Slashdot Mirror
Digital Enhancements or Expensive Distractions?
markmcb writes "Berkeley and USC have teamed up to launch a $3.3 million study over 3 years that hopes to shed some light on how today's kids are interacting with technology and the effects that it is having on education. The study aims to determine if digital devices such as computers and cell phones are shaping the way that teenagers obtain and process information. But given the price tag and the goals of the project, how much can this project actually help education? Has anyone out there in the high school level education field seen digital systems improve the classroom to the point that students actually learn more, or do they just tend to be fascinating distractions that detract from the classroom?"
Instead of just seeing how kids interact with technology, why not just study where in the class, or even school, that they use technology, what types of it, and the percentage of students who actually use technology.
Debugging? Klingons do not debug. Bugs are good for building character in the user.
Seriously, I'm all about technology (I read slashdot) but most technology in elementary and middle school levels is just all flash and no bang. Sure there are programs that help students (Word, Number Munchers) but having all the technology in the world isn't going to help if reading comprehention and memorized math skills are none.
I happen to be, at this very time, reading High-tech Heretic by Cliff Stoll. Much of the book gives a compelling case as to why computers in the class and libraries are sucking vital time, energy, and financial resources. Recommended reading.
In a band? Use WheresTheGig for free.
I live in a very well off area in Vancouver, Canada. Technology in my high school is a waste of time. Classes exist so people can learn to use MS Word. We run on Windows 2000. The programming classes learn what a variable is. And the machines available for homework are used mostly for games. All the history/socials/humanities rooms in my high schol have gigantic television screens that are *never* used. And guess what? Somehow, we manage to be short 300 math textbooks because there isn't enough money to buy them. Wow. I'm a geek, but seriously, get the technology OUT of my damn school!
The Cryptography Forum is new and needs help
People at my school still no nothing of computers...
http://onticfusion.sytes.net/
What we really need is for someone (Bill Gates - you listening?) to set up two identical schools close to one another. Students then get randomized to one school or the other. You could then use this as an experimental system to test which educational programs actually enhance learning. (Note that these are not medical experiments - no need to start getting upset about "experimenting with kids.") I don't think there is any other way we will be able to obtain real data with which improve our education system. If you made sure that these schools had plenty of resources (ie more so than the average surrounding school), then I am sure plenty of parents would agree to allow their kids to participate.
Our school district is replacing over 400 computers next school year. This includes several elementary school labs, computers used for a few simple learning games, word processing, and internet browsing.
Our school board now want to make cuts to the high school music program and eliminate seventh grade athletics. Education priorities need to get into order. We need more teachers over more computers.
Guess which third drives the nicest vehicles today....
I suggest you read Slashdot
This certainly isn't the first time that computer technology use in schools has been studied, so I'm a bit at a loss to see what the fuss is about. Certainly my research group (see www.ikit.org) has been researching just this for 25 years. In general, there are two types of software for education: computer assisted instruction (CAI) which has been found to not have lived up to the hype (yet); and what Jonassen calls thinking tools, software designed to augment human cognitive abilities. The latter have been working very well in the classroom, and students using such systems have shown good results. However, teachers can't just be thrown the system and told to go to work-they need to be trained as to how to use them, something that school boards have been reluctant to do as it costs money.
Technology should be primarily geared towards work. Having it all around you in the home and stuff makes you extremely unproductive, and sometimes in bad shape. It'd be nice to see a day when technology is strewn through our lives neatly, not our lives revolving around technology as it seems to often today.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Thanks.
I should be doing my homework right now: reading Rabbit Proof Fence.
Instead, I'm reading Slashdot.
There you go, no study necessary.
Now if you excuse me I need to go back to my work.
Clifford Stoll is the Berkeley astrophysicist who caught a German hacker breaking into multiple government computer systems; "The Cuckoo's Egg" is his book detailing the fascinating tale of how he caught the hacker. Despite his knowledge and usage of computers on a daily basis, he is a strong advocate of keeping computers out of the classroom. I recommend "High Tech Heretic: Why Computers Don't Belong in Schools" to anyone; it's a thin book and actually won't take more than a couple of hours to breeze through. But, it will make you think.
d00d, c0mpu73rs t33ch u 411 u n33d 2 kn0w! 411 teh sm4r73s7 h4x0rs use c0mpu73rs!!!!!
--Mike Boos
They will provide a scientific answer rather than anecdotal evidence on slashdot.
And if there is a significant difference then that can be used to make education better and that will most certainly be worth $3Mn.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
In my school we're currently bringing a computer in every classroom. We spend a lot of money on them but it feels as if this whole project has been initiated to make our school look more modern.
Serously, we got several prices for our "use" of modern technology in school, but in real life nobody uses the PCs (exept the teacher who started all this crap). There is no reason to put computers in classrooms when the teachers don't know how to use them.
If you don't believe me have a look at our schools website to see our teacher's skills: http://www.come.to/goethe-schule
I'd rather have our windows (the glass ones) fixed than useless technology to show off.
See pictures of tits
Can you imagine what we could do with PDF textbooks and tablet PCs. Imagine 3d diagrams that could be rotated on the page. One textbook. One notepad. No handouts. I think we could see significan savings from a school that goes paperless/Tablet. I would like to know how 24/7 google would change education. I think we would have to rethink education for the modern world.
Sadly, there are too few of those 'right hands'.
I'm of the opinion that most any technological stimulation is a good thing. People always deride technology (TV, Video games, etc.) as a mind rotting when the fact is that the more information we have to cope with the better we get at coping with information. Old timers may want to act like people were smarter bag in the days of the horse and buggy but the fact is people are getting smarter every decade (as this general problem solve skills, not specific knowledge) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect/ Anyway the point is having technology sitting around doesn't do much for anyway but if you make it neccessary for people to interact with technology in a variety of ways they will probably become better at processing information in general.
How technology affects students has more to do with how they use it, in my opinion anyway. I'm a high schooler with high grades, and I use technology a lot. I also know people who use technology, and have bad grades. The difference seems to be in what they use the technology for. I, for example, like to learn new things, and experiment (I installed Linux, and I'm still learning) while the people with worse grades just seem to use it for socialization. Not that that's a bad thing...
In the end, some school official found out what was happening and put a stop to it.
Teach kids how to use Google and WIKI well and to RTFM in an intelligent manner and they might not even NEED a classroom!
Remember how (for those of you who watched the movie) he began amusing his students, using examples they could see (like slashing an apple in half, with a butcher knife)...
Also - if you have a computer scren and you talk about equations, and present them a 3D view of a graph, etc etc... the students can get curious and ask - what if we add a negative root in here?
So instead of spending dozens of minutes trying to solve an equation, boring the classrom, and earning that kid a terrible reputation among his schoolmates, you just spend a few seconds graphing the equation, solving the doubts, and helping them learn.
Here's the important thing: Technology is a TOOL to aid education. Not a REPLACEMENT for it.
whooops...
Thank god I forgot to log in
But given the price tag and the goals of the project, how much can this project actually help education? Has anyone out there in the high school level education field seen digital systems improve the classroom to the point that students actually learn more, or do they just tend to be fascinating distractions that detract from the classroom?
The second question answers the first one. Assuming the study is honest, if the answer to the last question is "the latter" then the study can potentially help education a hell of a lot.
The function of public education in the US is to enforce intellectual mediocrity and restrict the natural curiosity that children possess. Technology has a role in this process.
Tech is can be used to liberate (students could use camera phones to get evidence of teacher's sexually abusing them, and open source software could help students learn to code), or it can be used to oppress (schools use security cameras to make sure students only abuse the drugs they are given: aderall and other amphetamine based ADD drugs and not creativity enhancing drugs like cannabis, and large open source based databases could be used to cheaply to track and build psychological profiles of each and every student). Therefore, from the prospective of the policy makers, technology must have a limited role. Students can have access to the web as long as websites that hold dangerous information and allow free contribution, for example wikipedia, are blocked. Students can use graphing calculators as long as they don't write their own programs for them. They can learn chemistry by memorizing chemical equations, but if they actually learn to think critically and devise original solutions, they might be capable of making explosives, so..... any in depth or critical approaches to learning must be marginalized. Evolution can be taught to a small number of AP-biology students, they might go to college and become biotechnologists and can be trusted with real knowledge, but the rabble must be subservient to religious interests and can't be allowed to learn too much.
Sure some individual teachers can be great progressive inspirations for kids, but few of them are allowed any real control over the curriculum by the corporate, religious, and government plutocrats that make public school policy. Students need to drop out so they can actually lean something. Academic studies should focus on how we can get students out of the schools system and save them before its too late, any attempts at reform are impractical at this point. The fact that George Bush won the last election should be enough to demonstrate to the world that there is a crisis in American education. Maybe France or Finland can intervene and save the quarter of our population that is too young to vote and subject to imprisonment and coercive indoctrination for most of their days.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
I'm currently a junior at McFatter Technical High School in Broward County, McFatter is a technology magnet school, the goals set by my school greatly take advantage of the computing power we've been given. Every class has a technology aspect to it, in freshman year we take a class that gets us aquainted with standard programs such as word, excel, powerpoint, and it teaches us how to use online tools for research. After that class, most classes require power point presentations, online research, hell, we even have a spanish class aimed towards technology. In the last two years we choose a major that we spend half our day in, they vary from pharmacy to networking to programming to computer graphics, the classes actually teach you how to use the stuff you want to use, and how to take advantage of having a computer. Also, if you don't have a computer, the school gives you one for free (while you're a student). Check it out, http://www.mcfattertech.com
I've seen and worked with an intelligent classroom for a college which is very high tech. This sort of environment is definitely not for every major/class, and obviously engineering/science/computer science classes can take advantage of it most (if at all). Judging from how I see people interacting with smaller technology in classes (pdas, cellphones, laptops) I think that they are a huge waste of time, and that more development/research should go into creating functional systems that the professor can take advantage of and control.
I was a high school student at one time, so I think I speak with some authority on this subject.
First of all, you are not going to get kids to become "enlightened", cell phones, TV, etc are the result of the society we live in and not something school can change.
Computers & other high tech media can be really great for education, but they're not going to somehow turn high school into that bastion of higher learning and intellectual enlightenment. Computers are great as far as looking up information really fast and presenting information (writing essays, doing slides, etc) are concerned. In short, it really depends on what is being done and what improvements can actually be made using a computer (scanning a document into a computer and sending it to students in a classroom instead of handing out physical copies may save people but it is hardly brining in some sort of "high tech" focus to the subject matter).
Anyway, the problem is not technical, the problem is with the institution itself. Society has, through the American high school, produce young adults who think and act alike. The smart students out there will probably tell you they got to where they got on their own hard work and independent effort rather than anything they had in the classroom. If anything, the classroom was an impediment to them.
If you want to improve high school education, lets realize that people are different. The only way I can support public education is if steps back and realizes that each individual person has a different idea of how he or she wants to fit into society. Should the school be there to help? Of course. The school should provide the guidance, the resources, and intellectual/vocational resources to get these students on the right path.
All technology has good and bad uses. The important thing is if the good uses outnumber the bad ones. If they do, then we tend to use it.
This applies to almost everything:
- Internet can be used to spread child pornography
- Cars can be used to kill/damage people
And the list goes on. As those technologies enter shcool, we have to aim at the good uses, and not the bad ones. Like the Internet, which provides wealths of information, but also wealths of bad information.Especially in vocational skills, the computer/technology is very important. At school, I have to use EAGLE to draw schematics. It saves time, but more important, this is how it is done in real life. The problem many places is that schools have to use out-dated equipment, and that the children has only learnt half of what they should know whe arriwing in a work-situation. Education should be and is using technology.
Assembling etherkillers for fun an profit
I have been working on an idea to create educational systems for embedded systems. One such idea is a handwriting analysis tool for a PDA to teach script and print to children. I think it would be used as a supplement to a teacher based lecture on writing. The program on the PDAs can interpret the child's writing and respond appropiately. They could work on BlueTooth and be uploaded to a server where the parents can check on their kids progress at home.
'Or else pizza is going to order out for you'
Grad students will do all the work. Profs will take all the credit and most of the money.
The result will be whatever the bias of the profs is. A prof who believes that technology is overused will prove just that. A prof who feels that more tech is good will prove just that.
If you doubt this, I suggest you get into grad school and work as a research assistant kissing your thesis advisors butt for 2 to 6 years, just so you can get your damn degree and get out.
Oh, ya, I've been there and done that.
"Research" Grants are a business and way of life like any other. You survive by getting big grants as often as neccesary, and you provide the answers your sponsers want to hear.
Walmart is practically Mother Teresa by comparison.
I work for the Seattle School District and a lot the teachers see technology as a way to get funding. For some reason parents and politicians will pay for computers but not books, teachers or even training.
It's not the technology that's a problem, but the lack of teachers who know how to use it and have the time to do so.
I'm a student in High School right now, and my history teacher uses Powerpoint(technology, right?) for notes. I find it extremely helpful, as the notes are displayed instantly in readable text, which is far superior to 'over-head' notes which can be hard to read or notes given from the 'white-board'. Just a quick example...
END
There is little evidence that computers are better at delivering curriculum. In that sense, computer based learning is disappointing.
There are things that computers do well however. Computers are good for drill. The teacher can assign fifty math questions on the computer. You do the questions, you get the results right away, you redo the ones you got wrong. You learn the stuff because you get lots of practice. The computer works because the teacher couldn't possibly mark all those assignments every week.
The other thing the computer works for is the things where the computer is the tool necessary to do the job. Try to learn programming without a computer! The computer is also suprisingly good for teaching graphics.
Used correctly, the computer is a really valuable tool. Otherwise, it's just digital snake oil.
In my Australian high school computers were taught very poorly. In year 7 we spent a bit of time learning to touch type QWERTY. That was fine, then after that an excursion to the computer room would occur so we could type our essays before submitting them. These were essays that had been drafted and written longhand, and we were simply typing the assignments that were neatly written out in front of us.
Our library trips would sometimes include jumping on a library computer to see what the "Intermanet" had to say about the topic. Not much since the internet is a bunch of hardware, not an encyclopedia. But wait! They had Microsoft Encarta! Wow, revolutionary!
There was nothing that we were supposed to do on computers that we couldn't do better with books OR hadn't done already in the case of typing essays. When people want to send their old computers to schools in Uganda this point comes up all the time - they have no books! So what do you expect them to do with a computer?
So I'm all for using computers in the classroom
*search online journals
*read an old text on project gutenberg
*capture the "buzz" by looking on appropriate websites
But when it doesn't happen, I get very cranky about the wasted time, money and opportunity. It seems ridiculous that so many schools have computers but don't teach programming or computerised maths. That they don't properly help kids to see what the Internet can do.
But it's so much easier to buy a bunch of stuff than to address the holes in their curriculum.
*#*#*#*#*#******* I love peanut butter sandwiches!
My high school recently spent $125,000 on a schoolwide video surveillance system. As it is not monitored, its only use is to is to review fights that an administrator has already caught and to prevent them...and to catch my idiot buddy gave a camera the bird camera right after a fight.
We've had 2 or 3 less fights this year.
The study aims to determine if digital devices such as computers and cell phones are shaping the way that teenagers obtain and process information.
Of course it does! I suspect the study is attempting to determine how digital devices shape the way that teenagers obtain and process information.
But given the price tag and the goals of the project, how much can this project actually help education?
Huh? I would have thought understanding how kids deal with information is a critical factor in how we teach them.
Has anyone out there in the high school level education field seen digital systems improve the classroom...
Oh FFS. I get it. The person took "understand how kids deal with information" and automatically translated it to "get more computers into the classroom".
Second is programming. Programming a computer is a matter or logic and abstraction. Anyone who has taught kids about variables know how difficult this is, even at the college level. Even if all a kids learns in a computer class is that to switch x and y one has to write z=x,x=y, y=x, that is such a fundamental concept that it is time well spent. The math and science teacher will be ecstatic.
Third, more kids are gaining entertainment and expressing themselves through interactive technology. Fewer who are write write on paper. More are attracted to the pace of video games. This requires some rethinking in the way material is learned. Human teachers are still important in the customization of sequencing of the material to meet the needs of groups of students, and diagnosing difficulties of certain students, and the presentation of new materials in such a way that it connects to past experience and future expectations, but there are two places that technology is important now.
At the beginning of each section, the student must be hooked into a learning experience. Technology can help us do this through, for instance, animation of functions, interactive history lessons, or the like. This can help the student experience immediate success, while laying the groundwork for the incorporation of new knowledge. Even low motivation students are often more likely to interact with a computer, especially if it requires minimal effort such as moving a mouse around. Just look at how many low motivation kids will sit here and play web games even though there is no element of competition.
At the end of each section there must be practice. There was a time when one could sit a kid down with a worksheet and have them work through exercises. It is now much harder. However, on the computer, with hints and immediate feedback, the child who might sit there helplessly staring a sheet of paper is more likely to work. Yes it is expensive. Yes it is no better, and maybe worse, than traditional practice, but if the participation rate is up, then it is certainly beneficial. The biggest problem i see with kids is the lack of practice. The teachers teach, the student understand the concepts, but without practice those concepts are not incorporated to long term memory.
So, although I agree that computers are not the silver bullet, nothing is, and they are expensive, they are useful. We always played games on the school computers. We still learned a lot. One reason may have been that I had at least twice as much time on the school computer as any of my kids do, and I had the competence to understand it was a useful tool, and not just an interesting distraction.
I often wornder if this miriad of studies 'proving' that kids are not learning and technology is not help are merely another excuse to fund education. Most employers wants a computer literate HR bank, and all of us know that computer literacy does not come free. We either had a computer at home to play with all the time, or had computers at school to play with a lot, or had teachers making the best use of very limited computer time.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Kurt Squire and Constance Steinkuehler - Slashdotted in the past - research the effects of gaming on education and society. They'll be on the ChatterBox Video Game Radio show this Sunday afternoon. You can listen live over the internet and call in toll-free to speak with them if you like. Check out http://www.chatterboxgameshow.com for more info.
I'm currently in my second year at university in England. Before this I attended senior school and a sixth form college.
As I was completing my last year at college I saw the introduction of equipment like digital projectors in classrooms, more computers and those crazy digital whiteboards.
I've never used a digital whiteboard myself but I understand that you can save "lessons" -- this is a truly brilliant feature but I doubt very much that my school/college would make these lessons available online. If this was done I can think of no better revision tool, especially if combined with an audio stream, which is in no way hard to do.
Digital projectors linked up to computers are also good for demonstrating things in certain types of lessons. ICT (I hate that acronym) seems to be the best application -- explaining things like macros in Word/Excel are best learned through demonstration and practice. However, I seriously have to question just how useful a PC and projector would be in, say, an English or Math class.
People might argue that some tailored math software is beneficial but I know very well that as a student a projector with some crazy software will be little more than a relaxing break, as opposed to learning the important things.
My college had a number of computer clusters. One of these was a general-purpose humanities cluster that teachers could book for their lesson. The idea being that they could let the kids search for details specific to their courses or currect projects. In theory this is a good idea but in practice we looked forward to these lessons because it meant we could kick about and do what we might do on the Internet at home (well... some of the things we might do).
We had another lab in the languages centre that were set up with headsets and microphones. Using these machines students could practice their [language] listening by playing pre-recorded scenes. Previously we had a lab where the teacher sat at the front and repeated certain sections when asked. That's not much good if you're a little slower than everybody else or have a specific problem with a given sentence. Using the lab these problems are overcome.
I think if I were to give advice to the teachers/those in charge it would be to lock the machines down. As much as I hate to say that I think it really is the only way to get people to work. Sure, trust is a nice thing but when you're dealing with kids between the ages of 12 and 18 it only takes one person to goof around before everybody joins in.
Well, those are my thoughts. Thinking about the article/question I don't know if it really all that relevant. I've not said yes or no but said yes, in moderation, which I think was fairly obvious from the outset.
The implication that this is a lot of money is just way off base.
u cationlibraryspending.htm). It would not be unreasonable to spend a percent or two of that amount on research directed at understanding and improving the process - which would mean five to ten thousand projects of this magnitude (the annual cost for this project being about 1 million). The idea being that a one percent investment in research will typically yield more than a 1 percent improvment in the process.
A brief Google search suggests that the US spends on the order of 500 billion dollars per year on education (http://www.oclc.org/membership/escan/economic/ed
A 3.3 million dollar project would pay for itself in one year if it improved teaching efficiency by 0.001%.
Taking that money and using it to support schools directly - say for more teachers - is like saying that we should not do any more biomedical research, but instead use that money to pay for more doctors to deliver health care. You might get an overall improvement in the first year, but in the long run you pay a huge price. There needs to be a balance between short term and long term expenses - giving up the long term view because you have short term problems is - well - a short term view.
You might argue with the details of the research - and whether the money is well spent in this particular case. But as a general matter it is if anything a modest amount of money.
Does it matter? Having done my time, I walked away with the impression that after basic math and reading skills, a public education was largely about indoctrinating the masses to sit quietly in straight rows and do what they are told. All my TPS reports do come with the new cover sheet, but I'm still waiting for a client or boss to ask me about the significance of the Council of Trent.
Let's look at the use of 10-key calculators in schools in the 1970s and 1980s.
Most teachers didn't let kids use them until late elementary school or Jr. High. Why? Because the kids were STILL LEARNING to do the things the calculator could do.
Once they mastered basic arithmetic, teachers TAUGHT them to use calculators and EXPECTED them to use them.
WHY?
1) it's an important life skill
2) it makes learning algebra, higher math, science, and other classes that use numbers so much more efficient, since students don't waste time crunching numbers by hand.
The same can be said of computers:
1) teach "life skills" like using a word processor, doing web research, etc.
2) apply those skills to make learning other things more efficient
Do NOT use the computer to enable skipping teaching important skills. For example, if you are teaching how to do research, it's important, at least for now, to teach how to do paper-based research. By doing this, you will teach students the importance of "quality" sources, the importance of reading entire passages not just what their "find" function finds, and other skills that are easily skipped if they learn in an electronic format only.
On the other hand, once you do teach them how to use the computers, you can teach them skills that are hard to teach or not applicable in paper-based research. You can teach them WHEN it is good to use the "find" function to find the part of a text they need to pay careful attention to, for example.
While learning to do things "the old fashioned way" frequently is A Good Thing, not all "old" skills need to be retained: Some skills, such as using a slide rule or using a paper-based magazine index or card catalog, can be safely discarded as obsolete.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Sorry, just had to do this
;-)
i th m.html)
x=x xor y
y=y xor x
x=x xor y
y and x swapped
(http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Xor:swap:algor
...in the nation (Don't read the book School of Dreams -- it's woefully inadequate to describe our school), SmartBoards have been very useful -- my Geography class last year was essentially a bunch of PowerPoint slides (It's not Linux/OO.org, but don't mod me down :P), and my physics teacher makes very, very good use out of diagramming circuits, undo-ing, re-diagramming, etc. On the other hand, some classes use it when they don't need to (and other classes don't need it and so don't use it at all). Computers aren't enhancements or distractions -- they are tools that have some specifically productive uses.
...is "24/7 google"? Last I checked, it WAS available 24/7...
sheesh...
Drugs cause paranoia and inferiority anxiety. See the proof above you.
For the chemical example, I once had some classmates who found the recipe for some sort of nerve toxin, requiring relatively simple chemical ingredients. They got pretty close to possibly getting the thing done during lab, as I understand it, judging by the teacher's reaction.
Thought without curiosity provides cultural death.
Curiosity without thought provides Darwin Awards.
Both must be equally guarded against.
Aren't you missing the category that used it, didn't understand what they heck they were doing, and always got the wrong answers?
Here's a quote from a 1953 manual for a slide rule:
- When people have difficulty in learning to use a slide rule, usually it is not because the instrument is difficult to use. The reason is likely to be that they do not understand the mathematics on which the instrument is based, or the formulas they are trying to evaluate.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.Find free books.
If you look carefully, the study isn't about the use of technology in the classroom; it's about how students who use technology *in their daily lives* might think learn differently than previous generations.
I agree that technology in the classroom has been over-hyped for many years. The number one force for improving learning is the amount of time students spend in direct interaction with their teachers (or with each other). Multiple studies have shown this effect to be an order of magnitude stronger than other learning effects. Technology in the classroom tends to be useful only as much as it actually motivates interaction between people.
However, it is also true that today's students are using technology to a much greater extent than previously, particularly to communicate with each other (e.g. blogs, IM, cell phones, social networking sites, digital photos, etc.). There is little understanding about how this use of technology is changing their classroom (and life) experience. That's what the study is trying to figure out.
That's actually quite true. At the AAAS convention (2-20) it was mentioned that a committment of five thousand dollars per teacher was necessary to bring elementary and middle school teachers up to speed on math and science over a three year period.
:-))
Message to Trolls: Yes, what you always thought is in fact now confirmed.
Any preoccupation with ideas of what is right or wrong in conduct shows an arrested intellectual development. (Wilde)
Here's an interesting story from Ed Stroligo over at Overclockers.com arguing for technology in education. I think he does make some good points, but without good teachers, all the technology in the world is useless http://www.overclockers.com/articles1208/
The problem with education is that skilled High School technology teachers are very rare. It takes 4-6 years to get a bachelors followed by a teaching degree. This causes would-be teachers to rack-up a lot of debt for a job that will pay them $30,000/yr. to start if they are lucky. Try buying a house, driving a car, paying for insurance, getting married, and paying off a crushing college loan on $30,000 yr. I've seen lot's of people try and then leave teaching for industry just do they could afford to get married. tty soon.
Conversely, I have seen people drop-out of industry after 10-years (after making a pile of cash and paying off debts) and then go on to become excellent High School Computer Science and Physics teachers. They are able to help students create real research projects using scientific instruments which collect data. I have seen excellent Robotics and Programming curriculums. However, these programs are far and few between.
Spending money on computers, infrastructure, and LCD projectors isn't the answer. We need compotent, skilled teachers to orchestrate education using the expensive technology. Otherwise, it's like buying an F-18 fighterjet and parking it on the deck of your aircraft carrier. Sure it looks impressive, but it is useless without a skilled pilot.
The only answer I see is to attract and retain excellent technology teachers by paying salaries similar to what these teachers would make if working in industry jobs. You get what you pay for and sometimes you don't even get that.
You can't run someone through a 4-year college program where they take about 4-5 programming and technology classes and expect them to go conquer the world.
The press release is full of the usual meaningless cliches: "innovative knowledge cultures", "Technology is changing all our lives", "it may be revolutionizing the way that young people think".
... such as Cliff Stoll, Marie Winn, or Jane Healy.
The researchers are already convinced that of digital systems are great for kids: one guy is an educational software developer, the other studied cellphone use by teenagers.
No attention will be paid to skeptics of computers in the classroom
The MacArthur foundation would never fund a study that might present negative conclusions about the role of computers in education.
I am the PC/LAN Manager for a large urban school district in Massachusetts. We have 28 schools, and have about 4,000 computers. The schools system has a very large percentage of minorities and immigrants, as well as a fairly high poverty rate. Thousands of our students do not have access to computers at home.
At every high school there are classes on basic office-type computer use. They learn Word, Excel and PowerPoint. Given the need for these basic skills in the workplace, this type of computing is vital for low-income students who do not have access to computers at home.
One school has a Cisco lab and teaches an intro to networking course. The tech school has an A+ lab, and also teaches intro courses to programming. The tech school also uses computers to do electronics engineering -- there are many more diagrams they can create and test on a PC than they can on the boards. They learn more complex systems using software than they could sticking solely to hardware. Each school also has a CAD lab that uses AutoCAD and/or SolidWorks. These types of classes instruct students in the technology fields in preparation for either college or voke education. Clearly this falls within the job of a public school -- preparing students for future employment.
The print shop has computer controlled presses, and students learn how to use equipment similar to a commercial print shop.
The English departments each have a computer lab for writing and research purposes, and the libraries have computers for research and as a digital card catalog.
All in all, the high schools use computers in a productive manner designed to enhance their future education. Just as the plumbing, metal and wood shops help students in their voke education, so do computer labs. And the office application learning will help those who move into office environments.
The middle schools have library labs for testing, research and basic computing classes. They also learn Word and Excel now. The state also mandates in-school testing in preparation for statewide testing, and each school uses the labs for that.
At least one middle school has more advanced computer classes, but that is just one elective, just like wood shop would be.
The grammar schools have few computers, and they are used for state-mandated testing requirements. They also use basic grammar and math learning programs. I can't say if this is better than traditional education, but the students do seem to pay attention to the computer apps longer than they do for some teachers.
In addition, virtually every teacher has a PC. They use these for grades, class preparation, attendance, and other administrative purposes. Given the new increased requirements for reporting and records, these are pretty much needed by schools today.
I know there are a lot of doubts about having computers in classrooms, but I see our level of computer integration as required to help the students find employment in the future. It also helps teachers spend more time teaching, and less time on administrative work such as attendance and grading. It also helps the district meet federal and state testing requirements.
Most important, it introduces thousands of students who live at or below the poverty line to the world of computers -- an opportunity that would otherwise pass them by. Closing the digital divide may in fact be the most important part of our technology program.
He was good, knowledgeable, and made it interesting.
Yes, another post modded down by the Slashdot Thought Police(TM). Instead of having an enlightened discussion on the issues of technology in our public schools, we will just make it so that anyone who has a thought that differs than that what is accepted by the crowd is modded down as punishment for deviating.
Is it really too much to ask to get people who don't agree to reply (hopefully with more than "you're a hippy" ad hominems)?
I thought Slashdot was a place for the open source and "information wants to be free" crowds to gather. I guess I was wrong!
I go to a technology magnet high school where we have 1.6 computers to users. Do we ever use them, fuck no thank you kindly. Sure we whip them out when business scouts come around our town, but other than that hardly. When we do use them, we use word and powerpoint, nothing else. Nothing new or inventive is done, you have a spiral notebook emulator and a flashcard like system which 90% of the students horribly abuse (I swear if I have to fucking watch another slideshow with paragraphs of font one shade off from the background where custom animation and sounds tie it all together, soemthign will die). If we are really lucky we will get to use the intarweb, all 2 sites that aren't blocked.t h_m.html
Technology could be used effectively in schools and learning, but its not. The teachers do not have the training or the inclination. The admins are generally clueless MCSEdroids (not all I know a few very competent admins, but none at my school). We don't even have classes on basic programming. Our servers were going to be switched over to apache, but the admins couldn't figure out how to get it installed (My illiterate friend managed it). There is a longer and better rant at my friends website http://sangxanta.org/archives/2005/02/problems_wi
and the school website (and it was just made to be viewed in alternative browsers by some pissed off students who like firefox, admins couldn't)
http://web.dps.k12.va.us/galileo/
Outside the classroom and as parts of assignments: great. The web is a fantastic research tool, I wish half the students taking calculus (which most will never use) would take programming instead, and there are some decent programs that students can productively work with one-on-one. But seldom if ever do those programs need to take but significant classroom times -- just make sure that students know how to get them running, politely suggest they RTFM (yeah, right...just like us professionals...), and mostly let'em figure it out on their own time. Which they will.
"All successful systems accumulate parasites" -- Hal Hixon
Clifford stoll has never used chemistry software has he? The power of computers is their ability to model systems and systems behaviour without physical matter on the screen (i.e. animations of atomic interactions, etc) if you think these are "useless" then I beg to differ. What we need is good software that emulates and models how things are done so kids can "learn by doing" by seeing how things are done, how this applies to things in the real world by using virtual systems and objects that simulate real world properties.
IMHO this is where computers and technology will over-take traditional some roles of traditional textbooks. There's nothing like SEEING in real time HOW something actually works, rather a rather poor expression of it from a book. Reading comprehension is only as good as the author of the textbooks expressiong their ideas. In my opinion there are way better ways to express ideas then what is found in even modern textbooks.
Einstein had it right, you have to be able to distill complex concepts down into concise language to build a necessary foundation first then you can move up the ladder to more complex ideas. In my opinion there is a lack of conciseness of expression in teaching today which is half the battle for kids who can't interpret, model or visualize what the hell is supposed to be being expressed clearly.
Todd Oppenheimer wrote a book a couple years ago, The Flickering Mind, that may contain a little more on the subject. He was not so polemical as to say "computers don't belong in schools," but presented a more balanced critique.
Actually, I am in favor of getting rid of disk drives, CD drives, printers, and high end grpahics in most classrooms. I feel that students in our high school could benefit from being able to type up an essay and having instant feedback from an automated grading solution, then allowing the teacher to retreive it - et cetera. Web services, no paper. I figure we can use the computers other schools throw away when they upgrade to the latest fastest yada yada. Side benefit - teachers use the same technology. I use Moodle and see no reasom everybody on campus shouldn't love online testing when they have enough machines to go around.
Any preoccupation with ideas of what is right or wrong in conduct shows an arrested intellectual development. (Wilde)
Children, more than anyone, are aware of the changing trends of technology. We're not that far along just yet; we're still in an age where many parents rely on their kids to teach them about computers. The question isn't whether technology itself is beneficial in presenting information to a child, but can it enhance that information to make it worth the investment in time. It's no mystery that most kids would rather be planted in front of a computer or game console than a textbook or lecture podium.
If you have to ask, you're not allowed to know.
students who feel 'out of place' in a class due to their religious or political beleifs tend to interact more via email or discussion boards.
discussion boards can enable more thoughtful responses than time pressured in-class discussions, and allow teachers to see just who has been participating and directly evaluate a student's quantity and quality of participation.
students in one part of the world can also interact directly with students in another part of the world, via email, discussion boards, chat, and now things like skype (VOIP). A couple of examples from the literature are language classes and suburban teacher candidates interacting with inner city teachers.
Of course, schools may pay too much for technology and have insufficient resources left for support, fortunatly the open source world can help here, for instance Moodle is a very powerful open source learning management system, aviable alternative to very expensive systems like Blackboard and WebCT that leaves $$$ left over to support teachers and students in using it and also to develop courses with properly designed (for elearning/online learning) pedagogy.
Another place to look for answers is the work of Dr. Richard Mayer, who has done a number of very well designed studies showing how to use multimedia technology effectively, as well as demonstrating that when used appropriatly it can be more effective than traditional methods of teaching (and how when used improperly it can be a hindrence to learning:-).
PS, Cliff Stoll is a good writer and certainly knows a bit about technology, but he has little experience or training in education. His claiming "computers don't belong in schools" should be taken with about the same weight as if Mayer claimed astronomy was better without telescopes.
How many research studies has Stoll conducted? How many in using technology in education?
If you read his research, you'll learn a bit about astronomy, but find that what he is saying about computers in education is just his personal opinion.
Stoll's claiming "computers don't belong in schools" should be taken with about the same weight as if Richard Mayer claimed astronomy was better without telescopes.
But this means it is a nightmare for teachers to let students use old textbooks, because every year the chapter numbers and page numbers are different.
PS, Dr. James Paul Gee makes a good (research based) case that you're doing a good deal of learning while playing games:-).
If it wasn't for Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego? and Where In The U.S.A. Is Carmen Sandiego?, I don't believe I would have known as much geography as I do today. Back in 4th, 5th, and 6th grade, a couple of my friends and I would spend about half our recesses indoors playing this game, trying to catch Carmen Sandiego and her henchmen. This was back in the old days where it ran on an Apple IIe computer.
There are 2 ways to overcome these digital distractions.
1. The teacher in charge of the classroom has to be monitoring every usage of the technology in her room. Especially with the internet, a computer with internet access without monitoring is probably is probably the most distractive tool ever. I'd take a stab and guess that 50% of internet usage would probably be for non-educational purposes. If the teacher is nonchalant about what the students use classroom technology for, then what ends up happening are digital distractions. However, if the teacher puts strict restrictions and consequences on what happens when people break these restrictions (such as not being able to use that tool for a duration of time, etc) then the technology inside of the classroom would definitely be put to good use.
2. Control and self-disciplined of the student. No matter how distracting an item can be, if the student has control and self-discipline, the technology would be put to good use. For example, if your parents purcahsed a NES system back in the day, someone without good self control would play with it everyday they got home from school. Someone with good self control would set a rule where they can only play it after they finish their homework. As you can see, one hinders the education process, while the other helps.
If I had the chance to redo school with or without digital distractions, I'd most definitely choose with technological tools without a doubt. Many of us are computer science majors here. Would it have been the same if you didn't get access to a computer until you were in high school or eve college? How much better and easier was your research when you had access to the internet, than when you had to go to libraries and look through books and microfiche?
HD Trailers
I graduated from my high school with a Cisco Certification thanks to networking classes taught in my high school.
I also learned to touch type and the basics of C, C++, HTML, Java Script, Linux, hardware repair, and a LOT of other things in high school.
Now, I'm in college and while my academic goals have changed (I'm a political science major), the computer skills I learned in high school put me a cut above the competition when it comes to internships and jobs (I'm putting myself through college working in the IT field).
Is technology useful? ABSOLUTELY, but use it wisely and practically. Using a computer for using a computer's sake isn't going to teach students anything, though.
Cliff is an astronmer and a sysadmin, not an teacher or an educational researcher.
Why would anyone think his opinion on a subject he has no training in and hasn't done any actual research on is worth a reading (or publishing?).
Next up, teacher with 20 years experience says astronomers don't need telescopes, read all about it...
if the study is honest and the answer is the former?
Discovering and promoting ways in which technology can be used to help students to "actually learn more" surely would help education out even more than the latter.
The problem is that computers allow people to find out about things and, even worse, allow them to toy with games and programs that distract and keep them from misery and obedience to corporations. Very bad for the school system. You don't learn to obey your authority effectively when you're not dedicating your life and soul to their work.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
I'm special ed and being able to take notes on my laptop helps me a ton. If I had to write them on paper I wouldn't be able to read them very well + I don't have spell check with pen and paper. However, I have seen kids using cellphones and laptops to do other things in class. Does it hurt? No - because these are the same kids that would be talking out-loud or passing notes in class. The problem isn't the technology it's the kids. If they don't want to learn or it's too easy (they understand so therefore don't feel the need to take notes) they are not going to listen regardless if there is technology or not. The bottom line is there will always be distractions and the goal should be to let kids know that yeah you can do this or that but if you don't pay attention you are not going to learn. If you don't learn you will end up working some job you don't like with no dreams. Rather than you find what is interesting, work at it, get a job doing what you find interesting and have a great life :-)
On a similar note, I wish more teachers, students and educators had adopted Hypercard and kept it alive! Poor documentation is a huge problem in both education and mainstream/alternative software. Greater usage and skills in Hypercard could have sustained educational computing through many of the dark years.
Unfortunately, history has shown that educational computing has been widely abused in the 90s and 2000s. Instead of using simple, inexpensive software to advance teaching, cheap PCs with poor software have been unloaded on hapless schools - costing a lot of money, and confounding teachers who haven't been provided with adequate training, or decent software tools. It was a crazy bonanza of spending on inappropriate technology when schools were encouraged to "adopt" IT and computing. But now the spending-spree is over, with schools and government having to live with their poor decisions, while not being able to afford replacements. If only some sensible decisions had been made a decade ago, we might not have to live with this crap today!
... and then they built the supercollider.
Toys, TV shows, and interactive games for children are not designed to teach. They are designed to extract the maximum response out of children to make parents think they bought a good toy/chose a good show/bought a good game. Attracting childrens attention in an optimal way is also good for advertising revenue on the TV shows. However, designing for getting attention goes against designing for developing a healthy attention span, learning to concentrate and complete tasks, and learning to think objectively.
It takes very little to prove this point. Just look at kids who are immersed in a lifestyle of noisy count-to-three toys and TV shows. They can't concentrate on anything longer than the length of a TV commercial, they are easily upset by tedious tasks, and if asked to think about anything they give up after a few seconds to do something else. It is also very clear that if the TV is on during other activities, the children really and truly struggle to concentrate on their activity with such a distraction.
IMO, attention deficit disorder is an invention of our modern lifestyle. It is preventable, but that requires properly re-structuring the way we play with and teach our children. It takes eliminating a lot of the superfluous complexity from their lives, reducing the amount of time they watch TV, reducing the number of toys they have, and increasing the amount of games and tasks that take real time and concentration to complete--and enforcing that they get completed before moving on to another activity. Of course, doing so requires discipline...which is in short supply even among adults, unfortunately.
Computers can be a waste of time or a huge benefit in education - probably in the same school or even the same classroom. Please don't forget other digital technologies, some supported by computers, that have definite positive impact. One that comes to my mind is video classrooms where one teacher teaches in multiple locations. It is a real boon out here in the (sorry) boodocks. I think that as technologies have matured and people have become accostumed to them they sink or swim on their own merit. kk
As a high school student myself, I know from experience that technology in the classroom is all just flashy and distractive. Brand new computers and T3 lines are all just used for gaming, email, chat, or porn (for the kids that know how to get around the proxy). It is however useful to those kids who don't quite live in wealthy households and own computers for themselves, but those that actually use the technology for what its meant for, are few and fart between. Quite sad, but true. Kids are stupid shit. I feel bad for you guys that are going to have to live in a world that's governed by us...
They're trying to see how mental processes are shaped by the technology, not just whether it's being used much, or what it's being used for.
This is important, because education, ideally, is not about teaching facts or processes: it's about teaching how to find or establish facts, and how to invent and evaluate processes. For example: originally, universities where democratic forums for debate, rather than top-down lectures and tests.
Unfortunately, mainstream education has really lost sight of that goal, but I guess it's still well enough acknowledged that they notice when kids are losing abilities at a significant rate. I suspect that happens a lot, when computers are used incorrectly as a way of handing out tests or having kids scan a page for meaningless facts.
(Though it does have 9 too many buttons)
Beep beep beep, back the truck up.
From the original story post, through almost all the comments, you people have been talking about a nonexistent study of tech in schools.
Plain and simple: tech in schools is not the subject of this Berkeley/USC study.
Pls at least glance at the study announcement before commenting on it! sheesh
most kids use computers and technology for fun and games and really dont know many things about either...but me, well being that i belong to slashdot shouldnt that tell ya right there?
If you think about it, the question is stupid. Are books paper enhancement or literal distractions? Seriously, is it good to have books in the classroom? What about magazines? What about poetry books, sci-fi novels, dictionaries? The answer is - it all depends on the context. In a Classical literacture class the poetry book is ok, at the English exam the dictionary may be prohibited. A magazine is ok when you are making a report or studying something, but not when it's a Cosmo.
It all depends on what the student is doing with the computer and the professor should feel comfortable finding it out. When I was teaching and I saw the student read a book, I wouldn't do anything if that was a book on the subject. I would ignore it if it was lying on a desk closed, but would take it away (for the duration of the class) if it was a distraction.
I don't see how it's different with digital gadgets. Use your Palm or your laptop if you wish. One look at you is enough to see whether you are paying attention or not. If not, I'd ask you to stop, shut down the device, close it and listen to whas is happening around you.
When we are talking about the traditional teaching process, most of the activities are to some extent controlled by the teacher. I explain something, I give out tasks, I check the answers, I answer questions. Most of the time there is no legitimate reason for the student to use an electronic device. And when there is a reason, it's easy to keep an eye on the student.
Of course, it is conceivable that everyone needs to use a computer, and it becomes impossible to control who surfs the Net and who is doing the given task. But then it's not really different from normal work - there is a task and I can check the results.
And in those cases where plagiarism is a big risk, I just need to pay attention and specifically change the rules. I had 150 students pass the final test (financial management, project valuation - NPV) in computer labs, in groups of 10-15. They tried to cheat (copy-paste from prepared files, swap solution via network, send Excel solutions cell by cell by SMSes), but it's extremely easy to catch them (just look at them and pay attention) and the punishment was banishment. I would be pretty comfortable facing 20-40 students with laptops running 100% of the time, if the need arises. I just use my common sense.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
There are some comments about a school buying hundreds of new computers without having enough teachers. I think it should be clear to everyone that computers per se can't do jack shit. Yes, computers are a wonderful tool, but until we develop working AI we need a human to use that tool.
As they come from the store, computers have word-processing, spreadsheet, IM, e-mail and the web. All this can be useful, but it doesn't improve quality of education. To do that you need good educational software (and not the crap that passes today for educational software) and teacher training.
It's really weird that so many seemingly intelligent people don't grok this and believe that computers are useful by themselves. Just add water and stir.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.