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.
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
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
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
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"?
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.
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.
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
Wait - where is that? It's not on my standard 103-key.
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.
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".
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-)
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
It's that infernal rock and roll music that's ruining our childern
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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."
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.
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.
... 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.
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
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.)
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.
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
from my parent (previous) post: 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....
As promised... here is the book and link: The Flickering Mind: The False Promise of Technology in the Classroom and How Learning Can Be Saved
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.
...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."
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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"
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.
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? :-)
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.