all. I'm not saying that we all have a need for second and third order differential integration, but there's no doubt that basic understanding of mathematical principles is valuable. My GF has trouble figuring out how to pack large objects into the boot of the car, simply because she wasn't taught trigonometry very well in high school. Sounds trivial, but extrapolate that small example as far as you like and you should find dozens of common situations where this sort of knowledge is important.
Four, and worst of all, I saw something on Big Brother last night that applies here (sad, I know). A couple of housemates had never heard of the Vietnam War. They had no idea what it was, when it happened, who was involved, etc. This war happened right at the start of my life, it wasn't something a hundred years ago! Where did this get missed in their education?!?!
Surely all these issues need addressing, and cutting sections of education simply because computers are expensive is obviously not the answer. Personally, I'd be all in favour of cutting Internet access in schools off from all but selected workstations (heavily locked down library machines, used only for research for example), locking down every piece of software to minimise opportunity to "mess around", and generally restricting what computers are used for in school.
My school years (not too long ago I might add) resulted in almost no computer education at all, heavy math/science, and lots of broad knowledge. The end result is that I can use computers better than most, I can understand how just about anything works, and I am a professional problem solver (ie. network architect). Somehow I doubt that the current batch of students will be capable of the same things.
Can I get a PDF of this book?
If this book is correct, and the benefits of educational computing are overrated, perhaps it's time to consider repealing some of the universal service fee (a.k.a. the Gore tax) tacked onto phone bills to wire the schools? (We're not talking pennies here; the FCC collects $2+ billion each year.)
I spend an inordinate amount of time online (reading /., playing games, etc), or fiddling with other aspects of my computer when I really should be studying (case in point I have a term paper due tomorrow and finals all next week).
/. ;)
As an independent college student, I often consider canceling my connection (except maybe a dial-up for file storage somewhere) and uninstalling every game I own...
Sometimes I even think I should hawk my computer entirely...
Would I ever? NO!
Do I think that the computer and the internet are useful tools when used correctly? ABSOLUTELY!!!
My point is that it forms such an easy, malleable and compliant distraction that.... well, sometimes it's tough to buckle down and get anything at all done.
Do I think this effects the experience of young persons in a class-room setting? Yep...
I think that computers do have a role in certain educational environments (like computer science, and mathematical modeling for the sciences), and that students should be required to make use of computers in their studies(typing, and research skills), but I must accede that for the most part computers in the classroom do little or no good, and wouldn't be missed were they not present.
Call me a troll if you will, but I speak from the gut and past experience on this... I could be getting so much else done... BUT it is so damned enjoyable reading
Of blankness, I know nothing.
I can certainly testify of money spent on horrible software in the name of education. I administrate a computer lab in a College of Education, and some of the crap they want me to install would make you puke. Retarded games with unintuitive interfaces is the worst of them, and they are predominantly on the Macintosh side. They're marketed through the textbook companies, which makes me wish I could get a job programming for them; I'd write better software with a pint of tequilla in me.
Ignorance kills, complacency kills, hatred kills, but usually not the ones guilty of them.
> as a tech heavy future teacher why would I use a chalkbord or a markerboard to sketch out things when I __could of__ had all of that already prepared and formalized months or years in advance
> If you cannot use a textbook to read through the examples __than__ do the problems by yourself __than__ you most likely will not grasp the conceptual basis upon which the subject rests
I guess you're not all that familiar with 'mainstreaming.' I'd pay money to hear you do this little rant in your Meeting Special Needs course.
> Special Ed takes a lot of sacrifice, good for you. __Me personally__ could not care less for them and I treat them indifferently as subhumans sort of like I do dogs and cats... Think me a monster for thinking of the disabled children as I do, and that is why I will not be teaching special ed as I think it mostly wasteful.
Americans in particular tend to resist the "labeling" of students into careers at "too early" an age even though it's proven from other countries that it's much better. I think the problem with the education system is too many "teachers" and not enough "masters of trade".
I think a more creative approach would be to take the 5 individual teachers a kid would have till 4th grade and have them be very experienced in specific diciplines...an engineer, doctor, policeman, businessman, farmer, etc. Go thru 5 years of general studies and do activities that bring out student's natural skills! If you have people that are in the field and LIKE the field, they will be able to pick out those students very easily at the 4th grade level.
The difference between the $40k workers and the $100k workers in all fields is how early they got hooked on it! Look at guys like Anand [from ananandtech] He got interested in that web thingy early on and his parents definately suported him to get going. Sure, it wasn't what he ended up going to school for, but he got going early and people didn't try to tell him he was "too young" or "inexperienced" My point is that the "good jobs" are being filled by kids that know entering high school what they really want to do...and what they need to get it! Too many schools are falling to the "pick a major in college" mindset rather than giving kids the motivation to get there!!!
Look everyone, an unemployed english major. I do not believe in mainstreaming as it does not benefit anyone except the special ed kids. They offer something to gawk at, take care of, or to admonish endlessly about simple social ettiquette in terms of the other kids. I fail to see any reason why they should be included in normal education cicruits unless we start finding dolphins with 50-60 IQ and "mainstreaming" them as well.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
I'm one of almost 400 people trying for one of the 12 spots on the reality show American Candidate. It's a mock run for the president. One of my main platforms is along the lines of what this book discusses.
Take a look at my plan for using computers to advance education and let me know what you think.
Education Plan.
Paul Sundling
AC Homepage
My Campaign site, www.planatar.com
P.S. As a geek candidate, if you like what you see you can always click on my support link. Anyhow, feedback is reward enough anyway.
In Online Learning Magazine's January 2001, issue, Cliff Stoll said:
"With time, people will recognize that e-learning is a fair to middling way of transmitting facts to a lot of people, but it's not a great way to actually get people inspired and pumped up about a subject.
For the past 3,000 years, since Socrates, we have yearned so desperately for a cheap, fast, effective way to teach. It doesn't exist. The old law of economics applies to learning: you can have it cheap, fast, or good. Something that's cheap and fast isn't going to be very good. You want cheap fast food? Hey, go to your fast food place! But it's not going to be very good. Likewise in learning. You want something that's cheap and fast? Hey, log on! You'll get cheap, fast learning. But it won't be good learning - it won't be learning that sticks with you."
I agree with Cliff.
Reviews of The Flickering Mind (NYT, etc.) here
The playing monkeys get killed and eaten by predators, and sometimes fall out of the trees and get hurt. If natural selection is allowed to work it's magic, and not-very-bright children get removed from the gene pool, then learning by playing might work.
Sadly, our children are not usually allowed to get hurt or experience failure.
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
Let's see. This editorial (strongly anti-Bush by the way), tells of how Bush increased education funding:
An increase of 15.9% in arts education funding in 2003
An increase of 2.8% in arts education in 2004
A report on Bush's "Broken Promises" at democrats.org mentions Bush's 2.8% increase in overall education spending: an additional amount spent of $1.4 billion.
I went to the anti-Bush sites just to avoid any pro-Bush bias from right-wing and moderate sites. These sites do actually tell of definite increases in Bush education spending (while arguing that the increases are not enough). Whether or not the increases are enough, the fact that the Bush budgets increase education spending prove the left-wing claim of Bush education funding cuts to be a lie. They did the exact same thing when they called Newt Gingrich's 20% medicare spending increase a "cut".
If you end up spending more on something than you did the year before, that is not a cut. Basic arithmetic.
Get real. All the tests do is measure minimum profiency. If the teachers really were teaching, they would not have to worry about "teaching to the test". The only schools and teachers who need fear the tests are the ones that are too lazy to teach children to read and count.
Answer all those questions for me; and remember, no algebra allowed.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Unfortunately, I can only find links to the story from right-wing sites who would typically take up this kind of cause anway.
People need to realize that any public (in the U.S. meaning of public) education system can never stay devoted to teaching kids to reach thier highest potential in intelligence and critical thinking. With the politicians in charge of determining what the abilities of the future generations are, you have to look at motivations.
It is not in the best interest of the sheperd to raise smarter sheep.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
For a school district that doesn't have a lot of money to spend computers seem like a particularly bad investment.
$5000 will buy maybe 5 computers. In 5 years you'll have some very nice paperweights.
$5000 will buy more than 100 books. In 5 years you'll still have perfectly functional books.
Something that has not been discussed much here is that using technology to support teaching has not actually been implemented in the ways envisioned by those who initially proposed improving education with computers. The role of technology was intended to be an aid to the exploration of mathematics and the sciences, aids to learning about large systems, simulations and the like. Instead, the educational establishment has co-opted technology, dumbed down its uses (drills and turning it into a typewriter..). The solution is not to remove tools such as computers from the classroom, but to use them well. As has been pointed out elsewhere computers and the internet can be a powerful mechanism for displacing standard schooling and schools. Many thoughtful scientists and educators, such as Seymour Papert and Alan Kay have proposed uses for technology in education that make sense, work, and are still not widely implemented. Here are some references: Kay developed Squeak and simulations for children while Papert developed LOGO, MaMaMedia, and testified before congress about appropriate uses of technology in schools: http://kids.www.media.mit.edu/projects/kids/sp-tal k.html. There is a conference at the University of Maryland, (Interaction
Design and Children )
taking place June 1-3 about technology, children, and how the two can interact to improve things such as education.
> I believe we need to rethink the whole concept of school, and what it is for.
School, at least theoretically, is to ensure that all adults have the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in modern society.
Learning those skills may not be fun - I'm sure there are millions of kids who would rather play than learn to read - but it's very much in everyone's best interests that those kids nevertheless learn those skills.
If you can come up with a way to make every child want to learn every skill they'll need for adulthood, and make every child capable of learning on their own (most can't do the time management), everyone would love to hear about it. But, in the meantime, school's the best way we've found to impart the skills modern society requires.
> I have presented possible coursework for half a dozen classes only to have it all summarily rejected
> even though 95% of it was open source and all of it was free.
Sure it was open source.
Sure it was free.
But was it _useful_?
Do you know how the teacher had planned out the lessons for the class? Do you know what your proposed work would have pushed out of the lesson plan? Do you know how much extra work your proposals would have forced on the teacher? Do you know what gap in the lesson plan the proposal would have filled, or what section it would have improved, or how it would have made the class better for anyone but you?
I agree with you that it would have been cool for the teacher to embrace your proposed coursework, but there are many reasons beyond "teachers fear tech" for which your proposals might have been rejected.
_Talk_ to the teachers and ask them what _they_ need, not what _you_ want to give them. Maybe you'll find a way to make both of you happy, and improve your class in the bargain.
Unless you talk things through with your teachers, they'll never accept a proposal that's just dumped on them. That effective interpersonal communication is probably the most important skill you'll ever learn is just a nice side benefit.
> What is a serious problem is that most classes are taught by
> teachers with little *understanding* of the technology.
What is "the technology" in a history class?
What is "the technology" in an elementary math class?
What is "the technology" in a music class?
Many people seem to be discussing the question as if "technology" and "computers" were synonyms, which is _false_. Here, we have a different equation:
TECHNOLOGY = TEACHING METHODS
We don't need history teachers to understand everything about computers - that's not their job. What we need is for history teachers to understand the methods and practices of _teaching history_, regardless of whether that involves computers or pencil-and-paper.
Too many people appear blinded by the way their own lives are spent - revolving around computers - to realize that that's not the way everything works. Maybe computers have a solid role in teaching history, but maybe they're nothing but a waste of time for it, and "understanding computers" has vastly less to do with whether that's true than "understanding history eduction" does.
The technology in question here is teaching methods. And how many of you can claim to understand _that_ technology?
> both educators and politicians...believe that by giving students the
> 'technological edge', they will be better pupils and move farther faster.
That would be due to the magic pixie dust used in the manufacture of CPUs, right?
Looking for this sort of no-effort-required silver-bullet solution is exactly what kept snake oil salesmen in business:
"Just apply a small amount of Ronco Computers to your students, and their education woes will vanish in minutes!!"
No, they won't. There are no siler bullets to kill hard problems. How long will it take before people stop looking for shortcuts, and start realizing that only effort creates quality, and a tool is only as good as its wielder?
Since you teach history, I just had to say this bit:
I always disliked history classes in high school. I mean, really disliked. I also considered them a waste of time.
I did, however, avidly read every history textbook we used (usually in other classes after finishing work). I found that they were a ton of fun to read, and usually finished them a couple of weeks into the semester.
In university, I took only a single history course, but I loved it.
The problem with the high school classes seemed to be that my teachers mostly handed out a list of things to memorize. The work wasn't a lot of fun. Attempts at discussion were mostly shot down because a lot of people didn't care. The curriculum just wasn't *enjoyable*. Questions were generally multiple-choice matching, because it's hard to grade people on historical knowledge.
One of the few enjoyable high school history classes I've ever had was when some poor student teacher in my history class had a curriculum that dictated that students do quick one-day research on subjects, and describe them to the class. The teacher would then have the class discuss pros and cons of the subject.
Discussion had be pretty much dead, when finally the class hit one particular subject. Some student had to research "lynching". Needless to say, not a lot of people were interested in the discussion, and finding "pro-lynching" people was hard. I figured that this'd be a blast to debate, and started in full-steam (lynching is fairly efficient, isn't very suceptable to political corruption, is often a good direct representation of majority feeling). A couple people looked puzzled, and started thinking "hey, this isn't right. I don't agree with lynching" and started arguing the point. People finally got involved.
In general, I think that people enjoy history when it alters their view of things. When you read about Nazi prisons and learn the kind of things that people are capable of in sufficiently organized institutions, when you learn what mistakes could cause something as massive as World War I, when you learn why people could believe something as "silly" as the world being flat. I like history when it makes you re-evaluate your world and self-view.
Just memorizing a list of names or dates, spitting them back, and promptly forgetting them does little or nothing for that -- and without fail, all of my high school courses did exactly that. Dates are useful, yes, in that the order of events can be useful in helping people understand how events affected other ones. For example, the dates in Hitler's rise to power are pretty useful (just because they can show how quickly/slowly someone can pull something off). But in general, I think that the emphasis on date memorization in history is an artifact of it being easy to test people on dates.
Education:
Summary
Nationalize curriculum, complete revamp of system to use advanced computer technology and variety of teaching methods in a self improving system
Benefits
* Vast improvement to entire education system
* Less variance between schools
* Self improving system
* Quicker completion of current level curriculum
* Easier access to vocational training
* Tremendous economic benefits of more skilled average American
* Economies of scale on technical and educational development
* Expanded school hours could potentially act as day care
Costs
* In short term, increased education costs
* In short term, migration to new system difficult
Details
Students I have tutored from public schools were years behind those from private academies. Some high school graduates are still ill prepared for college level course work. As the most powerful country in the world, it's unacceptable that we score pooly in high school math and science.
Every time a president claims to be an education president, the normal solution is to throw more money at the problem, perhaps throwing in a few teachers. A fundamental change is needed to make lasting progress. Using a partnership between technologists and educators is a key to tremendous potential.
Teaching hasn't changed much in 50 years, while technology has improved a thousand fold. The education system will be revamped to use technology and self-improving processes in a feedback loop. Teachers can test innovative teaching methods and successful ones will be made part of the educational process. If we improve the efficiency of our curriculum, those who hate school can graduate earlier or get free vocational training. Those college bound, could build up ever more college level coursework while still in high school.
Since education is a cornerstone of my platform, I'm going to take some time to concentrate on it. Let me first tell you an example of what happen to me in our current educational system. I was pretty shy, so I stayed at the back of the classroom. At that age, I didn't realize I wasn't just like everyone else, that I was supposed to be able to see the front of the classroom. So what happened? My teachers classified me as retarded.
This could have ended badly, except my mom would not accept I was retarded. I was taken out of school and tested. They discovered how terrible my vision was and gave me glasses. I returned to school and in first grade even qualified for the mentally gifted minds program. I was smart, not retarded.
Besides that, I also had some trouble with learning to read. A teacher took some extra time to help me and once I learned to read I loved it and was an avid reader with a large vocabulary. By high school, I was like a walking dictionary. I was saved because of people around me that cared.
So what would have happened if I had trouble reading when I was classified as retarded? It would have been seen as proof that I was indeed retarded and I would have lived a very different life. I had to redo kindergarten, so it still cost me a year. With the right educational system, we will find our children are even smarter than we gave them credit for and we will more quickly diagnose learning disabilities as well.
How would my plan change the education system? I'll start with an insight from educators featured in spring 2004 copy of UCLA magazine.
Educators discovered a common misconception was that the correct answer always follows the equal sign, instead of understanding that equals means "the same as". In my personal tutoring experience, I've noted that problems with math often start from a previous misunderstood concept, like fractions. A chain reaction of confusion follows until math is a frustrating, hated subject. So these insights into where a student got off track are critical.
Let's say I have a student with these problems:
1 + 4 = ___ (they put 5, correct!)
4 +
Right now I'm at my ninth year of elemtary school (doing exams now) so I must be one of those students who should be using computers. I'm not living in America but the problems discussed are pretty much the same here.
The problem isn't the computers, saying that an essay or report for that matter, would be generally better if written on paper isn't completely true either. If the pupils really get used to writing with a computer, it can make things much more effective. For example, we had to write an essay at one exam, we had about 4 hours to do this and I was one of those who chose a computer. It's required that we have tried doing the same thing using nothing but a pencil, some paper and a dictionary. The time I wrote without a computer my teacher said it was really nice, but not too well put together, and that I strayed from the subject over the course of my essay. Now this has never occured to me when writing on a computer. As someone pointed out before, you can write sentences and expand it, later on chaining it all together producing an exellent essay, this is not possible on paper cause you'd have to do it all over again.
The problem lies in the fact that teachers aren't educated in integrating computers into the lessons! Until there's a generation shift in the teacher staff, you won't see the real benefit of computers. It's like asking a normal person which dam would yield the biggest power output, they have no chance of knowing.
Laws on computer usage in schools are quite restrictive too, all our computers are windows 98 (soon to be XP if you can call that progress) with microsoft office, this is two huge expenses and adding hardware to that pile makes it even more expensive. And anybody can look at the exel sheets and hopefully come to the conclusion, that they aren't suited for any medium to higher level of math work, I haven't even finished elementary school, and already I find it troublesome to accomplish my tasks with it.
You can't expect computers to be effective when they are operated by people with almost no knowledge about them (teachers). And a bunch of so called technicians believing that windows, office and the internet is the solution.
I fail to see any reason why they should be included in normal education
Aren't you glad someone didn't say that those with poor people skills and an inability to relate to other people didnt' say that about you? Gifted in IQ you may be, but in terms or your ability to understand and relate to people, you are working at an elementary school level. Yes, that's a judgemental comment. It's a judgement based on years of experience working with people with emotional and developmental difficulties.
You are so busy judging people that fall short of your standards, you don't realize that in many ways you fall short of quite a few standards yourself. You may have the high IQ, but it is quite clear you do not know how to use it to work with people.
You do not have any sense of balance in life. You demonstrate an inability to understand anything beyond pure intelligence and knowledge. You are lucky you were shunted into the gifted program, since you have shown that you do not understand how to survive in normal social situations. All that intelligence, yet you are unable to see the intrinsic value of each person as an individual, or to understand the value in the wide variety of human experiences.
I'm sick and tired of hearing teachers bitch about their salaries! I make about $16,000 a year working full-time. I'm currently attending university to become an elementary school teacher, and I can expect to double my salary (and enjoy excellent job security) the day I get my diploma. Most teachers I've met aren't worth what I'm making now, much less what they think they deserve.