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?"

Comments

That is easy, they don't

[Mr. Arbusto]

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.

Re:That is easy, they don't

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Word processors, spreadsheets and presentation-builders do not help high school students.

As a result of using such tools, the students rely on them so greatly that they become crutches for students. Moreover, they teach students bad habits such as spending time thinking about format rather than content.

I'm no Luddite, but I believe learning how to do things without computers (even if you are a CS student) helps you to improve your own abilities and lateral thinking. I don't have any statistics to back me up, but ponder this: how many students nowadays can write a paper by hand and proofread it themselves?

Re:That is easy, they don't

[zippthorne]

Students are not focused on powerpoint slides. they are sleeping. you just can't tell because the room is dark for the powerpoint.

schools? hell no

[orufet]

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!

Re:schools? hell no

[orufet]

If you buy so many pencils that you can't afford paper, then yes, I say you show throw some of the pencils away.

Computers or Teachers

[idiotfromia]

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.

Real purpose of study

[deacon]

To spend 3.3 million.

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.