Slashdot Mirror
Students Do Better Without Computers
Gogogoch writes "The Telegraph
is reporting a large study that shows that the less students use computers
at school and at home, the better they do in international tests of literacy
and math. The more access they had to computers at home, the lower they scored
in tests, partly because they diverted attention from homework. Students tended
to do worse in schools generously equipped with computers, apparently because
computerised instruction replaced more effective forms of teaching. " Worth noting that it took almost 20 years for PCs in the corporate environment to actually have a positive impact on productivity; might the same be true in education?
This is clearly a hormonal thing, and it's like making a case against human evolution. The computers are here and they aren't going anywhere. Learn how to use them to improve your test scores or find better porn - the choice is yours. I don't think you can make a case against students learning to use computers now, as opposed to waiting until they are over 40 and trying to find the Any Key.
Corporations still have a hell of a time keeping employees off of Solitaire and Minesweeper. I think this is not a computer problem, but a "bored at work" problem. I can remember my teachers in high school - most of them were the most boring people you would care to meet. A select few would enlighten and invoke interesting discussion and methods to achieve success on the course.
So this clearly is not a computer problem, but a teacher problem. Adding a distractive device that lets you leave a boring class is only a small price to pay to prevent the stagnation of our children's collective intellects.
Let's put more money into better programs and methods for teaching, and wash out the teachers who aren't interesting. Maybe add some profit incentives for teachers?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
I think there is some truth to this, as I am in my Business Ethics class right now, and I'm looking at /. while I should be paying attention and taking notes
I blame it all on MTV!
Which 20 years are Hemos referring to? It was my understanding that all recent "productivity" gains are from laying off large numbers of people and telling the survivors to "kick it up a notch or get the f out"...
[o]_O
Worth noting that it took almost 20 years for PCs in the corporate environment to actually have a positive impact on productivity; might the same be true in education?
No. Education is not about "productivity". In work, it's the end result that matters. In Education, it's understanding how to get from the start to the end that matters. In most of these cases, the essece of how to get from the start to the end doesn't change if you're using a computer or not.
And computers distract from learning those things.
So no, fuck you, and take your 1990s "computers will solve all of societies problems if we give 'em to the kids as larvae" attitude and shove it in your goatse.
What matters is how well you do in life, not in school. Without a computer or computer skills, it's hard to get high end jobs in any industry. A student can get more As without a computer, but they'd be knee deep in shit when they see it everywhere.
Parents need to be comfortable with computers to be able to understand HOW to get kids to get full use out of a computer. Thus I would expect the current generation of kids to be one of the first to be able to improve their education through the PC.
Though of course, parents will also be using it as a surrogate TV.
Kids that use calculators most of the time are less likely to be able to do simple mathematics in their heads, or even with pen and paper. Kids that use spelling checkers to verify their work are less likely to know themselves how words should properly be spelt simply because they don't learn from their mistakes.
How the hell is any of this news to anyone?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I had a chemistry teacher in my sophmore year of highschool who won a grant to have about 31 computers in the classroom. The computers were problematic and as the article suggests, they diddn't teach us what we needed to know.
The mentality was "Put them on the computers, it's good for them".
Doesn't work, I know from first hand experience, although I did manage an A in that class.
I attribute my math skills to an old educational software program called, "Math Blaster."
are the problem. most of the time the kids know more about the computer than the teachers do. and the teachers don't have any idea how to use the computer to teach. perhaps now that so many programmers are out of work some of them will end up teaching and will make some decent educational software. (not holding my breath)
I still think parents should be involved in helping with homework. Distrations are TV, Computers, Playstation, etc. If parents spent some time with their kids to get their homework done (not do it for them), it's quality time for kids, and their homework gets done. Then they can do their computers and video games.
"I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection." -- Sigmund Freud
computers in companies make people more productive?
Often computers are just thrown into a classroom expected to do miracles on their own....
Add to that teachers that know less about them than the students and you get a nice mess....
Computers can do wonderfull things but you have to use them right, they should only be used to add something usefull like better representations.
They should be used to teach things USING computers not just to teach 'computer'.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Computers are the biggest time-suck ever created. At least with the TV on you can do homework at the same time.
And let's not forget that when students do their homework on their computer, they're only copying and pasting stuff they found on the net. How is that learning?
Computers are tools. They CAN be used for improving learning. But they rarely are.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
God forbid kids without computers might actually pick up a book and read it for fun.
We've got a generation of adults who, once they're out of school, have lost the ability to read anything longer than a magazine article. It's not ADD - it's simple laziness on everyone's part.
But that's okay, ply them with Ritalin while continuing to fight the "war on drugs". So what's next in our irresponsible, don't accept blame society - people suing computer/os suppliers because their computer made them "stupid"?
We as the techno-elite, geek-ish, freaks that we are . . . we use computers to do a job. They are tools to us. They make our lives easier.
But, do computers help kids learn?
In our family, I do not believe so. And, given that we home-school our children . . . we would know.
Clifford Stoll's 2000 book High Tech Heretic made a similar claim about the dangers of computers in basic education.
./ under his own name and aliases.)
(Stoll posts in
Computers are a tool. Too many educators have and continue to view the computer as some sort of magic bullet. Some educators seem to think if they just get a bunch of computers the kids will learn better. I imagine this conception is because kids like using computers, but this doesn't necessarily mean they're paying any more attention to absorbing information from it than they were from the teacher. There are also lots of studies where computers have been shown to increase test scores. For example, at an elementary school where I worked, we employed a reading program that used computerized testing. Reading ability and comprehension improved markedly. Computers can making teaching more effective, but they can't make it just happen, that's what teachers are for.
computer users also have a higher rate of chronic masturbation.
then Here are a bunch of other things that have been tied to lower test scores
If anything, its a problem with education not competiting enough with other distractions.
I must say, that doing a CompSci degree without a computer would have been tough!
;)
I remember when we were working on OS/2, and there were only two machines for forty students, it was really tough with all the scheduling that had to occur - so I can imagine what it would have been like if there were 0!
DBA? Software Engineer? My company is hiring! Click
First you have to convince me that PCs have improved the productivity of the American business/office. The evidence on that one is at best inconclusive. (in your analysis don't forget to factor in the hordes of PC support techs who did not exist as late as 1992 in most businesses).
sPh
Computers cost quite a lot of money. Furthermore, in the US, the federal program that provides low income schools with computers is notoriously inefficient and corrupt. Such money can be spent on other things.
I know of an inner city high school that had a crumbling building but was equipped with an ultramodern computer lab (we all know that it takes a 3 Ghz Pentium 4 with 1024 MB ram to do high school research) and a $100,000 3D printer. It's just sad how beauracracy manages to waste our money.
E = m c^3 Don't drink and derive E = m c^3
If you aren't doing your homework, does it really matter what is stealing your attention? And when you substitute good, old-fashioned teacher-student interaction with computers, interactive laser discs, or an educational movie, what do you think is going to happen? A computer is just another tool. It is neither good nor bad. It's all it how and when it is used.
Wait - where is that? It's not on my standard 103-key.
Computers are a multi-purpose tool. They can be very good for studying--retrieving information, reading articles. You can get as much information from the internet in an hour as you could searching periodicals and encyclopedias in a library for a day.
But, yes, it has other uses. Games. Communication with friends. Recreation. Slashdot. Things that are NOT directly school related.
There are educational programs on TV. This doesn't mean that watching more TV is good for study habits (the reverse is probably true). But that doesn't mean educational shows/videos aren't out there, or that it's a bad thing to encoruage students to watch them.
So, yeah, using computers isn't always something that will result in more focused, more effective studying. Like all tools, it's not THAT you use it, but HOW.
The people who authored this report must be some of the worst computer-distracted: it took them long a bloody long time to finally realise what many Slashdot readers have known for years (although think-tanks are not known for their efficiency).
I, for example, should be studying renormalisation. But here I am. No, the irony is not lost on me.
Having been to a highschool that just got "computers in the classroom" kick while I was there, I've seen what it did to the teaching style.
The whole thing quickly turned into a babysitting device. "Do the math exercises the computer tells you to do while I grade your homework. When you're done, just sit quietly and keep yourself amused." Needless to say the plan lasted about a year before remarkably level-headed people sorted things out and things went back to normal (more-or-less).
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Seems pretty obvious- The impact of a technology is entirely dependent on how that technology is used. Just as you would expect a child to learn a lot from TV if they spent their time watching it on the educational channels, the same goes for the internet, where there's about as much or even more time-wasting junk to choose from. If a kid is spending all their time watching Flash animations, IMing, and playing Doom 3, it's pretty ridiculous to expect any kind of gain from the technology.
The only reason I'm good at math is because I used software tutors. They are more patient than people, you can use them at any time, and if you get bored or tired, you just turn the computer off.
Although I didn't need it I imagine a reading course would be just as effective.
Taking computers away would increase teacher workload, and people (like me) who have chronicly bad handwriting would just get hit with rulers like in the days of old.
I have several close family members who teach in middle and elementary school, and they've been saying this for years. Their main complaint about computers in the classroom is that educational software seems far more concerned with making learning fun than with making effective use of a student's limited time in the classroom. Of course, computer learning programs are great for the lazy teachers - they can just dump their students in from of the computers and enjoy their coffee while the students "learn".
Oh yeah, well swimmers do it better in the water. Runners do it better in the woods.
Oh wait. Never mind.
A computer is an ends to a mean, if you know how to use the internet (Google, Wikipedia and whatever your poison of choice is news wise), you can find out MUCH more than most books will tell you (most have a stand point and never tell you the opposit stand point).
So no, a computer doesn't mean you worse off, using it to play minesweeper or talk on an instant messenger program as you work does.
I like muppets.
...whether the prevailing attitude was computers as tools or computers as toys in the environment where they were used...
Makes a huge difference.
As as a teacher - I never used them as the instructor - that was ME!
They are an instruction tool - one among many. Very important distinction to be made there.
And great for use in completing some ASSIGNMENTS but not all.
Oh...and beleive me...whether or not one knows how to use one make a big difference in getting a job...
I find myself suspicious of the article...either they are quoting a poorly designed or biased study - or using a good study but spinning it.
=8-)
Im supp0s3d 2 b doing homewrk! but omg slashdot!
Someone, somwhere is making silly assumptions. Is the problem with computers? Unlikely, computers are a powerful tool for almost any task.
The issue here is much more likely that they are not being used properly, either through a lack of quality software, or an inability by educators to intelligently integrate them into curriculums (curriculie?).
Either that, or the kids are installing Half Life when the teacher isn't looking.
So this clearly is not a computer problem, but a teacher problem. Adding a distractive device that lets you leave a boring class is only a small price to pay to prevent the stagnation of our children's collective intellects.
Computers are a distraction to the underlying goal of communicating information so that it is understood by students. Blaming this on teachers not only completely ignores the results of this study but flies in the face of common sense, as well. Computers are good tools for some (many!) things, but they are not panaceas, and their every failing cannot be so blithely ignored.
I have seen with my own eyes the effect of having computers in the classroom. They are a distraction, not a tool, and should be left in the lab where they belong. I may now program for a living, but I am by no means so foolish as to think the tool of my chosen profession is the best tool for all jobs, education not the least.
I guess they compared students using almost exclusively computers to students using books when both have the same budget or something like that. In that situation computers are bad. There are much less learning programs out there than books and you can't get good grammar by reading online-english. You won't get good results in math tests if students let their computer do the work for them. Computers are not meant as replacement for traditional forms of learning. They should be added as another alternative way to learn things where traditional learning has weak spots.
I use a computer a lot but I also read a lot and I am perfectly capable of calculating without an electronic (or mechanical) calculator when it comes to basic arithmetic calculations (add, subtract, multiply, divide,...). Sadly that isn't true for everyone using computers today and I blame parents and the education system for that. We even have students at our Computer Science course at the University unable to calculate simply things like 2 to the power of 3. I don't think this is the result of computer use but the result of a lack of other forms of learning in addition to computer use.
Linux is not Windows
Try going to some parts of rural Arkansas. No computers and amazingly bad test scores.
Not saying computers would help.
The Telegraph did not give details of the study so I suspect that many factors were left out. If I had a two year old who loved to play on my computer, that kid would be reading, writing, and solving problems without even realizing it. Schools make everything out to be chores and if getting on a computer is a chore, kids won't want to do it. I think that computers are just an excuse for other issues.
When I was in college a couple years ago I used my computer for school work mabye 40% of the time. The other 60% was spent on downloading, chatting and playing games. I had one professor who discussed the advent of technology in Accounting. He posed the theory that it has only made things worse and would rather see a return of pen and paper to the profession. Although, it seemed like he had a thing for the girls with low-cut shirts in the class.
I say we just grow up, be adults and die.
It's that infernal rock and roll music that's ruining our childern
I would argue that isn't really true. People are very distracted form their work by surfing, emails every few minutes, instant messages, and a large number of people playing games instead of working.
As a contractor I'm sensetive to this type of thing, but I'm always amazed how much slacking goes on inside large corporations. The larger the company, the more red tape, the slower people can work and the more slacking they do on their computers.
WURD!!
This was no surprise to me. Back in the late 90's when I was in school there was that transition to the 'computer' in HS. The teachers really didn't know how to use them effectively and the students usually knew more then the students. So, what would happen was that the people that knew what was going on would just end up playing muds online in the upper row. Those days were so much fun.
Who at SlashDot really understands how best to teach children?
Computers are tools. Sometimes they are the best tools for the task. But, making a task fit a tool is really stupid. And, that is what has happened.
Maybe some of the slash-dotters should try teaching their own children for a while. Maybe they will see that computers are not the panacea to teaching everyone seems to think they are.
...computers don't belong everywhere.
Education is one of the places where computers don't really belong. A computer cannot answer questions, tell memorable stories that make information stick in your head, or deal with the oddball questions that only a living flesh-and-blood teacher can field.
Also, computers - by taking the drudgery out of your homework - leave you with less of an education. An example is Calculus. I learned calc with a pencil and a piece of paper. I had a simple calculator of the $5 kind. As a result, I have a better idea of what is going on than if I just simply plugged stuff into Student Maple. To put it another way, when I see an integral, I know about Riemann and know what I'm looking at.
Bottom line - there is no shortcut to learning. If you take one, you're not learning.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Posting AC here in case "the boss" ever reads /.
/. at work, but then again I do enough work that runs through my breaks to even it out.
I work at schools here, and the plain fact of it is that most teachers don't know to use them as a resource and don't know how to manage kids on computers in general. A few might have enough brains to point the kids at google for searching and then make them actually do research, but 80% of the time when I see a class come into the lab the students will end up playing flash games or whatnot online within a short period of time.
Quite often the teachers will just let them go ahead and play, to the point where 28 of 30 students will be gaming during class time. Sorry, but if you have three classes in a row where your kids have enough free time to play games, maybe you should be assigning more work (or making them actually *do* the bloody assignments in class).
Of course, here I am writing to
This is just like most bills that get passed to "protect our children", when its not the children that needed protecting or changes in their lives, its the PARENTS.
To say that student is better off having NO computer is not only wrong, but incredibly stupid. Without good computer skills, college and real life is going to be an incredible struggle.
No, the problem isn't the computer, its the parents who don't control the situation and their environment. Granted, if a student with a computer has broadband with not restrictions, and addictive games like WoW, then yes, its going to be very detrimental to their education, but is it the computer's fault? No. Parents need to educate themselves and know/understand how to limit computer usage.
Its sad, but most children/teenagers see computers as nothing more than a toy, or a way to get "free music and movies". Don't blame computers or children, its obviously the parents.
If you can multitask efficiently and zone out your music, your productivity will increase. It takes me longer to write a paper on the computer since I seem to get distracted quite often, but also I am not as stressful about my homework. I bet if the study did a stress test after doing homework while using the computer and without using the computer, there will be big variation.
If you have that emphasis, using computers in the classroom has a positive impact. If you just use computers for the sake of using them (or they distract students away, as in the article), they have a negative impact.
The other place where computers fall down in the classroom is that quite a bit of learning is a social activity, and some of the best teaching moments come from students teaching each other. But, if you put one student at each computer, you've just lost that opportunity. If you put multiple students at a computer, they're all focusing on the computer (and one is probably hogging the keyboard), so you lose that interaction that is so valuable.
The best use so far has been in science curricula where a simulation can replace access to expensive equipment or let students do what would otherwise be a dangerous experiment. But, for basic skills such as reading and math, computers are simply a distraction.
One of the reasons I am the 'compu-whiz' I am today is due to early exposure to computers. I broke them. I deleted things and modified things you weren't supposed to touch. I learned the hard way.
Now when I'm confronted with complicated Word document formatting, gigantic Excel spreadsheet roll ups, or problems with a Make file or a compiler flag I do things that people many years my senior don't: I hack around until I figure out what I'm doing. (I also make back ups, too!)
Having grown up with the prevelant user interface concepts I can get beyond most mazes of menus and get down to using the applications. Older generations have a deeper fear of computers specifically with regard to breaking them.
As such, there is a tangible benefit to regular computer use.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
As far as distractions are concerned, the computer is just a bigger, better mousetrap. I came in about middle of the road in high school, mostly due to the fact that I'd do anything besides listen or work. I'm currently in the process of repeating this in college, and as odd as it may seem, I should be doing a paper right now. What's the topic? "Write an essay that explores the personal you in the culture you live in." We have computers for everyone in the classroom, but they're not going to fix an awful topic like that one.
"I do a grep for shit, bollocks, and tits before checking in code. I'm professional..." -RECURSIVE_META_JOKE, reddit.com
More time is wasted at work surfing Slashdat than playing those simple games...
And start scribbling how a few hundreds lines of by hand...
Computers are generally a poor way to deliver material. Human interaction is generally a better way to teach.
Computers are a very good way to drill. Computer based homework in math based courses like Calculus and Circuit Analysis provides the students with lots of questions and immediate feedback. Given that students learn by doing, it really enhances learning.
Computers may be a good teaching tool for things like graphic design. Because you have infinite control over your images it is easy to change small things that really improve the product. eg. "The viewer's eye tends to fall off the left side of the page. Try making this object a little darker." Again, the student can get immediate feedback by making a small modification and seeing the result.
Bottom line: Computers have really helped my students learn. Besides, all the databooks are on the internet. We'd be lost without computers.
Students tended to do worse in schools generously equipped with computers, apparently because computerised instruction replaced more effective forms of teaching.
That sentence says it all. Computers should not be replacing forms of teaching. They should be enhancing forms of teaching. Too many people think that if you thrown a computer at something, and throw out whatever process was in place before, things get better. This is not, never has been, and never will be, true.
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
When I got my (http://www.skyleach.com/?p=11/ )first computer I was totally unproductive with it until I learned to use it to it's full advantage.
It takes about one or two years (IMHO depends on the age and intuativeness of the user) to get to the point where you learn how to assimilate the information on a screen effectively.
This is a lot like learning to read or learning to speak, the speech and writing centers of the frontal lobe are essentially extreemly complex pattern regognition systems which are capable of working in reverse to convert information back into written or visual form from memory.
The information on a computer screen is pretty complex for a new user, and even though a first-time novice can read the information it take s a great deal more concentration to find, read and understand the information on the screen at first.
This is totally asside from the 'cool' factor of the computer, which affects everyone at first. New uers look at a computer and they are scarred to tough anything at first, and then as they start exploring they don't want to stop. Who wants to study history when you can do this, or hey wait look at that Numa Numa dance thing...
I'm all for having a class where you just turn kids loose on a computer for an hour and let them learn, with some basic content restrictions perhaps.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
The more access they had to computers at home...
Perhaps if they'd studied WHAT students DID with the computers, as well as what they did with their non-computer time, this would be a bit more useful. As it is, this is a worthless study.
I bet you most of those kids that spent gobs of time on the computer (say, 4 hours a night) spent that time PLAYING GAMES or typing "HEY JANEYZ SURE CUTE!!! I WANT TO R0X0r HeR s0X0r!!! LOL" on AIM; of course their literacy skills will be degraded. Contrast this to those who spend 4+ hours a night on the computer doing non-mind-numbing tasks; reading journals, or learning to program, or doing any of the other myriad useful, education, and skill-building activites that are possible.
Those kids that spent 4 hours on AIM are no dumber (okay, maybe a bit) than the kids that spent 4 hours with an XBox or a TV.
And what about the non-computer time? I bet the kids that spent lots of time on the computers doing SQUAT and have weak intellect spent their non-computer time doing things just as trivial/mind-numbing - ie, back to the XBox, TV, making prank calls, or getting high.
Folks, its all about quality, not quantity.
I can vouch for that, my school made the mistake of letting us work wherever we wanted during free periods, hours in the computer room on slashdot don't help with exams. At home, game addictions didn't help either but i think kids need to exposed to be able to get over things like this - if you can't handle game and net addictions to a reasonable degree when you become an adult you have failed life, simple as that.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Another factor is that alot of kids today don't care to learn. They never will because they have it "handed to them on a plate". All we hear is "college will get you a great job! Theres more jobs then ever!". Maybe these kids are taking it to heart and just not caring to learn?
I like muppets.
How is the above comment flamebait? Shame on you mods.
better without Students.
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
Parenting. Which do you think is more likely?
A. Computers automatically have some sort of drain on student grades because children are compelled to waste time on them no matter what.
B. Parents do not bother to properly monitor the time their children spend on the computer, even when it is at the expense of the childs educational responsibilities (homework, projects, etc).
Duh. I guarentee you this same report could have been released in 1990 with the advent of home game consoles, 1960 with the advent of television, or in 1930 with the advent of radio. If you're a good parent, you make sure your child does their homework before they get any TV/game/computer time, you're child continues to get good grades and test scores, despite the presence of those "evil" computers in your house.
You don't really need research to figure this one out. Have you seen some of the articles, blogs, etc. on the net recently? It's almost as if people care more about expressing phonetical when writing more than gramatical accuracy and correct spelling. That's one of the main reasons the SAT has been changed in the States. Kids graduate from High School and can't write for shit. If you want an easy part time job, I would suggest becoming a tutor for college remedial english classes.
While I was in college, my sister was (and still is) a high school ballet teacher. She would bring home students' papers to grade over thanksgiving breaks. I would, occasionally, glance at some of the papers and be shocked at the terrible grammar and spelling. I swear it looked like an IRC chat log at times. It seems as though alot of kids don't realize that there is a difference between the way you speak to people (dialogue) and the way you write papers.
I also remember, here in the states, when our teachers would groan everytime we begged them to use calculators on math tests. They said "you'll learn more without them". They were right. Doing simple to mid level arithmetic in your head keeps your mind sharp.
On another note, look at the expression on the little girl's face who is sitting in front of the computer. Is that not classic a classic goatse reaction or what?
you can have a bit less overhead resizing down fist.
Is it possible that these international tests are biased toward pen and paper problem solving? When I was younger, before I used a computer for much besided entertainment, I relied on "back of the envelope" problem solving techniques. Now I have computer tools which are more effective and faster; of course, I can't walk into a test and use them...
...computer availability at home is linked to other family-background characteristics, in the same way computer availability at school is strongly linked to availability of other resources.
Also, from the article,
"Pisa... claimed that the more pupils used computers the better they did.
Once those influences were eliminated, the relationship between use of computers and performance in maths and literacy tests was reduced to zero"
So the article both says that the initial study analysis showed that computer users did better in these tests, while further analysis to eliminate "background characteristics" showed the relationship was reduced to zero. So, the author has chosen a misleading title; since the revised study finds no correlation, not a negative one.
In college we had a web-based program called Blackboard. Where teachers could put notes, the students could converse, etc. This made a great addition to class room learning. It's too bad only a few professors actually used it. And when I asked about it, most never even heard of it.
Can we at least teach these people how to use the technology before we begin to blame it?
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
I grew up in the 70s-80s. The closest thing that I saw to a home computer was a C-64 that my neighbor had. He actually used it to 'program'. Nice guy, working at Veritas right now.
There were a few Apples in school. They were used mostly for playing educational games. I don't remember getting much out of these.
I am 36 and am now going back to school 'full time'. I have access to a computer at home and school. When I walk through our computer labs it really pisses me off to see the students playing games, chatting or doing other things 'non constructive' when I need a machine to research something for school work.
I use my computer as more of a tool to get things done. I do homework, research and even attend some classes via my computer and the net.
My rambling point is that it depends on who you are. Me being a bit more serious on my studies use the computer as something that is necessary to get me the best grades. Many of my peer students (half my age) are not as serious. If it were not for the computer, there would be other distractions.
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
Business computers have several 'killer apps', including:
* email
* spreadsheets
that are really effective for _business_.
What has education got as it's killer app? I think we just haven't found that, and until we do, computers in the classroom are a solution in search of a problem.
So they're bad a wrote memorization? Can we test them on understanding HOW to find things and HOW to categorize them? (Things that, presumably, they'd learn in a computer based environment.)
Students were once taught how to use a slide rule too, we don't seem to be lamenting the loss of that skill now.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Geek Tweek!
So it's even worse than the 20 years it took for computers to be productive in the office. Not nearly enough R&D has gone into addressing the problem technology is supposed to solve, which is getting kids to learn academic subjects. There is no reason to think that a PC evolved to help already educated adult office workers is appropriate for students learning math in the first place.
Sure, I learned typing in high school, and there's nothing wrong with learning computer basics while computers remain so difficult to figure out. But that doesn't count as an academic subject any more than driver's ed.
Graphing calculators, on the other hand, have evolved with the input of math teachers and have been geared to the math curriculum, and designed with students in mind from the start. Just as graphing calculators would be sort of out of place in an English class, why do we think a PC should be appropriate across the board?
I can't imagine writing as much as I write nowadays without a computer and word processors and Emacs. But I can't work backward from there and say that means that I would have learned to write any better if everything was done on a computer.
And there's no better way to learn computer science than by handwriting C and assembly on a college ruled notebook and making your teacher 'compile' it in her head.
"This is clearly a hormonal thing, and it's like making a case against human evolution"
Hormonal? Huh? And what has a technological tool got to do with evolution?
"as opposed to waiting until they are over 40 and trying to find the Any Key"
You don't need computers in every classroom to learn the basics of using them.
"Corporations still have a hell of a time keeping employees off of Solitaire and Minesweeper"
That is because they are like crack. The temptation and addictive draw of entertainment is too great. Just delete the distractions.
"Adding a distractive device that lets you leave a boring class"
Learning is hard, there is no way to ever make it 100% fun. Kids who lack self-discipline or can't handle deferred gratification will always be "bored"
"profit incentives for teachers"
Great, have them chase test scores and teach to tests instead of teaching to understanding. Schools already suck enough money out of towns and teachers unions are as bad as police unions. They've become self-serving burdens on the public.
Probably the worst thing ever adopted by the education system, IMHO, is PowerPoint.
I don't know about you, but the moment a prof puts up a 'slideshow' and just reads it for the next hour, all education benefits go down the tubes.
I am more a fan of writing information out on the board. This forces the intstructor to explain themselves while they are writing. I think writing slows them down enough on a particular subject to allow their brains to think about all the extras they wanted to get across to the students.
For my own anecdotal account, when I first started getting into computers when I was in college, my GPA plummeted. I was not a CS major or anything, but as soon as I learned about pipes on the command line, I was hooked. I have heard from professors that the quality of research by students has gone down because of computers. Students think that the first couple of hits on a google search is the same as real library research.
I can attribute students doing worse with the advent of computers because it basically makes people lazy because they can. Its the whole instant gratification thing. Especially since humans are all born defective now and have ADD or ADHD now, I can see how computers can foster those problems (yes that was sarcasm about the defective birth thing).
The only real advantage I see computers having for people are 1) record keeping 2) number crunching and 3) mindless entertainment like games and 4) torrent downloads. I'm an avid music collector, and the ability for me to get large amounts of quality live music downloads vs the "old school" way of trading tapes or CDs via snail mail is vastly superior in terms of the quality available and the speed of acquiring music.
For me, I find it interesting that my favorite computers are not very computerlike. For example, my DVR. Its basically a computer. Its not a Tivo, so I'm not sure what is behind the scenes, but its got an 800 MHz RISC processor, has a specialized input via the remote, and does pretty much what I want it to do. Another good example is my Linksys wireless router. Its a specialized computer that runs Linux, again with a very limited interface that pretty much does what I want. The same can be said for console games.
In summary, I can see how computers are a detriment to students. Even if the results are only 70% as good as doing other forms of research and studying, its so easy to get that 70% that going further takes an exponential amount of extra effort. Hmm, what is a 70% in school?
In other news, teenagers with cars often show up to work less often than teenagers driven by their parents.
--
make install -not war
WUT R U TOKNG ABOUT?????!!! OMG WTF IV3 BEN USNG COMPUT3RS AL MAH LIEF AND MAH GRMM3R IS JUST FIEN!!!11! OMG WTF LOL
I smell a really shitty remake of The Cable Guy starring either a computer repairman raised by the internet.
With so many kids obese today, who wants to get off their ass and go outside? You can have the whole world to yourself. You can make "friends" and "girlfriends" without having to see them. You can turn them off with the click of a button. You can even share late night laughs in the comfort of your own chair while snacking on potato chips.
I remember when computers were fairly new in homes... back then if you heard of a kid that didn't watch TV you thought he was a complete loser who studied maps and the past presidents in his free time. It's basically the same thing with kids and the internet nowadays - for better or worse.
Maybe the real problem is the fact that more and more ignorant parents are buying cellular phones for 12 year old boys and girls?
And, is one of his aliases peter303?
Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I can remember my teachers in high school - most of them were the most boring people you would care to meet. A select few would enlighten and invoke interesting discussion and methods to achieve success on the course.
I suspect that you are not the same person now that you were in high school. I am willing to bet that if you met these teachers now (e.g. socially or in a night course) you might have a very different opinion of them. In general we appreciate different things as we grow up.
Of course (interesting person) does not necessarily == (interesting teacher), so your point about wash out the teachers who aren't interesting is well taken.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
lol asif u ahve bettr skillz W/O computers haha - can i refill yer fountain pen mister?? pwned
"[Writing] will introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it: they will not practice using their memory because they will put their trust in writing, which is external and depends on signs that belong to others, instead of trying to remember from the inside, completely on their own."
Stay tuned to this channel for more on this late-breaking story.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
I use computers a lot, both in school and outside it. I've done one GCSE so far, in Maths, and got an A*. I wonder if this makes me: a) a mutant freak, or b) one of the millions of naturally intelligent people who happen to use computers, and who's intelligence is neither increased nor decreased by it.
I came across this article while browsing slashdot instead of studying for my midterm that's in 2 hours.
The article headline is missing one word: Students Do Better Without Computer Games .
"positive impact on productivity"???
What are you smoking?
Evolution of Language Through The Ages: 6000 BC : ungh, grrf, booga 2000 AD : grep, awk, sed
Computers are still tools. A tool that can help or hurt. As much as I have used a computer to create I've also found that it is easier to use one to waste a lot of time. This isn't necessarily bad...playing Half-Life 2 is a complete waste of time in the grand scheme of things but it is for my well being.
One thing I feel many parents are missing is the concept of balance. Parents are constantly pushing "work" and punishing "play" when what is really needed is to strike the balance between them. If parents don't do they kids go off to college and find out just how much "play" there is in the world and end up ignoring a lot of "work" and making a messy situation.
"Worth noting that it took almost 20 years for PCs in the corporate environment to actually have a positive impact on productivity; might the same be true in education?"
For the teacher yes. For the students maybe not. It may just be that K-8 may have no real use for computers. Or that they should be limited to using them as reference material.
Just as a third grader really has no use for a scanning electron microscope a 2ghz pc could be nothing more than a distraction.
When you are talking the skills to work can't that type of education be left until high school?
I know this maybe a bold statement but maybe humans are better teachers than computers.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Having tempting video games, tempting websites, and tempting symbolic equation solvers on the same box is a distraction? You mean that spending 30 minutes figuring out the equation solver to solve an equation that could be done in 3 minutes by hand is a bad thing?
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
I was one of the first people to own a computer in my home town. I managed to buy a C64 by grade 6 from my hard earned allowance.
I must say all my grades went up. I was the only student that handed in assignments that where typed.
I think my marks when up because:
1) Teachers could now read my writing as it was typed.
2) I took more chances with the English language. I used words that I knew but had no idea how to spell them.
3) Re-reading and re-writting something took little effort.
4) I loved working/playing on the computer so doing 'homework' on it was not even seen as work but as fun.
A computer is a tool and like any tool just having it around does not actually make you skils better. You have to be taught how to effectively use it.
When I taught chemistry, I used a blackboard 95% of the time. I never touched Powerpoint. When I did use a computer, it was to do things that no blackboard can ever do- show 3-d models of atoms/molecules/orbitals, run simulations of things that can't be seen in a lab, etc. This is where they shine- modeling and visualization, working "what-if" scenarios, and eliminating the drudgery of long calculations. They're wonderful at enhancing communications in some cases- I can have students interact with a journalist in Bangaldesh easily, or a social worker in rural India. Easy video editing lets you build big libraries of "What to do/not to do in this situation" for people like teachers using real people and situations- we film a lot of the student teaching experiences education majors do here.
Computers can be insanely powerful teaching tools when used properly. The problem is that almost nobody does this- there's an attitude that someone moving your lecture notes from transparencies to Powerpoint is somehow useful in helping student learning. Umm, no, it's less than worthless. Teaching students to use graphing calculators? Near worthless- have them do it on paper until they're in college. The functions just aren't that complex. Multiple choice drill+kill quizzes on web sites or "educational" CD-ROMS? Almost worthless- students hate them for the most part, and it's usually simple fact based knowledge with no attempt at synthesis.
Teachers aren't taught to use this stuff effectively. Most colleges have people like me to help college professors, but there's virtually nobody past a tech support guy making $10/hour at most elementary and high schools. Until they build in education on the use of technology, expect to see this continue. It took business decades to figure out how to use computers well- education is still having problems.
Side note: I banned calculators on tests for my PChem class. I don't want numerical answers- they're useless for teaching, and foster "What equation do I need to memorize" thinking among the students. Give me the problem properly set up with all units shown- if you can do that I could care less that you can correctly hit the buttons on a calculator. I did offer to let them use slide rules (seriously)- if you can do the math on a slide rule you understand the problem. I really encourage people to do this- it was wonderful, and the students actually didn't mind.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
In high school I always felt that we didn't learn anything useful about computers. My computer science class involved learning how to type. Yup, cause that will make me 'computer literate'.
We really should have gotten a bunch of old computers and electronics devices that no one had any good use for anymore and learned something genuine. Considering the effect electronics have on our daily lives I think electronics should have it's own science category in high school. Chemistry, Physics, Biology, Electronics.
Mind you I think the biggest problem is that there would be no one to teach an electronics course to high school kids. Anyone in the electronics or computer biz is out there making real money and not a high school teacher.
To sum it up, I think computers can be good learning devices. But not within my educational career. Computer courses that I had were taught by phys ed. majors, had cirriculums consisting of how to type, and didn't teach you anything genuinely usefull like how to set up your own home network.
Even with a computer, and computer skills, my mom has been having a hard time finding a new job and tells me it's hard to find one at her age. everyone seems to want to hire the younger generation.
I'm curious how the parent factor plays in.
i.e. I'm willing to bet most of the students who use computers a lot have minimal parental interaction (computer babysits kid). Parents tend to not be as on top of kid to do homework (prioritize), see grades, etc. etc.
I'm curious what the research would show if that was taken into account.
I can prove laptops to be deadly if I study them used behind the wheel of the car (the jerk who is using it on the passenger seat while driving). But when you see that only a fraction of a percent are used that way... it changes the perspective.
IMHO it's up to the parents to regulate.
Now imagine that every day is Computer Lab Day, because the damn things are sitting on your desk.
The problem isn't computers anymore than crime is caused by guns. The problem is that teachers are inherently incompatible with computers. Computers are egalitarian; teachers are authoritarian. Computers are complex; teachers are about breaking complexity down. Computers need to be explored; teachers don't like people going off on their own. Well, the ones that last any length of time in a school system.
The problem isn't computers. It's teachers. I'm going to make sure my kids have both computers and a healthy disrespect for school. I'll make sure they know school isn't about knowing things, but about letting the authorities know you're cooperating.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
"Worth noting that it took almost 20 years for PCs in the corporate environment to actually have a positive impact on productivity"...
Worth noting that PCs did not have a positive impact on productivity until the WWW. Maybe the productivity gains are really due to the WWW.
-Women are from Omicron Persei 7, men are from Omicron Persei 9.
Cut the damn ethernet cable and load up Encarta and a localized copy of wikipedia. =)
They'll finish their homework just to get a new ethernet cable asap.
So what if they get lower scores on the tests? When in the modern workforce will they not have access to google? It could be argued that "what if the batteries in the calculator die?". I would go to the store and buy new batteries.
"What if the whole of the internet crashed all at once, and no online resources were available? How could they do math then?". Well, I think that we would have bigger problems than dealing with basic math if the backbone of modern communications/commerce/fricken everything goes down.
Just a thought.
this isn't suprising -
just like calculators - my college computer teacher did not allow us calculators while we were taking tests.
this should be the same for any other school -
they are tools - you still need to know how to use them and how they work. just because I have wire cutters doesn't make me an electrician.
my daughter just entered kindergarten and the year before they bought a bunch of new computers.
now why do kindergarteners need to learn computers? these kids can't spell or write or read yet but we are sitting them in front of computers and expecting what?
well I bought an old mac from a friend just to see if she would be interested in playing some educational games but it went over like a brick and now it just sits in my basement - so now I have to sit with her and actually write letters - oh no -
well I say good for my daughter - she has no interest in computers and I for one am not going to shove it down her throat - even though I am an unix sys admin I would be overjoyed if she didn't get into computers at all -
and by the way - school is about EVERYONE learning and not just about being productive.
productivity and education don't necessarily go hand in hand - I want my childs mind open to everything not just being a microsoft office drone.
but I am afraid that there isn't much future in software programming because by the time she grows up all the software patents will be held by a very few companies and no one will be able to start their own business or create on their own without having their own attorney doing patent searches.
And neither can the vast majority of teachers.
Could it be that using computers as part of the learning process imparts a different understanding of the subject than what traditional tests measure?
I find that myself and my friends who do use computers alot have a very different approach to knowledge and the application of it than those studying along the traditional cram heavy ways.
Several of the professors at my university have written articles about this change in the way students approach courses. It appears that students spend less time reading and more time on self organized group studying and that this is leading to a better understanding of how theory relates to practice but a lower capacity for the kind of factual regurgitation that most tests are based on.
Are computers really needed in schools except to learn to type, write papers, computations in labs, and take computer programming courses? I don't see why a teacher would need to use a computer in the class room for the most part. I would say most of the computer learning can be done at home at this point.
If they are what are they using? Probably power point or some derivative. And i think we all the the exceptional ability for power point for someone to catch up on their sleep, especially in the college setting.
As a side note, I have heard about a few professors at RIT that have gotten laid off for using power point to much. They got laid off because their reviews all said that they hated the power point based classes and the professor wouldn't change.
Judging from the kid's expression in the picture, it looks like they navigated to some horrible site.
Think about it:
Those of us that had home computers as kids twenty or thirty years ago didn't just point and click. We had to learn how to use those monsters if we wanted to achieve anything.
Just loading a program could be a task in itself. If you wanted to have some real fun -- you learned to tinker with BASIC and hack your tape-loaded programs.
*sniff* I miss my VIC-20.
BUT:
Tests of literacy don't measure some of the advantages of computer literacy that were probably touted to the orginal school committees that purchased the equipment. The fullest analysis of whether spending money on computers for schools won't be done until
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
In the *earlier grades* I think that computers are just a waste of money. Spending time teaching 3rd graders how to make Powerpoint presentations on shiny new HP boxes isn't really an effective use of time and the money that has been spent on technology in schools is staggering. It's money that could be better spent on salaries, replacing aging drinking fountains in schools, or purchasing materials.
:|
I remember when using a computer to finish a school paper was a luxury. Now it seems that it's a requirement.
the problem is that many parents don't know anything about computers, and the kids know just enough that the parents don't figure out what the kids are really up to. It's not just parents supervising, it's parents educating themselves as well.
as for me, personally, i live the nightmare of being a teacher in a district where every high schooler is given a laptop and wireless Internet access. Even the kids in the honors and gifted classes use them mostly for IM and personal e-mail. The kids load the things up with so much warez, mp3z, etc. the BSA, RIAA, and MPAA would have a field day. Add to all of that, most of these kids don't already have a computer at home, they come from single parent households with little home supervision, and parents who are not very computer litterate...well, I'll leave all of that as an exercise of the imagination.
my pet machine
Even though I'm in the business, I think we rely on computers too much. And definitely rely on MSFT too much.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
IMHO, The tacit assumption and/or expectation that not only will computers think for you but computers do the thinking better than you is part of the problem.
Nobody got stupid using a computer. They got stupid by letting the computer do the thinking.
No Nyarlathotep, No Chaos
Know Nyarlathotep, Know Chaos
I think this is an excellent result. You have more exposure to computers and do less well on some standardized test: exactly what you'd hope for.
Whoever died and said standardized tests were some kind of proof of anything (besides being good at taking standardized tests)? How many standardized tests have you taken as an adult? (MCSEs and CISSPs can keep their mouths shut; those tests are irrelevant, too.)
More importantly, what are you in school to learn, anyway? Facts and figures? Formulas? No.
You're in school to learn how to learn, and the sooner these idiots recognize that, the sooner they'll realize that these kids "fooling around" with computers probably know more about how to learn than the adults will ever know.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
It is true, that computers can distract students, resulting in worse grades. The problem is however not the computer itself. Maybe the class was boring. Maybe the subject didn't interest you. I think the computers are not the cause of the problem, but one of the results. Just like worse grades.
It is up to the student itself to use the computers responsibly. Personally I bought an iBook a couple of months ago to use it on my lectures. While some others play games with their notebooks, I use it to write down notes and to manage my calendar. I am pretty sure it has made my studies much more efficient than before using computer. But that is up to oneself how to use it.
So as a summary, computers can be a very useful tool in education. They are however not used as they should in education. It's a problem of teaching - not computers.
I demand the Cone of Silence!
... than right here.
What Matters (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy didn't read the article, yet felt qualified to comment on it anyway. Other people who didn't read the article found his comments "insightful" despite the fact that they contradicted the findings of the article.
Re:What Matters (Score:3, Informative)
You did read the article and quoted part of it, yet your rating isn't as high as the guy's who skipped the reading.
Welcome to Real Life. It's just like this in the work force which is why the article makes so much sense.
It isn't what you know. It isn't what other people know. It's how well you can re-state their pre-existing opinions to impress them. It's all about what other people (who didn't do the reading) BELIEVE you know.
students do better without television
students do better without calculators
teen-agers do better without homework
all work and no play makes jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes jack a dull boy
is what the conclusion should be.
We don't know how well those students without computers would have done with computers. The proper experiment is to take a group of students and *randomly* divide them into a group that uses computers and a group that doesn't and see how the two groups do. If you do the experiment post-hoc and let them self-select which group they want to be in then the results are difficult to interpret since the selection process influences the results (i.e. bad students may be more likely to want a computer to game with)
A lot of bogus pseudoscience would not exist if people understood the difference between the two types of experiments...
So, the test they did less well on was a traditional, paper and pencil test? Duh!
No matter what the change in education, we will see gains in one area, and losses in another. The question is, do the gains justify the losses?
For example, if I take my kids to France, and I decide to enroll them in a non-English school, I expect them to fall behind in their classes, at the benefit of learning French. Likewise, if we spend time teaching the life skills that are computers, and we have students use them to research, write, do math, etc., we should expect to see declines in performance on traditional educational measures.
Again, the question is: Do the gains of using a computer, justify the losses in what has been considered important in education in the past?
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
In my humble oppinion, the reason that students who have easy and regular access to computers fail international numeracy and literacy tests is all the automatic correction and easy to use mathematical tools that are available in the software that is easily accessible, so as to the argument that in the long run this will improve students results in this area i would disagree. The argument here wasnt that students are being unproductive through the use of computers it was that numeracy and literacy suffered, this has been true for numeracy ever since calculators have been allowed in schools, maybe just let students use computers after they have grasped the initial concepts for the relevant subjects? And yes i'm sure there are many mistakes in what i have typed so no need for the funny, u must have used computer at school comments :)
It makes students spending much more time on playing on the computers, and "learning" using the software, but not learning what they began to learn. And it makes students lazier to study.
Its the parents and schools for not teaching students time utilization skills...
And as far as grammar goes, most people are getting to where they can't spell or properly write a document BECAUSE TEHY LEARND FROM TEH 1337 M4ST3RZ 0F D00|\/| 2 SPELL UR W3RDZ LIKE THIS.
Very few things grate on my nerves more than a post to an email discussion that starts like this:
if u want 2 do what u r asking, u need to read ur manual and look @ teh location of ur r15 adn r23 resistors.
Perhaps classes in PC literacy should include rudimentary reading and writing...
"Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
Maybe current method for testing is simply wrong. Maybe they should try a diffirent way of testing student, maybe a way that's more inline with the current requirements and needs.
I'm sure you would get the same results if you did a similar test 20 years ago with calculators instead of computers.
I'm a product of homeschooling. While I'm not to brag, in college, I dramatically outperform my peers at both writing and math. Guess how much time I've spent on my computer each day for the past several years? Usually at least 12 hours; I'm obsessed.
I actually use my computer to learn. I suspect that public school students focus too much on goofing off; there have been many times I've received IMs saying something along the lines of, "I'm in school! But I can't stay long or I might get caught."
I can't say I blame them, though, as I was never receptive to having my education stuffed down my throat, either.
Audioscrobbler
This hammer I bought hasn't built my new house for me! What the hell!
Recently I was asked to submit a review of my computer science professors. I told them both the same thing: don't stand behind the computer and type stuff in. Get in front of the blackboard and talk to _US_, don't just have us to sit there watching a computer. Few people learn by watching, we mostly learn by doing.
Computer science professors are especially bad at this. They stand behind a podium and write code for us and we sit there and look at it. Whee. When somebody has a question about how things work, a question that involves a detailed answer during which the professor should be mapping loop iterations on the board and drawing memory maps and explaining how the symbol table works, etc, they just spout pronouns and vague answers and wave their hands dismissively and mutter something about reviewing your notes or doing the reading assignments.
Some examples - in my UNIX programming class, one of the students didn't understand how the condition of a while loop in a shell script was being evaluated and how the loop would break out. The professor moused over the loop and highlighted it and said, "Here, when it gets assigned to this variable and it's empty it'll break out."
Go back and count the pronouns. Imagine somebody answering a question about a topic in which you have no expertise like this.
"Excuse me, sir? How do I florn the dipthoid?"
"Well when it needs its dipthoid purged, you put it back in and then it cleans it and when you're done it's good and florned."
Sweet. You know nothing.
The computer isn't the problem, really, it's the pedagogy.
Professors are generally not trained as educators, they're trained as theorists or researchers in a given field. This doesn't always (or even usually) translate into good classroom management skills or the ability to teach others.
Computers complicate the problem because professors are reluctant to move away from the $12,000 computer set up with four monitors and an overhead projector to pick up a $2 marker and draw what's going on in memory in the whiteboard. Instead, they'll include a PICTURE of memory in the PowerPoint presentation that passes for lecture notes these days.
Computers have enabled professors to be lazier.
When I learned C, my professor drew memory maps and then updated them on the board as we stepped through code. That was in 1994. Finishing my degree now, I watch professors explain pointers with code examples that the professor runs while we watch on the projector. I'm not shocked that NOBODY in my class really understands them.
So anyway... computers aren't really the problem but until educators are trained to use them effectively in their pedagogy (and that includes knowing when it's time to shut the damn thing off), I think they're harming education more than helping, on balance.
I mentioned all this to my professor but he ignored it. Pshaw! This is COMPUTER SCIENCE! How do we learn it without COMPUTERS?
People managed for decades.
Worth noting that it took almost 20 years for PCs in the corporate environment to actually have a positive impact on productivity; might the same be true in education?
Man, you really can't have been paying much attention. It might not look this way, but tons of productivity enhancements have happened. Entire classes of the workforce that used to do nothing but manage paper have been eliminated. It might not be a competitive advantage (I remember there was a controversial book on that), but you definately have to keep up with the Joneses.
The reason education hasn't really worked out the same way is that one of the things computers do best is divisioning and reducing work. The average employee isn't doing things that are that much more complex than before, but the company does. If you buy a burger at McDonalds, their numbers are updated all the way up in an instant. People used to spend lots of time gathering numbers and adding them up. It's primary school algebra, but it took time.
When it comes to learning, the only real measure is how much you've improved yourself. If I get asked to write a book report, I can find one online in no time, but what have I learned? You can only go that far by being an information chameleon, able to find and present the thoughts of others as your own. When you finally get asked to do things which hasn't been done before, you're SOL.
Everything you learn in class has been done before, probably by someone smarter than you. But if we all were doing that, there'd be no progress. Only rehashes of the same time and time again. And the same lack of logic and reason also makes you a sucker for biased information, wrong information, religious indoctrination, scam artists, groupthink, racism, overall a push-over for anyone with an agenda.
The world doesn't need people to be human text-to-speech translators. We've got computers to do that.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
from the post: ..., Worth noting that it took almost 20 years for PCs in the corporate environment to actually have a positive impact on productivity; might the same be true in education? ...,
First I would probably be happy to argue the thesis of "positive" impact as questionable, or at least unproveable. (How many times have you watched in pain as someone wrings their hands in angst trying to decide on a font?) I actually walked the entire floor once (this was in 1991) asking ANYONE how I inserted a "new page" in a FrameMaker document... I knew there was a way, but could NOT find the option ANYWHERE. Most interesting for me walking the floor wasn't that NOONE knew how to insert a page break was the myriad ways people dealt with the issue (most common behavior was to insert CR's until the page "broke".... sheesh). (And, for the record, even our team "documentarian" (what the heck is THAT?) didn't know how to do the page break either.)
Ah, but back to the topic at hand. There really are 2 different contexts (at least) between the workplace and the education system. The education system's first and foremost goal is to educate, not necessarily how to use a computer. There are many reasons schools can't make productive use of computers to advance "educational productivity", I'll mention a couple:
There is an amazing book on this topic -- it's a fairly dense (ironic) read, but hits on lots of these points, and offers research, and real life descriptions where computers were and were not effective. As one might guess after some thought, the positive "effect" of computers in the classroom has/had little to do with the fact that there were computers, and much more to do with well-rounded and caring staff dedicated to the education goals. I don't have the link or book name readily available, but if there are enough responses, or interest, I will reply to my post with the link....
So the rich kids who all get computers will be dumber than the poor ones where they don't have access to them. This is negative feedback on the system that created the so called "digital divide" and will actually work to close the gap. Unfortunately it does this by making kids in rich areas dumber.
Education is one of the places where computers don't really belong. A computer cannot answer questions, tell memorable stories that make information stick in your head, or deal with the oddball questions that only a living flesh-and-blood teacher can field.
I really have to disagree. Computers can bring a new dimension to teaching. As an example, while teaching about volcanoes a short clip of a volcano erupting could be a great addition. Sure you could always do this before with an old-style projector and ectera, but accessing the clip from a CD-ROM encyclopedia or a central server with teaching materials can be a lot easier. Students then really get to see what you're talking about, very important for visual learners. Computers are best used as an enhancement ot teaching, not a replacement for.
There are plenty of shortcuts within learning. For example, after purchasing a digital camera I am able to experiment with color and composition without ever setting foot in a darkroom. This increases my trial-and-error rate tenfold. Add some quality reading material and perhaps a mentor, and I'm three steps ahead of someone doing it the old fashioned way. But there is often a cost; I can't develop my way out of a paper bag.
The problem with introducing computers into the classroom is that they do too many things, and we have a hard time limiting their scope. Instead of learning about math, students are learning about the device sitting in front of them and all that it can do. (Even when it's turned off, it has pretty keys to peck on.)
I think computers are the worst thing ever to have been introduced into the classroom since Trendy Teaching Methods.
When I did my maths O-level, we weren't even allowed to use calculators. We made do with log tables. All the important bits were in the reasoning anyway -- knowing why you have to do a certain sequence of steps to get the answer was more important than the answer from the last step.
If you already know how to do something by hand, then however bad you are at it, you can be helped by having a machine to do it for you. If you don't already know how to do something by hand, then a machine won't help you at all. If anything, it will hinder you, because you won't fully understand in your own mind what you are attempting to achieve.
As a method for gaining wider-than-deserved acceptance of Microsoft {by pushing it to minors who by definition can't be expected to make an informed decision} and alienating the poorer sectors of society {by insisting that if they don't own a Windows PC, they are socially inadequate}, computers in the classroom are excellent. For anything else, no.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
If it wasn't for the Apple 2E I would have never learned about diptheria or how deep a river has to be to ford it.
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
This was all good an such, however there have been two things that have universally suffered: penmenship and spelling. I started typing reports and such at an early age and used it on everything but one report in the fifth grade which was mandated had to be hand written. Now my handwriting's been crap since day one, but I used to be able to spell worth a crap. Now I spell better in my second language (german) than I do in english primarily because I've been using spell check since MS Works 1.0 and anymore so long as I get close, office will automatically change the word.
I am sure that looking up information online has come in handy, but I can remember a couple years ago professors not allowing more than 1 internet resource per paper. And it was a good thing. Some went a step further and would allow no more than 2 electronic resources, which I found annoying because I often used Lexis-Nexis and EBSCOhost to find articles and frankly is there a difference if the New York Times article I found was on paper or electronic format if it says the same thing? Most of the students would grumble about having to actually go to the library and look up magazine articles or perodicals.
Frankly I think computers, and the Internet, has only fed the "I want it now" culture. If people now can't find the answer within the first page of Google, many are too lazy to dig deeper.
When it comes to computers in the classrooms, maybe we should hold off. Instead of having a shiny toy on every desk, anyone think we might should ensure that kids can actually read a book, spell, and do math without needing a machine to do it for them?
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Okay, here is the link. I can think of a lot of things to examine based on the newspaper article, first and foremost is HOW the computers were used. Lack of teacher education in how best to use the strengths of computers in teaching is a tremendous problem... And the 'old fashioned' method of lecture is usually fairly consistent as being the least effective method of instruction, too. The devil is in the details...
stored on computers from birth to the grave
"...the less students use computers at school and at home, the better they do in international tests of literacy and math." ...or maths even :-)
Computer have a very important role in education. Eg learning about physics, math etc can become a lot easier if you have a computer with software that allows you to experiment freely.
I bet teaching grammar can be a lot more interesting if you use programs which can parse sentences and give you "language trees" and allow you to play with it more.
Simply put, computers are good when you want to get the result quickly instead of spending a lot of time on the process. Personally I think a big problem is that in math you typically only learn the boring process of tedious calculations. You don't learn how to use it or see any point in doing it.
But I will agree that computers typically don't do any good for most students. Mainly because teachers and books seldom use them to their full potential (or really any potential).
Get over it. The computer is not going to take a lazy kid and turn them into a genius. Only really attentive parents who actually spend time with their kids and teach them the correct way to use a computer deserve to have the kids with some chance of being a little smarter. The folks who want a "compuparent" or "videositter" deserve what they get.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
While I think computers are a good idea in the classroom, lets teach them what they are. Surely clicking a mouse isn't going to do much good, learning how to _use_ a computer will. I learned how to do the basic math by learning how a calculator works. Therefore open sourse and nothing less!
There was one "asr33" paper terminal in my highschool my second year in 1972. At 110Baud it wasn't really that accessable. (fortunately the provider company would give students free access at their facility after business hours) It was all AT&T Unix and definitely the ticket to many good jobs.
The smarter students I know, actually tend to prefer OpenBSD, possibly bragging rights, but they are learning something! In the developed world there is a serious problem with useless systems. In the developing world OSS is far more common and we are going to lose everything if the next generation is mostly computer illitterate while there is all this talent overseas.
Like a TV, its not the machine, its what you put on it. These are serious machines and should used properly. Personally I'm very distressed that kids are being brainwashed that what is good for corporations is good for them. Copyright violations are _NOT_ theft, plain and simple. However old values that forbid plagerism should certainly apply -- no copy/paste papers for instance.
Computers are certainly part of a modern education, but not a replacement teacher. Also teachers should only accept plain text -- use a word processor, get a zero. That was how it was for me. Somehow I still seem to agree with that.
What do students and computers have in common?
Both are given repetitive tasks. The students are supposed to be doing these repetitive tasks to learn. In corporations, computers do repetitive tasks to free up time for employees to do things that require "human judgment".
When you start letting the computers do the repetitive tasks for students, they are losing the experiences that develop good "human judgment".
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Yes, but what you describe could be viewed as using computers as a tool for the teacher. The problem being discussed elsewhere in this thread seems to involve students using the computers themselves. Big difference!
By removing the Ethernet cable, you've made it a (small) hassle to use the Internet again. That way, it puts more weight on the "Internet" side of the scale when you're weighing out your options on what to do. Let's see: either do this work, or go to the back of my computer, find the cord, plug it back in, and then waste a bunch of time on the Internet. It helps your brain make the right choice.
School districts where a large number of students are falling behind, fall to computer industry propaganda (initiated by Apple) and think that a computer is going to make great students out of all the kids. It's no surprise that it doesn't, but I doubt that it causes them to do worse. What may is what is removed to pay for the computers: people. Students learn better in an environment with an adequately staffed school. Staff doesn't just mean teachers, it takes all sorts to keep the place operational and safe. Teacher's don't need to all have PhDs, either: it's more important that they like their job and their students, though a minimal base level of instructor and programme competancy is required.
But what really makes for good students is environment outside of the classroom. Students need a peer group that doesn't place a negative value on academic achievement (i.e. glamorizing being uneducated). They need parents who are both care about the child's general welfare and education in specific, and is capable of giving the time, affection, and discipline that raising a child requires.
Computers are useful tools for education, and become more important the higher the school grade of the student. While it is still possible for a student to use a typewriter to complete an assignment, it is impractical. Word processing skills have become expected from young people entering higher education and the job market in this age. Secondarily, general computer savvyness (is that a word?) is a general sign of education for the times.
But this doesn't mean that each student needs his or her own brand new laptop or desktop. That's just computer industry marketing pressure at work. While the State of Maine did provide many brand new powerbooks to its students and has reported positive results, I wonder if more intense research into the changes brought about by this give-away would turn up some unpleasant results.
What kids need is a pile of donated old hardware in the school, as parts for when their school or home PC has problems, but also to experiment and learn with. But how many schools encourage such tinkering?
Fuck off power dork. Suck my fat dick.
Absolutely wrong.
Computers are certainly a valuable tool for instruction.
What they are not is a complete replacement.
There are certain kinds for learning for which a computer is very well optimized, and I'm not just talking about entertainment. A well written, computerized flash program could probably teach you vocab far quicker than a human instructor. The computer can keep track of your accuracy and even response time for each item, figuring out your weak points and concentrating on those. And it can do this equally well whether you have 5 classmates or 500. No teacher can match this feat.
The problem is that we are in the backlash of the education dotcom bubble. Just as with the business dotcom bubble, we're now looking at the ideas seriously and sorting out what works from what doesn't. It will take time as the correct tools and methods are identified. As with e-commerce, things will improve. Teachers won't be replaced, but their lives will be easier, and their students smarter.
Computer generally offer win-win, it's just a bumpy road.
Congratulations on getting post #12000000!
I'm taking a blind guess here, but I'm thinking that after a certain amount of use, kids do perform worse in school with computers. Rather, rephrasing that into a sentence that doesn't suck: I think kids probably do better in school using computers a certain amount, and when they start using computers past that amount, their performance starts to suffer.
I love computers. I have to say that out loud, or this one will bite me. I'd also really hate the irony of saying otherwise in this medium. However, computers are not a panacea. As has been, and is currently being said many times in this forum, a computer is a tool. It is a very good tool, with odds and ends that make many jobs easier, nevertheless, a pair of pliers is not the best choice when one needs to drive a nail, and wrench used too much will hurt your wrist. The calculator didn't solve low grades in math, and the computer will do no better. There are other factors, closer to the student, the teacher, and the administrator that hold much more sway in that department.
Computers are still new to the classroom. Yeah, I was playing Oregon trail in the fifth grade, but that wasn't much of an educational use. I don't think the fact that you can get five people from Missouri to Oregon half starved is worth the cost. I don't see computer use in school today as having progressed much beyond that, either. The teachers and administrators seem as the generals of World War I, fumbling with new technology they don't know how to apply tactically, and thus causing lots of casualties and stagnation. Perhaps also leading to the League of Nations and World War II, but I can't be sure of that now.
Not that I can do much better. Off hand, the only two things I can think of where a computer is really handy in an English class(which is the only one I feel I have any shot at quickly getting right), is typing in a reproducible, easily edited way, and researching. The finer points of writing and researching still need to be taught, however. A lot of school don't seem to be doing that as well as they should.
This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
...this is about USING computers for CRAP.
For every example you can give me of a kid who can't stay on task and get their standard work done because they are distracted by something other than real work, I can show you an example of students doing much better at some measure of success.
Put a bunch of kids within reach of a playground, freely able to access it, and a pile of work and guess what...?
This is why we organize what students do, in school (by teachers) and hopefully out of school (by parents).
Of course if we don't, unintended results take over, as they clearly have.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
It has nothing to do with computers; it's a huge problem in education. A friend of mine recently summed it up very well:
"In about 1960 Education policy changed, it went from talking about students to talking about dollars spent on students" (not verbatem).
And it's true. Anymore all you hear is about how much is spent on education; you don't hear anything about researching better methods (at least not in the newspaper, I know the good teachers still look for better teaching methods).
Don't blame computers for people's inability to use them as tools and not make them their lives. Blame the people.
Now, obviously you need computers to teach stuff like programming, but other than that I believe they are a HUGE waste of money.
Cash-strapped schools blow hundred of thousands of dollars on computers, then have to hire multiple people to maintain them for hundreds of thousand more, then have to train the teachers probably also for hundreds of thousands more, all for what? So the time spent in creative writing class can be half writing and half finding a PC not infected with Michelangelo? And if the average school is anything like my HS was, you know ever single box has a DVD+/-RW, tape drive and optical ethernet that never get used but was sold to them by a now very happy salesman.
And meanwhile the $35,000 salary for the music teacher is cut, and the art teacher, and there is no money for a can of paint or block of clay or roll of film. My school went from a Flag of Excelence school to a school with no arts/humanities and you had to pay to play sports. But we had COMPUTERS! LOTS OF EM! Burning eletricity 24/7.
It is unbelievable how much my old school district spent on computers that were literally ONLY used to replace a pencil and paper in writing class, and maybe to teach a typing class. That and for games after hours, or during class. Programming was taught on a VAX system. Ok, I'm old. Maybe times have changed since then but I'd put money on it that it hasn't.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
IHMO those contributing to this debate need to "put your children where your mouth is"
Consider what you will/have done with your own kids.
I remember being asked 20 years ago, by a thirty-something colleque (with 2 kids), as a young wet-behind-the-ears techie as to whether he should lash out on an IBM-PC with MS-Basic to 'teach my kids the new world' or some such tripe.
I remember distinctly what I told him:- by the time they grow up Basic will be nowhere. Unless you specifically want them to be programmers or IT professionals, forget it. Teach them to touch-type, and move on.
20 years on (I'm still in touch with him) both of his kids are fine young professionals with great careers and neither of them can even touch type.
Computers have had not the slightest relevence to their succcess (law and accounting respectively)
So even my advice was wrong. Touch typing is not important in the modern world.
To my main point.
My own kids have access to Mac, Windows and Linux machines. But I don't encourage their use.
They also have access to video, a playstation, but throughout their lives *very* restricted access to TV (this is accidental, and a very long story which I won't go into, but it involves moving to different countries every 2 years or so - try putting your kids into a different school every year, then try shifting countries every 2 years)
Result?
My daughter (after several years of low grades with all the parent/teacher pain that involves) now reads 3 (!) years beyond her level and 2 years
beyond her level in maths. My son (a few years younger) has gone through the same path. Several years of frantic worry on his parents part that he isn't measuring up, followed by consolidation, and then suddenly "he's at the top of his class", followed by "he's one year ahead". He's smarter than his older sister, so I fully expect to hear "he's two years ahead" very soon.
Now let me tell you how both of my kids interact with computers.
They don't.
They spend less that 1 hour a month on their (multitude of networked) PC's and Macs.
Sure, they're reviled at school because the systems they have at home aren't the lastest Bill Gates issue, but they basically don't give a s**t
And now they're outperforming their peers.
I am an IT professsional of over 20 years experience. I have made sure they have every IT resource possible available to them, but only as they needed it, and only if they asked for it.
They ask for some things, games they've seen and want to play. They get it. But after a few hours they don't care.
But not once have I forced something on them. Or required them to learn something. The fact is, most of this stuff doesn't matter.
I put my own children on the block and kept them away from the complete techno nonsense spouted by the industry (particularly Apple) over the last two decades.
I focussed them instead on *reading* and *thinking* - pure and simple.
And it's paying off.
To all of these muppets selling tech solutions to parents I have only one thing to say:
Will you put your own children through this? Or will you send them Ivy League?
Do I need to hear an answer? Or is silence all I need to know?
All the pupils at my school are fine with computers; we've set up an installation of moodle, and it works great -- the biggest problem with computers damaging productivity is when the teachers can't get them to work, and the pupils have to spend the first half of the lesson sorting them out. (Only to spend the second half of the lesson sitting through a horridly designed powerpoint presentation, because after fiddling with the computer trying to get it to work, there was no time left to plan a proper lesson)
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Why should this supprise anyone.... I had a serious discussion with my niece on a similar topic.
My view is this. The computer is great at giving information... it's just a tool. But any tool, no matter how sophisticated cannot do your job for you. If craftsman made the acme house building toolset 4000, don't expect it to build a palace for you, you still need someone to put the pieces together, and that's where the skill of the tradesman comes in. If you know how to ask the computer, it can tell you what happened at, say tianamin square, but will it tell you why the people protested their government? Will it tell you how the chinese youth railed against their communist rulers? Maybe, but there is only a certain extent to which a tool is useful. Take away that tool and the person using it is pretty much useless. My brothers and sisters went to school when slide rulers were still in fashion and when my oldest brother got to highschool, they came out with the calculators that ran on 9v batteries and had LED displays. By the time I got there, it was acceptable to have a simple caculator (not programmable) for trig functions. Now I can barely do math without a calculator, but I still understand all the math behind trigenometry, etc, and given a calculator, pen and paper I can work out my angles, distances, etc. How many highschool graduates of the last 5 years can do that without the computer?
If the bombs start falling and takes away all them fancy gadgets and doohickies, how many recent highschool graduates would be able to function? I doubt even I could.
My own parents have already forgotten far more practical world knowledge than I'll ever know and they don't suffer because they can't find the 'any key'. I think it's a disaster to allow kids below the age of 12 to be even near a computer. By highschool, their brain is still sufficiently pliable to grasp the concepts of the computer and by adulthood, they'll learn enough of it to be fully proficient.
Computer assisted instruction has been rigorously shown to work in a wide array of educational settings. Similar claims can be made for television. The key is the content, not the medium.
Seastead this.
Doesn't work like that. If it did, we'd let bums starve instead of feeding them from soup kitchens. Nobody will support anything for letting lazy bums die. I mean, they're not even allowed to let people in florida die when they're in a vegtable state.
You're right, students need to have a work ethic. Since school is "the job before the real job," then it makes sense to teach some work ethic there. It's not completely the teacher's fault if they don't learn it, but if the teacher doesn't try... there's a fine line to walk.
Anyway, sounds good in theory. Inhumane in practice.
Some times yes, some times no.
At the FE college I work at computers are a very useful tool. I've been teaching a module on statistics and computers have been a very useful tool. Perhaps the two leasons the students really undersood the best were workshop sesions where we did some stats using excel. Typeing =stdev(A1:A10) helped them understand the meaning of standard deviation much better than an hour long session on the subject with board work and exercises.
Maybe it depends on the learners perfered way of working. Some students can handle abstractions like integration well (indeed its one of the marks of a good mathematician). However for many students filling the board with symbols will do nothing but confuse. For these students seeing direct feedback from their work will provide motivation and aid understanding.
Another important question is what are the aims of the teaching process. Are these just narrow aims like the Reading, Writing and Arithmatic mentioned in the article or preparing students for the world. Education today is far more than just this very narrow set of criteria.
Of course computers should not be a replacement for teachers. They are just another tool in a teachers toolkit to be used when appropriate. Its still early days as the education sector learns how best to use them. Electronic whiteboards are appearing everywhere, but I've rarely seem them used well, (the most fun I've had with a white board was displaying 3D models mathematical surfaces which allowed you to rotate them which your hand. True tactile computing).
I'd love to see a move towards better computer resources for teaching. So much is posible but so littles been done. Perhaps open-source/open content ideas could work in education with some schemes to combine teachers talents and really aid teaching.
There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.
As a High Schooler Student(Freshman) at a school that equips students with laptops, I have observed that most students just play games at addicinggames.com, look/Share at p0rn, Scan for spyware or chat on IM. The kids who dont use the brignt'n shiney computers are all the nerds and straight A guys. I have learned that Writing is a lot more effective than typing! This is why it would be best for students to use Tablet PC's. In fact. I am typing this in World history class as of 12:30
When I was at school (couple of years ago), the educational software there was pretty useless.
So for lessons, if we went on the computers, we'd just Google the lesson's content for a few minutes or use the crappy programs they had, then get bored and chat.
I think computers are getting there in education - for example, there's NASA's World Wind which will make geography lessons actually interesting, especially given that as I was leaving my old school they were installing laptops for every pupil in at least one room for each subject.
So, computers are really more of a disctraction at the moment, but they're making progress - we just need a few more "killer apps" which genuinly interest the kids.
...the editors missed the previous story. At least it's a few months old (Dec '04).
And anyway, high schools are obsolete, so stories about students are meaningless.
I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
from the article:
I am curious as to the additional criteria they use to get these new results.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
Now...what was my comment going to be...
(Unfortunately, I'm not trying to be funny, I'm trying to be insightful)
But the answer isn't to replace poor teachers with computers, it's to replace poor teachers with good teahers.
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
Most school computers are there to run applications.... and applications are tools to do things more easily that humans need to know how to do the old fashioned way.... write, communicate, draw, do math.
For those with a bent toward actual programming, a computer in school is a useful learning tool.
For anything else you just know that kids are wasting their time solving silly problems, navigating through silly games and menus, cruising the "safe" filtered web, browsing silly educational CDs. WASTE of time.
If you want computers to be a learning tool put them in schools with the tools that kids need to build applications... programming languages, programming environments, etc. Nothing else.
For information, send them to the library. For communication, let them write with a pen, speak in public. For art let them get their hands dirty.
Computers by their nature aggregate someone elses knowledge so that YOU can do something WITHOUT that knowledge. But it is the knowledge needed to do the aggregation inherent in an application that is the "wisdom" of computers... and since kids just run applications, their is little or nothing for them to gain from interaction with computers.
Until kids are ready to engage computers as programming tools and to create their own applications they are not ready and will not benefit from computers in schools.
(Exception... yes the library and search capacties of computers are useful for finding stuff.... but you don't need many computers to meet that need.)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Programmed instruction just does not work.
Instructor-led classes are always more effective and the material is retained longer. Schools (particularly US military technical schools) that changed their curriculum to make heavy use of programmed instruction in the form of booklets in the late 60's early 70's, and later in an actual computer-based form, discovered that students eventually begin competing against the machine and each other to see who could finish the fastest.
Needless to say, once the the effort to learn was replaced by a speed contest, the level of retained instruction dropped dramatically.
It isn't the availability of the computer, just the implementation. The cheaper the program is to implement, the poorer the students retention is.
Rather than learning the idiosyncracies of whatever systems the school has, you learn the LOGIC and the PRINCIPLE behind the concepts.
Once you have those down, you can see how each system implements them in slightly different ways and you can pick up the new stuff quicker.
I wrote a paper on this in freshman English Comp. Worse, most of the research I cited was already pretty old at the time.
The reason why PCs boost productivity in the corporate environment is that we offload our work to students nowadays. Hence students do worse ;)
The concept that Japanese schools are superior than American schools is something of a myth. While they do produce students that can excel on tests, there are many deficiencies in their education that aren't worth emulating. The Japanese educational system is strongly based on rote memorization. This stems somewhat from traditional Chinese teaching methods. Literacy requires the memorization of a few thousand kanji. This requires rote learning and the Japanese extend this method to all other areas of teaching.
The end result, though, are students that can't formulate original ideas synthesized from preexisting knowledge. I have personally witnessed a Japanese cardiac surgeon (employed in the US) ask whether snakes have lungs. Anybody that's taken basic biology would know that snakes are reptiles, all reptiles are air breathers, all veterbrate air breathers have lungs and would be able to conclude through syllogism that snakes have lungs. This individual was never forced to memorize that snakes have lungs and couldn't form a simple conjecture.
The other important aspect of the Japanese student work ethic is that they have a lot of parental pressure to excel. The Japanese have taken this pressure to obscene levels in the form of toddler schools with competetive admissions and children working 12+ hours a day on school and private tutoring. Conversely, a lot of the problems with American students is that the poor performers usually have deadbeat parents that couldn't care less about their education. The pressure placed on Japanese children is one of the primary causes of their high rate of suicide compared to other first world countries.
The irony of the Japanese educational system is that their universities are considered a joke even though all of the competitiveness for admission to preschools, elementary, and high schools is ostensibly to get your child admission to the "top" universities.
You are missing the point of calculus. We learn how to USE calculus to solve problems, not the calculus itself, unless you want to be a mathmetician.
"Worth noting that it took almost 20 years for PCs in the corporate environment to actually have a positive impact on productivity; might the same be true in education?"
The "productivity" gains in business are due to increased facility with less competence. This type of efficiency is a benefit for business, but I dare say it is not for education in general.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Around here they had computers in schools 20 years ago. there were not as many of them, but they did have them and they were used for things. Educational games from MECC came out in the 80s, Oregon Trail, Number Munchers... that stuff was in the 80s.
Logo in the late 80s, which is what got me into programming.
Schools don't use computers any more effectively now than they did back then (at least around here.) In fact, they use them less now for learning, and more for training software 'skills'.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Before I first got my computer my spelling was abysmal. Virtually every word I spelled was incorrect. However after joining several forums devoted to some of my hobbies I realized my spelling would have to get better, and spell check just didn't cut it. So with incentive of the computer I forced myself to just learn the words I had trouble with, and I did. Also thanks to IRC, ICQ, and slashdot (trying to get that pesky first post) with the speed of typing that is required, my typing speed has also gotten better. So nobody can say that computers have hindered my learning. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to pull a quick ALT+F4, I hear my mom coming and I'm supposed to be learning Japanese.
Behold, another webcomic!
there lies some truth in internet meaning bad habits for edu.... hehehehehe :)
broadband is possibly the most dangerous thing invented after the a-bomb. booyaa.
Three rings for the Elven-kings in the sky
I wish I would of known this. Maybe if I spent less time on my computer I could have gotten a 36 on the ACT instead of my measly 34.
When you start teaching kids how to do math using calculators and computers, then they don't actually learn how TO DO math, they learn HOW to do math. There's a big difference in those otherwise identical phrases. If you give them a test where they have to do it by hand, many of them are going to fall on their faces since they haven't ever had to do that.
I think that there may be something to the idea that reliance on calculators kills math skills. I don't think that this applies to the /. set as much as it does to the lower end of the wage scale....
Think about this next time you are in a retail establishment, when was the last time someone counted out change for you? Was that person under 50?
I worked in a grocery store when I was in high school, back in the late 80's. I remember the panic that ensued when the cash register system went down and we had to use adding machines. The largest issue that we had was the lack of folks who could 1) use an adding machine and 2) could count out change without the computer telling them how much to give.
I think that there is something to this.
The most important thing you need to know once you enter the workforce is how to work with people you don't like and don't respect so that you can both accomplish a goal.
... badly. They tend to focus on the few with superior, natural skills and forget about the rest.
Organized sports teaches this
You can't all be superstars. A team of mediocre people, working together, can accomplish more than a team of superstars who each demand the spotlight.
"you go to a trade/vocational type school and learn how to weld."
Judging from the money people in the construction business make in the US (or at least in the NE US) compared to the erosion of IT jobs I'd say failing and being sent to a trade school would be a big plus.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Not only that but now teachers are judged based on standardized test scores so they teach the kids to do well on the tests instead of actually understanding the material or going outside of the boundaries of the test material.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
The BBC has a similar story from November 2004.
I was in English major in college until I changed to Info Systems. I discovered the Internet in 1994. I started messaging and found out that my speling and grammer weren't where they needed to be at. Luckily, I was hanging out in Flame areas where people were quick to point out flaws in your message. It was sink or swim when it came to speling, grammer or avoiding metaphors. I heartily endorse using computers as long as someone or something corrects all mistakes. Especially ones involving puncuation.
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
Some pretty good info if you're interested in this type of thing.
Computers are not a golden bullet. But that's really what America wants.
This study is very inaccurate and very bias. Computer have deffinitelly reached the level of being helpful in some areas of studying and there is no reason why they could not be used as study tools. Yes a desktop could be both a study aid an an entertainment center and as such it will both save you time and waste a lot of your time playing Doom 3 or whatever else the student chooses to. Plus then there is the internet and it can REALLY kill your free and not so free time. (wait isn't that exactly what I am doing right now !?) The problem with the students is that now that computers are pretty much everywhere and can do so many different tasks students have to make wiser choises. And YES it does come down to having BAD work ethics and YES japanise students have access to computers all over the place but that doesn't make them perform poorly in school. On the other hand there are the teachers. A computer is just as much of a distruction to the teacher as it is to the students. Most teachers feel intimidated by a piece of metal plastic and silicon which is just plain ridiculous. After all if you are a teacher you should know better. A teacher SHOULD NOT try to make the class more entertaining and attractive by using a computer but rather speed up the lerning process and present the students with more and *more useful* information. If there is no such computerized study aid then leave the computer alone for a while. Instead what happens is that you get barelly computer literate teachers struggling with a simple operating system as Windows and trying to learn something new while they are teaching something else. The quality of the educational process goes done a lot and no one wins at the end. Like a said if you are a teacher you should know BETTER. So don't do the classic mistake and blame human mistakes on computers. After all how is a computer going to do anything unless you make it? Last I checked they had neither free will nor a mind of their own ...
I'm not going to say it's all the teacher's fault but I remember my teachers all being hired based on school board nepotism. Very few of them I actually enjoyed (I even remember some of the material they taught), some were emotionally unfit for the job or simply drones collecting their paycheck and not much more mature than the kids they were supposed to be teaching. Most of them though (especially science teachers) just took their teaching "kits" out at the start of the year and had us robotically follow the workbooks to the end with no attempt to make the material interesting or sophisticated.
If any of your kid's teachers are limiting their teaching of gravity to having their students time balls rolling down ramps then get them the hell out of that school.
From my experience, I hate to read books...They are boring to me. I both need and want something exciting that will entertain my mind. In fact the people arguing that computers are lowering scores and such need to review the other pieces. What is really important, a test score? I don't believe so. In the world where jobs are held people don't take tests as methods of productivity...People work on projects and other similar pieces. So why is it important to get good grades on a damn test? It is important to understand the concepts which are gained through experience. But if I can't perform on a test, which is a set time frame, with a group of questions, then should I be burdened?
t wain.html/ This is the approach I've taken and will continue to take!
No. The problem today is with the education system. If we are going to compare education and business then it would most likely make sense to use a productivity approach. Teach students to work in groups and solo on projects. Make the projects challenging and exciting. If people aren't learning due to the current teaching methods, change the methods. You can't expect a whole era of people to change the way they are learning simply because you find them to be getting lower test scores. Figure out a different method to teach them. Instead of saying "Ok we will have a test on line equations." Say "We are going to be doing projects with equations of lines and then to show that you have understood that we will have a quiz/test" The projects are a reinforcement of the material rather than just going with a straight lecture.
Someone mentioned something about Asian school systems. Those systems are good in their structure ONLY because the system is so strict that it can be rigid like that and succeed. So if we want to, again, change the way our era of people are learning and doing things in an entire cultural revolution, then sure...it makes sense...otherwise, go back and rethink your process.
To go back to the argument about computers. While distracting, I think that because of computers and my involvement I have learned SO much more than I would have otherwise. Books bore me as I stated earlier. Art is not fun for me because I suck at it. However, I can take the different concepts from math and apply them to 3D worlds in a computer simulation that I've developed and know that I understand those concepts. Why? Because I can apply them. I know that I can take the Collision System and revert it back to basic Multivariable Calc and Linear Algebra...Try telling a person who works it all out on paper to apply it to that system from scratch. Probably wont happen, I've seen this happen. It is certainly important to be able to look at differnt things such as a math equation or a poem and be able to derive or extract values or meanings from those, but it is also VERY important to see the application of it. Projects get you application. Computers have been a VERY useful aid in my educational experience and, I would argue, many other people have found the same results.
I believe it was Mark Twain who once said, "Don't let schooling interfere with your education." http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mark_
Most of the comments above are clearly opinionated drivel. Is this really a black and white issue?
I notice that a lot of the discussion going on here is about whether or not computers help students learn. That's not really the point of the debate. Even the referenced article says (in passing) that having computers at home is a distraction. That puts it in exactly the same league as TV, radio or friends--it's just a matter of play time versus homework time.
It's obvious that computers can be used to help students learn if used properly. That's also true of TV and pencils. Even the harshest critics of computers in education concede that one.
The real questions is whether the advantages of putting computers in schools justify their cost. A previous study (funded by a bunch of hardware and software companies--no bias there) said that yes, it was. The study TFA talks about counters that by saying, basically, that the study fails to take into account the fact that schools with computers can usually also afford more books, teachers and special programs and it's those things that are making the students better.
This whole computerization push is really good for politicians because it makes them look like they're doing something and it's really good for the hardware and software vendors because they can pocket a big chunk of the education budget. What it's bad for is the education system, because it diverts money that could be spent on useful things, and that's bad for all of us.
So in conclusion: computers are good for education but only if they're free.
I am a teacher in a highschool in Canada. I teach physics, computer science, design studies and computer animation. I'm really encouraged by the comments I've read in these posts. It's good to hear that most of you support the teachers you had. For the few people who don't, it's usually because they had a bad experience. This is usually usually due to a personality conflict with a bad teacher, or they struggled with the way teaching is done in our society. Teachers aren't perfect, but sometimes it feels like society expects them to be. Most teachers I know strive to do the best job possible, and they would bend over backwards to help any student who wants to help themself. (Notice that I said MOST, not ALL.) The problem is that many students have no interest in helping themself. They want everyone else to do it for them. I also agree that our society has become a world of blame everyone else, and take no responsibility for yourself. That's one of the most difficult things, as a teacher, to deal with.
He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones:
"It's almost as if people care more about expressing phonetical when writing more than gramatical accuracy and correct spelling."
I think you meant to say something like this:
It's almost as if people, when writing, care about expressing phonetic accuracy more than grammatical accuracy and correct spelling.
--
Seeing is believing; You wouldn't have seen it if you didn't believe it.
The research referenced by the article: Computers and Student Learning: Bivariate and Multivariate Evidence on the Availability and Use of Computers at Home and at School.
There's no question that computers can enhance educational experience, but if, for example, they are used instead of actual lab experience, then they're detracting from it. If they are seen as a substitute for the raw manpower needed to teach (low student/teacher ratios), then they are detracting from it.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
When I used to deliver pizza I wore a "change maker" on my belt - one of those metal devices that lets you quickly dispense the chosen number of each coin. For the common pizza prices, I could make change almost instantly, as my fingers knew what to do. This simple feat of arithmetic - subtracting a number from 100 - would *amaze* people. Some folks simply could not *believe* that I could figure out what the change from a 20 for 16.17 was without visibly pausing and pondering, despite the fact I was doing this full time.
However, the argument about calculators (and slide rules before them) was somewhat different. The argument against slide rules was that students were no longer memorizing their log tables! Heck, most people today wouldn't even understand why it could be helpful memorize the base-10 log of numbers (hint: it helps to estimate the product of two large numbers quickly). But since slide rules are based on log tables, it wasn't much of a change. Calculators, on the other hand, were totally seperate from log tables, and, sure enough, almost no one toady could tell you the common log of 64 without looking it up. However, it doesn't matter - no one knows because it's no longer generally useful. Calculators are cheap and commmon.
It was sort of a seperate issue from today's inability to subtract a number from 100 to make change.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The topic of depth of information and the internet has been thought of before. When you interact with people, you get more than just information; you also get facial expressions, nuances, tone of voice, and actually quite a bit more information on the particular topic you're interested in. Additionally, learning when interacting with people imposes structure on the presentation of knowledge. When dealing with the web, it's random, poorly structured, and completely lacks any of the human element.
The internet is a useful source of information, but those who use it as their exclusive resource don't get a rich experience that's good for learning efficiently or being creative.
(I know about this stuff, because my wife just did a paper on it.)
"I don't think you can make a case against students learning to use computers now, as opposed to waiting until they are over 40 and trying to find the Any Key."
I agree with that but the implication is that if you don't become computer literate while young that it will be too difficult to catch up later.
I had almost no exposure to computing until I was about 32. In the ten years since then, I've installed MSWindows, Slackware, RedHat, Suse, and Linux from Scratch systems on my own and other people's computers.
I frequently am called upon to troubleshoot problems with both Linux and Windows software, even though I don't have a position with I.T. at my company. I've created spreadsheets for my employer. I wrote my own calendar and alarm program in Tcl/Tk. I always compile my own kernels and most of the other software that I use. I frequently find people who were educated in computers at a young age approach me when they can't figure out how to do something.
Sorry to sound like I'm tooting my own horn, I just wanted people to know that becoming computer literate is still possible, even if you don't achieve it while a teenager.
I've never found grades any great indicator of how good someone is at their job. Why all this push for straight A students? The smartest people I ever met in University and work life did well (B's and such) but were never the elite, especially in fields they weren't interested in (English was usually C's).
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
If investigated fully you will find that many parents don't have a respect for education, or atleast the education system. Many parents view the failure of their child to learn as a failure of the schools. These parents forget that they are ultimately responsible for their child's eduacation. Schools and teachers are only there to assist. This causes cynicism amounts teachers who are tired of having students dumped on them and being blamed for the child's poor learning. The children themselves quickly figure out that their parents only pay lip service to education. Why should a child be expected to respect their teachers, when the child's parent dosen't?
There are many faults with the school system. Parents have to realise that they are one of the problems.
Every time I hear a baby boomer talk about the problems of failing students, they always ask questions like "Did they start associating with the wrong crowd?" or "Did the teachers not help them out enough?" Its like the idea that students create their own problems is completely alien. When you look at the actions that have been undertaken as a consequence, the end result is a school system where everybody passes no matter what, people coast through 12 years of school like it was nothing. The real injustice is that the same people get their high school diplomas, spend a year or two flipping burgers and finally it dawns on them that they fucked up. Too late, no good college will accept them.
Here is what I believe needs to be done:
- Lower the dropout age to fourteen, so that if you want to screw around, you can leave. Its better that they realize how much menial labor sucks at the age of fifteen, when they can still redeem their lives, then at nineteen when they are stuck.
- Lower the minimum work age to fourteen, so that the above mentioned people when leave, can try their hands at flipping burgers and see what that lifestyle is like.
- Raise the passing grade to a 75%, to start filtering out all of these people that coast by getting D's in everything.
- Remove conditions on funding based on attendance. The problem with funding based on attendance is because it encourages administrators to keep kids in class, but doesn't encourage them to learn. IMHO it is better for a student to be playing hookey at a video arcade than it is to be in class, misbehaving and ruining things for the other students.
- Remove conditions on funding based on performance. These restrictions unfairly punish city schools; it isn't the schools fault that all of the constituents come from the inner city, and thus have uncaring parents that do not push their students the way a parent in say, Fairfax Virginia might. The people that are really cheated under such systems like 'No Child Left Behind' are inner city kids that do want to learn, and have the misfortune of being around people that do not.
- Removing administration's focus on keeping kids in classes, and make sure that disruptive students are escorted their way out. This way, classes will be occupied by people that want to learn, or are at least not disruptive. City schools should be refuges from inner city life, not a focus for it.
- Change high schools from being 'yearly based' to being 'semester based', like a college. If someone flunks out, flips burgers for a month or two and realizes that they want to go back, they should not have to wait until the following September to come back.
Enough said. Whenever I say this sort of thing to people, I always hear "But those kids who would be kicked out under such system are the ones that need it the most." Fair enough, but invariably the people that say things like that are not the ones who have experienced that sort of people first hand.[BEGIN]
{attempt at humor based on real-life-and-somewhat-relevant-to-the-story experience}
You know, as far as distractions go, whenever I had to do vocabulary words as homework (given a list of words, write down the definitions from the dictionary), it would take me a LOOOONG time to complete. Remember at the tops of each page are the "key words" that help you pinpoint the word you are looking for? I would invariably find those words "interesting" and read their definitions. Not just the ones on the page where the vocab word was, but EVERY key word that I found interesting during the search process.
PLUS, while I was skimming the columns to locate the vocab word (when I finally made it to the correct page where it should be) I would get distracted by all the other words and stop and read their definitions! Took me FOREVER to do 10 vocab words! That whole dictionary thing was a HUGE distraction to getting my work done!
I think the government needs to reconsider putting dictionaries in every class room and spend that money on more computers. Kids can then safely do their vocab homework with dictionary.com-no key words, no other extraneous, distracting words to detract from your monk-like copying of text from the dictionary to your paper. Heck, you can even skip the writing part altogether an just copy the words and definitions into a word processor and print it out or...email them to your teacher!
[END]
{attempt at humor based on real-life-and-somewhat-relevant-to-the-story experience}
Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
Computers make problem solving easier, and the human has to think less when solving a problem with a computer. When you are learning, the goal is to think more, not to solve the problem as quickly as possible.
For this reason I have always been against the widespread use of computers in school.
Computers taught me math, which allowed me to succeed in College to learn about computers!
But I agree almost entirely with the article, because it didn't happen the way you would think it did.
What happened was that I was a terrible student in Math. But one day the teacher said: whoever writes a program that would allow you to factor a polynomial to its roots using synthetic division (the technique we were learning) gets an A.
So I toiled in Applesoft BASIC for a couple of weeks, writing and re-writing overly complex algorithms to try to get it done. But alas I failed. However, in the process I thought I needed to learn about logarithms (and did so).
The next topic in math class was: logarithms.. and I surprised everybody by knowing what they were. For the first time I knew something in math class.. then there was a Math contest.. I did well.. and the rest is history. I've been good at math ever since.
Computers taught me about self-study. That self study helped me learn math. Odd, but it worked.
However, I did all my math with old fashioned pen and paper. And I'm still pissed off at my Calculus III teacher in College for his over-emphasis on computers instead of teaching us the hard math we needed to learn! (In that case the computer impaired my math learning)
obviously, in the first 20 years of the computer, they didn't have slashdot or fark. so, that's skewed.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Correlation does not equal causation. So, what we have here is an observation that students with computers statistically don't do as well academically as those without. This does not mean that computers are the direct or sole cause, as it could also mean that there is some other factor involved, and that students with this other unknown factor are more likely to have computers at home and/or in the classroom. Just something to think about before we jump on computers as being the cause of this observation.
I think I know what the problem was. Was Slashdot available on these student computers? That would do it.
I'm serious. Computers are a tool. Yes, in general giving a school more tools is a good thing, but giving the wrong tools will be about as helpful as supplying a bunch of highschool boys with chainsaws -- in the end it will be costly and destructive.
Are computers supposed to teach typing? Do that on the old typewriters in storage.
Are computers supposed to teach writing? I'm no historian but I think people were writing before 1980.
Now, I know of some very good, *targeted* applications. Like for teaching programming, or helping in certain special needs cases. I can see a school having a computer room, or a few in the spec ed room. But I remain unconvinced that throwing into the classrooms piles of $2000 tools that require expensive training and maintenance when schools can't afford colored chalk will help the kids.
I agree that computers in schools are mostly a waste. All we ever did on them was web browse while switching windows back and forth when the teacher walked by. At least thats all I did. As far as education goes, as Calvin would say, "You can present the material but you cant make me care." Schools in general are a bad idea. People learn what they want to learn, when they want to learn it. Sticking kids in these institutions for all their childhood and young adult years trying to force feed them a bunch of crap that doesnt interest them is the problem. Not computers.
At the FE college I work at computers are a very useful tool. I've been teaching a module on statistics and computers have been a very useful tool. Perhaps the two leasons the students really undersood the best were workshop sesions where we did some stats using excel. Typeing =stdev(A1:A10) helped them understand the meaning of standard deviation much better than an hour long session on the subject with board work and exercises.
Really? How do you know this? What do you think you taught them? Certainly you didn't explain the difference between a standard deviation of a sample and the variance of the underlying RV. You didn't explain -- or even find out-- whether you were using a biased or unbiased estimator (divide by N or N-1 prior to taking sqrt).
If you didn't graph the data, you sure as heck had no idea whether the population was even vaguely gaussian. So just what is it the kids learned?
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
The same thing goes on with textbooks. You don't need the 200th edition of the traditional subjects whose material hasn't changed at this level for 500 years. They load each textbook with distracting diversity crap about how some idiot halfway across the country uses math to distribute produce from their growing coop. Especially in the case of math texts. I use old school texts by the masters such as Gelfand, Spivak, Courant, etc. that are 30-100 years old and teach circles around today's math ed texts.
The whole thing is a plundering of resources that began at the administrative level. (Who deserves a several hundred thousand dollar salary for being a school district superintendant?)
Granted, there are problems with teachers and parents as well. Each of these groups of people need to get the kids to concentrate on learning and minimizing distractions. In addition, there needs to be increased discipline to get rid of people that don't want to be there and serve to be a distraction.
Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation.
so I can imagine what it would have been like if there were 0! ;)
Am I the only one who read 0! as 1 because of factorial notation?:)
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
The more we substitute machines in for what we used top practice and do on our own, the duller our sense will become.
In certain circumstances, computers can help, but overall, its not training the mind to do anything, just taking the workload off the mind so it atrophies.
Im currently a sophomore in an american high school, and let me say that at least 70% of everyone's time on a computer is spent screwing around. Even my computer classes like c+ programming and web page design are spent mostly screwing around or playing games. That said, the computers in the school system are necessary. They provide a information resource that is so efficient that it can't be replaced, and students really do need practice in typing reports. It's a distraction we have to deal with.
Somehow the modern student thinks that everything about learning is supposed to be "entertaining" or "fun", and if it isn't, then it isn't worth doing. What a load. Sometimes learning is just hard work. Yes...it actually requires THINKING.
Part of the problem as I see it, is that we live in a culture that is being increasingly abstracted- more abstraction means less exposure to the basics. Instead of learning how to solve problems, we learn how to find what it is that will solve the problem for us.
Seriously, I hated writing. Now I have a very very bright son who often scores badly (well, not too bad actually) on tests because he hates all the writing you have to do on them. Rarely gets anything wrong. Often doesn't finish. Lucky that the teachers know he is bright.
Loves reading though. And playing on computers.
I think schools have not come to terms with modern society. Handwriting is barely useful today, computer skills are way back there. Being creative on computers is not even on the radar, but that is where the jackpot is today and tomorrow.
This isn't new. In the late-90s there was a similiar study that had shown student's performance in most academics had decreased over the last 10 years. I wish I could remember the paper, or find a link to it, but the premise was that technology in the information age provided access to knowledge, but bypassed the relations, inference, and analytics required to derive or use the knowledge effectively.
One example specific to mathematics was the ability to calculate and/or estimate without the use of a calculator. The article pointed out that 50 years ago, "casting out nines" was a common technique known by students to check multiplication of BIG numbers. Today, virtually NO student comming out of high school has heard of the technique.
Another example specific to "language arts" was that plagerism had increased and the ability of the teacher to detect it had decreased with the introduction of the internet, and specifically the ability to research (via library) that also brought in parallel/peripheral information was compromised. For example, the understanding of a topic by reading through a chapter "doing the research" has been replaced by a Google(TM) and keyword search.
I thought it was kinda funny, that subsequent generations would be "dumber" than the previous.
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
i normally would be doing my homework but since this is so important i want to tell you all as a student that I know firsthand that computers would never ever get in the way of school! I can't think of one place on the net that would deleterious to productivity... not that i won't visit /. when i grow up and have to work
Some people believe 1-1=3 and for the sake of being politically correct, we should respect their differences
When I was young (early 80s), I was poor enough that my single working mom couldn't afford to buy me a computer or video game console (Atari and Coleco were what the trendy kids had). I still had an interest and went to the libraries to read books on BASIC programming. My favorite book was some insider's guide to the Commodore 64 where they taught you Peeks and Pokes and interrupts. I could figure out all the things I could do with that computer other than just stick a cartridge in it to play a game. I had other friends with C64s, and used their computers at their house to try things, from moving graphics to playing with the sound chips. Their amazement was my geek pride. I once borrowed a Timex Sinclair from someone and entered some games from a library book. When I got to high school, they had original IBM PCs in a lab, and the back room had the "IBM Technical Reference Manual". Talk about open source! I could read the assembly code and comments for the IBM BIOS! I learned assembly without having an assembler to play with. After a summer working at a gift shop for $3.50 an hour, I earned $1500 and could buy my very own IBM PC. I upgraded the RAM to 640K for an additional $250, and bought Borland Turbo Pascal/C. I was elite! I could write anything! I made a simple CAD program for a high school project.
Fast forward to college - they taught us an imaginary turing-complete Pascal-like language that no one practically used and made us do proofs and other tasks, mostly without the help of a computer. It wasn't fun, but it taught us to check our code. We'd read Knuth books, where most of the exercises were pseudo-code. We didn't just get on PCs and start coding.
Not having a computer in front of me made me THINK more about what I was going to do and how I was going to do it. As I later started programming tasks, I found that aside from typos caught by the compiler, my code normally worked the first time.
Moral: You don't need a computer to learn to be a coder.
PS: For those older than me... yes, I've heard the horror stories about having to rerun punch card decks. I don't envy having to punch all of my cards before I had a chance to run my code.
Computers are good, pencil and paper is good, blackboards are good, books are good, as long as it is done in moderation and balance. Kids should be exposed to as wide a variety of teaching techniques and technologies as possible because we cannot predict the needs of the future.
As far as the international tests, they are mostly a waste of time. Most the stuff they test for is obsolete and will be done by machines or outsourcing. I got chewed out for stating this before, but it is the truth. Look at what most people actually *do* at work. Even many business programmers never touch anything besides algebra and a little finance in their programs. I don't remember any of my calculus dispite getting good grades at the time. If the purpose of all that is simply to "excercise the mind", there are many alternatives to tons of math.
Table-ized A.I.
I believe that the problem with todays youth is very simple, they're getting everything (so easy), the only thing the have learned is the meaning of everything and the value of nothing, that's not right, that's simply not right. Also, the education of today _it's not education_, it's _instruction_, all the people gets instructed while some of a few gets educated. I have seen a lot of comments here, arguing that is not the teachers fault, I submit you, that is both ways, teachers and students fault. Being a teacher (or educator), should be the most important job in the world, being an educator means that you're responsible of the youth of today, that will soon become the people of the future, thus, if the students fail, the teacher fails, is that simple. I know most teacher today are teachers, simply to get paid, because it's relatively easy; And it is my understanding that that's the wrong reason the be a teacher, if you want to be an educator, you must deeply wish it, because you understand that you will be in charge of the future of our current society.
WARNING: DO NOT LET DR. MARIO TOUCH YOUR GENITALS. HE IS NOT A REAL DOCTOR!
All my CS instructors use PP for EVERYTHING they teach, the class learns nothing, and mass stupidity results.
Power Point != instructional tool.
Oh, and computers in the class room are generally a bad idea. Heck I have serious problems writing anything on a piece of paper without the muscles in my hands hurting like heck, but I STILL support using paper over a computer for English classes. Why? More time is spent THINKING about what is being written, rather than just typing crud out.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
"No Child Left Behind" sounds like a really good idea except for one huge problem. There is no funding to carry out the mandate. I've have talked to several teachers at a few different schools and they have all said the same thing, "NCLB" good idea, very bad implementation. As is, a town near me may end up closing atleast one of its schools due to lack of funding. When I stopped by my old highschool a week ago, one of the teachers told me they basicly had to pay the school $500 at the end of the previous year and the year before that. And people wonder why public schools are going down hill.
While many teachers really love what they do and are very good at it, they can't afford to do it. Now someone is going to say they get paid great and only work 3/4 of the year. Well, many of the teachers I talk to(highschool and gradeschool) put in around 60-70 hrs a week.
My question is, what are our schools supposed to do? With ever tightening budgets and a rising education requirement, computers in the classroom won't be an option, as they won't be able to afford them. My view is that the Fed shouldn't be handing down mandates unless it plans to fully fund them, and I mean fully. "That's just my opinion, I "could" be wrong."
I worked at a high school in Kansas for 2 years for a school with a ton of cash to spend, but very little guidance on what to do with it. The school put a PC in every teacher's room as well as several computer labs, but didn't train the teachers at all on how to use them. I remember having teachers call me for help on the simplests tasks like copying files to a disk drive.
They also didn't have anywhere near enough tech support to deal with them all. Many of the computers were down and no one seemed to be formally assigned to desktop administration. I was a lab monitor, but I helped out where I could.
My point is, if computers aren't helping in the class room, it's probably because the school system doesn't have a plan for effectively using them. It's a big PR sell for the super intendent to say that he's got X computers per pupil in his district, to hell with what they're doing with them.
Just before I left, I'd heard that they had budgeted to buy every high school student a laptop, but still didn't have an adequate technology plan .
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Agreed, computers don't solve the problem; I never said otherwise. But where are you going to get hundreds of thousands of good teachers?
Computers or good teachers? Neither solution will work. The former has the advantage of being possible and cheap.
I'm a computer science student and I learn more online (especially from wikipedia) than I do in class easily. I think book publishers created these results so that kids would be even more trapped into buying rediculously expensive textbooks that have their questions changed each year so you have to buy a new book for the same content. Shame on them for exploiting poor students, the internet democratizes knowledge and the big wigs hate that.
I love computers, went back to school to get a Masters of Software Engineering, program computers for a living, program them in my spare time for my hobbies. However, in this case they are not a useful tool.
My Mom is a 2nd Grade Teacher and regardless of what is suppose to be happening, this is what is actually happening. The State is spending large amounts of money on these crap software programs (and I am not sure stellar programs would be better) and more or less, they are being used to baby sit the kids.
No wonder scores would be lower where there is heavy computer usage. I have severe learning disabilities and I would not have done well at all without the one on one interaction with high quality Teachers and Tutors.
In my opinion, all the money that is spent on these software packages and books should be paid to get the best Teachers and not the education book corps.
It seems to me this article ignores the fact that computers can really be used as a tool. And if teachers use them to enhance the material they present they [the students] will perform highly. The article says, "the more pupils used computers, the worse they performed, said Thomas Fuchs and Ludger Wossmann of Munich University." I believe if you look at the amount of time students spend watching TV instead of hitting the books you will see a similiar trend. For individuals to pass off computer use as the dumbing down of society is absolutly absurd. A high school class in computer programming or drafting (using CAD tools) would be impossible without a computer. But students who elect to take these classes are probably the achievers to begin with. If you were to sit down a kid in front of a TV with an Xbox and tell him/her not to do his homework, of course he/she is not going to do well in school. The angle this article took is insulting. A computer is a tool as well as an entertainment platform. This article infers that the two are one in the same.
First off, who says that computers have improved efficiency in the workplace? Who says anyone *wants* them to? Efficient businesses make for inefficient economies, as they employ fewer people and consume fewer products. The computer is the tool of *in*efficiency par excellance, which is why it was (for a while anyway) good for the economy (t was terrible for business, especially those built around the idea that it could make the company more productive, which is why it ceased to be good for the economy).
More to the point: anyone who thinks that schooling in the US has anything at all to do with education is deluded. US schools serve two purposes: to force students to interact with each other so the at they learn how to play by the rules of society, and to act as a holding pen for 'non-productive' children until they are old enough to be squeezed out into the workforce like so much sausage meat. With the schools in their current state, we would be better off dropping the pretense of 'education' and simply forcung minors to live in barracks until they are old enough to join the workforce.
Furthermore, no amount of 'education' reform will ever succeed because, at the end of the day, this society doesn't *want* people to be educated. The only era in which a substantial percentage of the population (perhaps as much as 10%) received an adequate education, large numbers of the book-smart but naive students realized that most of this society's fixations were nonsense and tried to replace them; unfortunately, the ideas that they tried to replace them with proved to be even worse, and in the end most of them simply got back in line.
When I was a kid growing up in the 80's I had problems wrapping my brain around the multiplication tables. My Dad, on his trusty TRS-80 Color Computer, wrote a graphical flash card program to help. The thing was it was the ONLY thing on the computer. I couldn't ALT-TAB to another program. There were no other computer distractions and I could either 1) leave the computer 2) load up a different program (which would have taken awhile as we only had a tape deck) or 3) just stared at the screen and not do a thing.
Fast forward a few years and in school there were the Apple IIe's. Same scenario: locked into one program and everyone (unless it was "free computer time") ran the same thing. Boot something else, the teacher knew.
These days it's so easy to jump into whatever program and then jump back into what you are supposed to be doing (like right now LOL!). Take away the distraction and maybe it'll help the situation.
++++++++++++++++
Gotta get a sig.
Frankly I think computers, and the Internet, has only fed the "I want it now" culture. If people now can't find the answer within the first page of Google, many are too lazy to dig deeper. If Google find the most relavant sites according to your search then you shouldn't be looking more than two or three pages in.
Oh- look- the Sims..............
It all depends on the school board, administrators, and teachers. For example, they are great in libraries. But in the normal classroom environment, they are often jsut a distraction. Take my high school experience for example (1993-1997):
My school had the highest student-computer ratio in our state, and made a big deal of that. They spent a ton of money puting together computer labs. But aside from typing reports, no one ever used them. So then they started MAKING teachers use them. For example, all foreign language classes were required to spend one day per week in the lab. What did we do? We played Tres en Raya. A damn Spanish grammar game. I learned nothing, NOTHING from that. But I managed to waste away 20% of my learning time. Other classes had similar rules. Computers are great tools when needed, but most of the time in schools, they're not needed. The problem comes when those who signed the purchase orders for the computers try to cram them down the faculty's throat in an attempt to justify their purchase. There simply aren't a lot of places that they come in handy in schools. A few of the places that they do are:
1. Typing papers (for any class)
2. Internet research (school-related, not porn)
3. Advanced math classes (trig, calc, etc where you do a lot of complex graphing)
4. Computer classes (obviously)
5. Some science classes (interactive disection, etc)
So, if properly used, and if only used when needed, computers can be beneficial. But when used improperly, they can definitely harm and education. I won't even get into the whole "let the students run the network" issue.
If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
... and it finally looks like my anecdotal knowledge has been confirmed. After teaching programming for 5 years to college freshmen, I have always believed that good programmers could solve the problem on paper first. Students should work through the problem first. Then the student should realize that a program would have a much easier time of this repetitive solution. I always taught that you never write a program for something that you plan on only doing once. I also agree with other posters that the computer lessens the abilities of the writer. To this day, I still have difficulty proofreading the computer screen. I do much better when I can print out and read a document. Computers are a tool.
. . . although students who used computers lagged behind their peers without computers on standardized math and literacy tests, they excelled in sexual education."
"I worked hard for it. I deserve it. And I have it," Campbell said. "It's all mine."
In highschool, however, I had a (terribly boring) keyboarding class in grade 9 that finally broke me away from hunt-and-peck typing. Is this actually useful, you may ask? Sure, it didn't directly help my math/literacy scores on standardized tests, but given how slowly I write by hand, being able to type at a reasonable speed has helped me get better marks in English class -- the faster an essay gets typed up, the more time I have to edit it -- and now that I'm a university student with a laptop, I'm able to take very complete notes by typing in almost everything that the prof says.
I also had programming classes in highschool, a luxury that many of my friends did not share. I learned the basics of QBASIC, Pascal, C/C++, and a tiny bit of Visual Basic, all of which helped me immesurably when I reached university and started taking computer science. If my school hadn't wasted all that money on computers, I wouldn't have had that opportunity to learn.
I've also noticed that most students who don't get much of an opportunity to use computers, even in a completely non-educational setting, are utterly useless (and often fearful) around technology in general when they get older. Maybe they do score higher on certain tests, and maybe that means they're getting a better education, but... they can't code, they can't make webpages, they can barely operate MS Word, they freak out if they see someone using any OS other than Windows, and many of them will grow up to be the dreaded "broken cupholder" users so familiar to tech support geeks.
Personally, I'd like to see more comprehensive studies to see whether computer usage is really detrimental to all aspects of a student's education, including those that directly relate to technology. I'm not going to deny that a computer is distracting (hell, I should be doing homework right now), but I don't think that's the only reason why math/lit scores might drop. I suspect that part of the "problem" is simply that students are no longer able to focus their studies so much on mastering traditionally important skills. For example, a school that exclusively taught math to elite math geniuses might notice a drop in math scores if English classes were introduced. Would this automatically mean that the presence of English in the curriculum was a bad influence on students, or could it mean that students are devoting their time to learning other, equally important, skills?
"A signature always reveals a man's character - and sometimes even his name" - Evan Esar (1899-1995)
Well, then read this... "Japanese high school students less willing to study than U.S. peers"
http://japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=1&id=3 30 861&page=5
As for students sleeping less and possibly suffering stress related to too much technology in their daily lives, refer to a link at the bottom of this piece.
(Discclaimer: Japan Today is regarded by some, even some of its readers, as a biased "expat forum". I am not an expat, but I recently visited the Tokyo area for almost 3 months.)
My personal take on the public view of students probably isn't worth much, but it is possible to see many children walking on tthe streets, alone, at 7 AM, with their books and packs, heading for the trains. Schooling (as in studying, not abuse) there borders on the brutal, and the typical US parent would scream murder if somehow the Japanese education methods were imprinted upon the US, instantanly or over a 15-year period.
Students attend "jukus", or cram courses/schools, may of which cost the attendees' parents quite a pretty yen. I've seen schools where students attend on weekends, usually Saturday for 1/2 to nearly a full study-day, but sometimes Sunday, for extra measure. (They are attending early on because they really are nationally and daily competing to get into the best schools. Going to the "wrong" pre-school can have ramifacations far into one's eventual career. I have a friend who shunned Todai and who chose a less-stressful local college (his TOEIC scores are in the 95% range of the highest score attainable in the TOEIC exams, but he is an example that could undermine much of what I am saying in this tome: Now that he is back in Japan, after being away over a year, his English skills are rapidly declining, principally because he has no one with whom to daily USE and reinforce his English. (he is also studying a European/Asian language, which he is apparently doing well with) but now that he is in a local college, studying a foreign language, he cannot even change majors. Once in program of study, it is, according to him, virtually if not completely impossible to change it, other than dropping out and losing once place in school and face in society or workforce endeavors. And, no, Todai's old reputation for letting entered students "sit on their asses for 4 years since they obviously must be the brightest people in all of Japan, if not on Earth if they managed to be accepted..." is not necesssarily true anymore. They've been working on cleaning up that albatross of a stigma. There still is some if not an unspokeen level of "Hire Todai Only" or Todai Alumnus attitude is some of the bigger corpororations, but overall, if Japanese students are smarter in the Maths and Sciences, I suspect is has to do with the complexity of the language.)
Japanese, the language, itself is literally or actually disconnected from any other written or spoken language on Earth. (But, some could say the same of Thai or the various Chinese characters.) Some considered it the "devil's curse" and other things, but, really, almost any non-romanized, glyphic/ artistic character-based written language will be hard for learners of romanized languages. Historically, some of the Japanese characters, some 2,000 of the most-used and official sets to 10,000 others, in far less use, but still needed for translating obscure or older but relevant documents and art works, are directly borrowed from Chinese language going back well over 1,000 years. But, it is quite possible to master spoken Japanese, while the written and read part is quite daunting for many foreigners. Moreover, there are plenty of Japanes who, because of disuse, gradually forget a large swath of their own written language and consult dictionaries or other help. Even a MATH teacher was fired for not knowing some or many of the LANGUAGE-related conversation words that students are required to know and master prior to their being graduated from school. Yet, a number of students and adults are of mixed opinions as to whe
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Why learn math when you can download a program to do it for you?
Why learn how to write papers when you can just download someone else's paper (hopefully turned in somewhere across the country) on the same subject and turn it in as your own?
It is good that this study tried to eliminate the bias of independent co-factors but the bias of testing methodology remains.
Perhaps part of the problem is that the tests used are outdated. Perhaps students are learning different skills that the tests aren't testing. First, they apparently only tested math and reading. So, the tests wouldn't show if the students had more total skills but less in that area. I remember many years ago when i was in school that although I did very well on standardized tests (usually 99th percentile) I still realized that the tests were very biased. I noticed, for example, that one of my lower scores was on vocabulary in spite of the fact that I probably had a larger vocabulary than the other students who scored better. The reason was that they only appeared to test on the subset of vocabulary that they teach in schools. I had a huge technical vocabulary in computers, electronics, engineering, and scientific areas that were way outside the limited curriculum taught in schools. School tests test against the curriculum taught in schools and the particular way they are taught. This is true in other areas, as well. They don't teach much philosophy in high school so having read the entire works of more modern philosophers Frederic Nietsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, Betrand Russell, and Douglas Hofstadter may not help you much on tests that focus on Plato and Socrates greatest hits. Tests also focused on your rote memorization of who said what (and then only if they were within the curriculum) rather than your ability to apply the concepts or your breadth of knowledge. K-12 education is heavily biased towards ancient, deprecated works that do not reflect the progress made in the last few hundred years. School tests are also biased towards European and American culture so knowledge of the history and cultures of China, Nigeria, India, Brazil, and Indonesia counts for little. Tests in math tested manual methods of solving problems while students may be learning to use a computer to solve the problems. Yes, students may be allowed to use a calculator now but where is the spreadsheet, symbolic math package, or C compiler. The concepts of math are still very important but when I was in school, the tests tested rote memorization of identities and the ability to use them to solve the exact type of problems given in homework assignments rather than your ability to apply them to new types of problems. And there were time penalties that counted against you if instead of memorizing many of the identities you re-derived them as needed (actually demonstrating greater math skill) while taking the test. And, of course, the tests in math and reading don't measure how much high school students have learned about sex :-)
Now, it would not suprise me at all if the use of computers in schools and at home as educational tools failed to user their educational potential effectively. If computers are used as baby-sitting tools by lazy teachers, they aren't going to be effective. If they are just used for rote memorization drills, for example, they are being used in ways that just exacerbate pre-existing flaws in the educational system. Classes in how to use computers are useful for surviving in the modern world but won't show up in studies that only cover math and reading; however, computers could be used effectively to assist in teaching many subjects. Many students are highly motivated by human interaction and thus interacting with a machine may be less motivating than interacting with a teacher or other students. In these cases, using the computer as a tool without taking away the human interaction is likely to improve motivation. The use of gimmicks to hold the attention of students who are used to tv and video games has some value but can also waste a lot of time on fluff. Home computers are frequently used to play non-educational games but there are games that are more educational. The game c-r
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Bottom line - there is no shortcut to learning. If you take one, you're not learning.
F****ing Brilliant! Amen!
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
there have been two things that have universally suffered: penmenship and spelling.
Skill at memorizing epics, writing cuniform and reading Latin and ancient Greek have also suffered. Funny: things people don't use and don't need to use tend to be skills that they aren't well-practiced at.
Get a brand new PC!
For mp3s, games, instant messeging and an occasional paper!
[Honorable mention: porn]
Partial Credit: The Engineer's Best friend
"Well, the bridge didn't fall all the way down!"
I see. Lets take a look at his sales records. Oh, last month he sold over a 5 million dollars of our product . . . I don't know about you, but if it comes to it, I can always get a new suit.
/me votes for the latter.
Time to update the education system.
I think computers in schools have *huge* potential to make education much more efficient.
But, you have to apply the technology correctly. If computers are used as toys, then no, they won't help.
When I was in school, I found many lectures intolerably boring. And many discussions are a pointless waste of time.
Computers can provide an interactive experience that is far supperior to books, lectures, or discussions.
But, as I said, you would have to apply the technology correctly.
Basically, education has been getting worse for a century or more.
Don't confuse them. Don't even mention difference between sample and population it will only confuse. Dont mention difference between N or N-1 more confusion.
What have the kids learnt. That standard deviation gives a measure of spread of data. High sd big spread, low sd small spread.
It does not sould like much, but it will equip them some vague idea of the terms should them come across it in the future.
There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.
That's exactly what I thought when I read the parent comment. Isn't there a fairly high truancy rate at the high school level because there's not much the schools can do about it?
Of course, there are excellent students as well, but the flawless Japanese super-student myth seems to be a remnant of the 1980s American view of the Japanese as some kind of invading corporate juggernaut.
Thats all I have to say.
No message sent until the spelling is correct.
That might just work to keep the half-witted perverts out of the kids' channels by making message reception subject to correct spelling.
Who's going to get that out first? Slashdot? :-)
I don't know what it means but it makes a case I've been agreeing with: We spend TOO much money on education. more importantly, the bulk of what is spent doesn't get to the "teaching" part. One of the leading scoring students in a recent news piece I heard was from some poor, decrepid school system with practically no money yet this kid outpaced the country in math and science. So much for typical political bantor of "I'll spend more money on education!"
What the fuck is wrong with you people? Look at his sig. Look at his argument.
Except as a tool for communication - to engage with a live teacher remotely.
You just described the program I wrote for myself while learning German in college. I hooked it up to a text-to-speech synthesizer and wrote some tools to save time when writing text files for the parser (I hated writing, losing, and fiddling with flashcards).
Despite overloading, in 10 months I went from thinking Zeitgeist was hard to pronounce (and maybe Dutch?) to passing the German fluency test.I It surprised the hell out of me. 4 years later, I'm still fluent. (I had previously tried very hard to learn Spanish and was convinced that either I was a very not smart person, or that all this talk about mastering a foreign language was an farce.)
Now about a dozen friends have used this program to speed up their learning. For a few, this has been a motivation to learn to program.The computer, in this example, was not the only tool in the language learning toolkit (and immersion is always better), but it was the right tool when correctly applied.
That said, I think the applicability of computers to education is the exception and not the rule. I really couldn't find any other classes in college where a computer (beyond Latex and emacs) could be both effective and time-saving. Unless shown otherwise for specific tasks, I think it would be good for educators to assume first that a computer is not necessary or even useful in the classroom.
As a programmer and a mathematician, IMHO the computer still has a lot to do to catch up with the educational potential of the blackboard and a piece of chalk.
Not that I post on slashdot or anything.
I too am better at spelling in my second language (German) ... but I blame the English language :)
Not that I post on slashdot or anything.
You can't rely on a computer to do tests for you. Computers make up for some weaknesses in human cognitive skills, but using them doesn't make you smarter. The only way you can learn logical deduction and math is by doing it yourself. Computers can help you visualize concepts (just like a blackboard can), organize things (just like a filing cabinet), and do things very efficiently and quicly--but only if the software doesn't get in the way, which is frequently the case. Microsoft Word and Linux take quite a while to learn to use well, but a pen and paper is easy to figure out and does the same darn thing.
Back in my physics department at college, the professors had nothing but bad things to say about the new math courses in highschools, the ones that stopped teaching algebra but instead told kids to go out and get an expensive graphing calculator and spent all their class time teaching the kids how to use them. Little wonder, because the best physicists can routinely do calculations in their heads without the use of so much as a sliderule. Even many blue collar workers need to have a head for numbers, as they can't carry a calculator around all the time.
Computers do have a useful role to play in education. Their use will inevitably become more widespread in almost every study. Any student who thinks they can get out into the working world without learning how to program, how computers work, and what the limitations of computers are is painting themselves into a corner. But until computers develop the ability to think like people do, people will have to also have the ability to live without them. I'll leave it to sci fi enthusiasts to warn about the dangers of AI.
Of course a computer can easily be distracting to even those who do want to learn, but the principle stands. Expecting someone to learn simply by giving them computer access is about as silly as expecting to them learn simply by giving them books.
"When you finally get asked to do things which hasn't been done before, you're SOL."
Well, as that doesn't happen in the average human life, I imagine reading crap, writing it out again and forgetting it will remain popular.
Usually even the most inane things are unique when applied to the situation. To take a typical slashdot example, let's say you're managing a computer network. Has it been done before? Oh yes. But when someone asks you "should we buy/switch to the new [hardware/software/version]?" it hasn't been done before. Not for your organization, your staff, your products, your needs.
You can rely on the salesman (hint: anyone with an agenda) or what "everybody else" is doing (hint: groupthink), but where would you go to make up an opinion for yourself? Certainly, there are many models you can find to help you reach a conclusion (cost-benefit, tco, comparative, training/knowledge management, support, stability, quality) and so on. But if you aren't able to use them, all you have is a bookshelf of models.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
who's going to do better - a kid using a calculator
to give him the answer, or the kid doing sums with
a pencil and paper? the point being, you don't need
a computer to invent a computer. the more you do things
manually, the more you are forced to develop your thinking.
once you've learned it the hard way, then the benefits
of automation become all the more apparent than the
person that has never had to do the work under the hood.
the same thing applies to programming - someone
who knows how to compile their own kernal
will have better insight into knowing things
are behaving the way they are.
there are many skills in the world,
one of them is computer fluency,
and because of the saturation in our environment
of them, you can almost pick them up along the way
for many things without ever having to explicitly
take a 'computer' course in school, just like you
can become taxi driver without ever having to
become a mechinic.
you want to live in the world before modelling it.
before i see formal database entries for different kinds
of fish and plants, i would think its better to experience
these things first hand (if possible - are there frogs
and milkweeds out in the creek beside the school -
why should i use a CD-ROM about them first? --first
i see the frogs, then i become curious, and i may even later
do a web search about these things to find out their history
and what other people have said. but simulation
never replaces first-hand real-world experience.
it amazes me last time i went to the museum
that they had an actual dinosaur skeleton RIGHT THERE --
first hand data from which everything is derived. and there
was nobody actually LOOKING at it - they were all too busy
watching a screen with a computer model of the artifact
in question --i.e. information ABOUT the artifact,
instead of studiously contemplating the actual thing itself.
this seems very typical of learning these days.
kids should run around, climb trees and play in the mud.
its all very good for them. then later on when they're
tired in the evening, settle donw and play a videogame,
and when they're curious enough, then maybe they'll
decide to go further, and try and learn how to programme
one themselves. but running and playing is more
important for kids then pointing and clicking.
they're already going to have loads of computers
in their life, but they're never going to have
time to play and run and climb trees again
like they do when they're young - let them.
the secret to staying young
in to never stop climbing trees.
regards,
j.
Dude, you want to check your German lessons!
no taxation without representation!
You are missing the point of calculus. We learn how to USE calculus, not calculus itself, unless you want to be a mathematician.
(This is a rant. Pay it no heed.)
Graaaaah! Powerpoint! Powerpoint must die! Die die DIE! I despise Powerpoint. It is a vile travesty of a presentation medium! Anyone who tries to tell you something with Powerpoint is ipso facto not worth listening to. Powerpoint! Aaaaaaaaagh!
"There are hundreds of game theorists at the gates, sir, and they want to hold an election!"
Worth noting that it took almost 20 years for PCs in the corporate environment to actually have a positive impact on productivity
That's because they've been MicroSoft PCs. It didn't take that long in the Mac shops.
I found this very interesting, being a high school student. I disagree that computers are holding high school students back. Sure, there are some who stay up to 4:00 AM playing computer games when they should be doing their homework, but on the other hand, there are those who use computers to help them. I use computers every day of my life (and not all of it is for school work (well, I am posting to slashdot...)), but I have a 4.0 (straight A's an I am in honors and AP courses). As always, there are two sides to the story. Computers are one of the most useful tools available to students, if they use them correctly. All my teachers require all essays and other homework to be typed. I have the whole range of teachers, from those who use computers way too much in their classes to those who I have never used a computer in class for. My english teacher prints her tests of the internet as well as getting all of her class material from the internet. I find this a horrible method and I have lost all respect for this teacher. Then, I have teachers who are afraid of our use of the internet and tell us that we can only use books from our school library and that we aren't allowed to use the computers. I think that if teachers and many other adults had a better understanding of how teenagers use computers, that they would be much more useful for both teachers and students. Just my opinion....
I think Hemos beat you to it. ;)
"Their report also noted that being able to use a computer at work - one of the justifications for devoting so much teaching time to ICT (information and communications technology) - had no greater impact on employability or wage levels than being able to use a telephone or a pencil." ??? something ain't right with that story...
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
My high school district just gave everyone laptops and its been nothing but problems. Sony sold us vaios that were recalled and the mobo overheats so about 40 laptops A DAY go down to get repaired. They are abused to no end and the school happily pays to get them fixed. They are mostly used for games porn cheating listening to music and watching movies all during class. Every teacher I have talked to said grades have gone down and not one kid I know does not have games on their laptop. Our tech people have no idea what they are doing and mail the share drive and or printing is constantly down. There answer to the problems above is to lock down everything but word and IE, of course ill just put in knoppix but they dont know what boot cds are. Im all for computers in class rooms, I find I take notes and write better on a computer but most kids just cannt be trusted.
In 2000, the State of Maine purchased a laptop computer for every student. They tracked the students grades, and the scores went up significantly.
Perhaps the problem is with computers that are only partially integrated into a students life instead of a computer that actually belongs to the students. Using the schools, or your parents computer is not the same thing as using/owning your own computer.
I am a Ph.D. candidate in (theory) CS --- when I am hot on the trails of some problems that I really want to solve, where do I go? Not somewhere where I can easily find a computer.
Could it be that students now spend a lot of time chatting online or playing Half-Life 2 all of the time instead of studying which causes poor grades? You can spend just as much time wasting your day aways with a computer as you can with a T.V.
"Anything tastes good if you deep fry it."
The keyboard + mouse interface is not a good tool to promote learning. It often challenges their dexterity more than their intellect.
Educational software will continue to have limited value until it fully integrates speech or touch screens as a primary interface. Some software already does this, but in my experience, those titles have other limits.
Of course, there could be some very serious drawbacks:
- none would want to teach students with learning associated- or even general success-impairing problems (i.e. non- good looking, speech disorders,
... ) which could hold back their success regardless of education.
- teaching associated with non-lucrative occupations and carriers would suffer loss of quality. The same goes for public schools in poor communities. Oh, wait... no, seriously, they wouldn't benefit as much as needed from such reform.
- schools and teachers would put more energy into selecting "good material" and even worse, rejecting apparent "deadends", instead of making best out of what they've got.
It seems that any attempt to better teaching ends in some sort of even more elitistic school system. Of course, every society needs good elite but its wealth, strength and overall level of development is mostly percieved by looking at achievements of it's average, mediocre citizens.Well, none can know everything in advance. The rules and corrective measures should be and are built as we go.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In a culture of conformity, there are no kids who are "different" and thus teased to the point of shooting their tormentors.
Ah yes... the country of "The nail that sticks out gets hammered" has no kids who are different and therefore shunned. Right. Pull the other one; it's got bells on it.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
The key problem with US high schools IMO is that they exist more as holding pens than centers of education. High school exists largely so that both parents can head off to their jobs and know that their dear teenager isn't doing anything untoward for half of the day. (Which really isn't true if they knew half of what goes on in the shadowey corners of your average public high school, but eh...) Paul Graham has an interesting take on that in his essay on why nerds aren't popular in high school. Me, I was lucky enough to have accelerated programs available which I was able to tap into. I had English teachers who made me write, and write in a grammatically and orthographically correct manner. I had a Calculus teacher who stated at the beginning of the year that students who couldn't keep up would get help, but if they didn't apply themselves, they would likely fail the class and that she wasn't going to shed any tears for them. I had a Chemistry/Physics teacher who loved his work so much that his infectious glee made all the dull terms much more exciting. (The fact that half of his experiments exploded or did something else similarly spectacular didn't hurt either) *shrug* But for most people, high school is indeed pretty useless. The bright kids are bored throughout it. The not-so-bright can make it through without trying because there's always a lower-denominator class and teachers aren't apt to fail a student because that path leads to bad performance reviews and parent lawsuits. Still, every child has an opportunity to receive an education unlike some of the higher test score countries where only the cream of the crop get to stay through high school and therefore be included in the exams.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
I have mixed feelings about that. I am extremely frustrated to see how teachers and students use PowerPoint. Most often, PowerPoint is best used as a visual presentation of an OUTLINE of what you are speaking about. Not your whole freaking speech. This helps you stay on task and present your ideas in an ordered fashion. On the other hand, having your whole lecture typed in slide after slide is pretty much a useless pain.
So yes, PowerPoint is worthless when it is badly used. But when it is used well to summarize key points, provide graphs in the correct spots, pulls up a video at the right time, these are all good things.
P.S. You can also use it for making some interactive point and click education games. (for those of us that don't yet know how to use shockwave)
When in fact you are still behind, because as you point out: You can't develop.
Film and digital are merely subsets of photography. While I'm not learning film photography I'm most certainly still learning about photography in general. I am indeed learning to use shutter speeds, aperture settings, and focal lengths. In digital photography, film is no longer even part of the process. To say a digital-only photographer knows nothing about photography is no different than saying a film-only photographer knows nothing about photography. If I learned to use camera obscura to somehow capture images on mossy rocks I'd still be practicing photography.
Math, on the other hand, is different. The building blocks in math are assumed to be absolute. No matter which technological marvels intervene the fundamentals of math will not change.
cannot answer questions - a good hypertext can answer the FAQs. A search engine can answer most of the remaining ones. An e-mail to tutors can deal with the rest.
tell memorable stories that make information stick in your head - a good book or a good article can do that extremely well. A video film can as well. A computer can show these just fine.
deal with the oddball questions that only a living flesh-and-blood teacher can field - again, the FAQs can be answered once and for all and Google (or a better search) can deal with the rest.
I had a simple calculator of the $5 kind. As a result, I have a better idea of what is going on than if I just simply plugged stuff into Student Maple. To put it another way, when I see an integral, I know about Riemann and know what I'm looking at. - the hard way is not always the most efficient way. I heard about dopamine pathways many times before, but I didn't really understand what these are before I saw a nice illustration and read a few paragraphs of text. It is possible to explain any concept and hard manual exercises are not necessary (although they are one way to deal with the problem).
Bottom line - all your arguments against computers are fallacies or simply untrue. With the right software computers can teach at least as well as an average teacher. And the best thing is that while you can't copy your teacher, you can copy software. Designing one excellent math teaching application solves the problem of math education once and for all. If you don't have that software, computers won't help, of course, but it's silly to blame Maple or the computers themselves.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Should have put in tags.
Life is a continual education in the triumph of application over ability.
Computers help kids who cannot afford books. If you are going to a private or elite school then you may not need a computer, but at the urban schools in the inner city having a computer is the only way to learn because theres no books and classes are too big. A kid that is taught to educate themselves using the computer will learn, also it enhances reading and writing skills if they read websites and write enough emails.
I teach at a school for which socio-economically disadvantaged doesn't quite cover it (in CA). The school district has poured MILLIONS into wiring schools (first T1 now wireless) as well as placing an iBook in every teachers hand (CRAP MACHINES). Our school has a computer lab for students. Many WHO CAN'T READ. Now perhaps I'm missing something here. I may just be a dolt. Perhaps I'm a luddite or something but it seems to me that even the INTERNET is WORD DRIVEN. Basically you have to be able to read in order to use. So if you can't read, this thing isn't gonna help you. The problem with machines is that they aren't smart; they don't have intuition or initiative; they break. Basically people are cheaper and more effective. I think asking people who can't control their "boredom" to intiate their own learning is like leaving a dog with a steak. If you're surpised the steak has been eaten, you're an idiot. Therefore, if you're surprised the kids aren't OK, well, you're a dope. Computers are tools. Their effectiveness or ineffectiveness, like a band-saw, is dependent upon the user. Only with a band-saw you can weed out the dolts a hellavalot faster. :-) And for those who think that computer programs for schools are more interesting, come to mine. Fourth and fifth graders are playing with software marketed to toddlers to teach them to use the mouse. It shows a pretty picture. Other software is boring because it requires them to do the same things they can't with paper and pencil. No surprise there. But pictures, they like pictures...
Come on. We've all hired the secretary fresh out of business (computer) school who can't copy read, can't write a business letter, and basically can't fix his/her own mistakes. The computer can't do that, but the secretary doesn't know that.
The fact is, we need smarter people who can think. Asking a machine to do that is simply asinine. Spending education money we don't have on something that's not shown to be effective is simply pandering to some "special interest" that's sleeping with "Arhnold" or likewise.