Slashdot Mirror
The Future of Technology in Schools
citking writes "The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is running parts one and two of a three-part series dealing with the future of technology in America's schools. Part one asks whether technology in schools is merely a fad or, as some may argue, a necessity in today's technology-driven society. It raises some interesting points, such as the contrasting the wide availability of computers in schools to the generally limited use among students. Part two goes in-depth about the technology's cost, citing the dependence of grants that are disappearing and the effects of reducing technology staff. For part three you will have to tune in the the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel tomorrow."
The job of schools is to teach, or to provide a starting point in this world.
As I don't see technology becoming any less a part of this world, I'd argue that it's entirely relevent to use it in schools. People need to be brought up around technology to be able to readily accept it and take it for grante, otherwise the lurning curve is that much steeper. Just as long as it only remains a part of schools, rather than becoming the schools themselves.
Just another harmless drunk
Hopefully, the fad is computers being used poorly in the classroom. Heck, Powerpoint alone tends to reduce my engagement in a class by 90%. Computers used in courses where they're relevant is great, and I've had some excellent ones to that effect. It's when people decide that a class on English Literature or Music History could benefit from the wonders of computers, without even having a "wow this is better!" reason to begin with, that things go sour.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
Not to say there is any replacement for a classroom (or good ol' old fashioned repetition) but, as an example, many concepts and theories in math and science can be more effectively demonstrated visually and interactively than they ever could from a static textbook. These topics lend themselves very well to simulation and demonstration. And once a student understands the basics that build into principles, then we can get them to use it in the class. And so on.
A math teacher friend of mine routinely observes that his kids are learning in different ways than how we did. The textbook is falling prey to a massive culture of distraction. IM, web, games, television, cellphones... the ubiquitous pull becomes even worse when the last thing a student wants to do is read a boring math text. I'm less inclined to simply blame the student - is it really their fault? Why not have those technologies reach out to them in the same way? Should we risk denying the reality of the world we actually live in (versus how we think it should be)? In other words, adapt to new learning styles. Make learning the game that they play for 4 hours a night (instead of reading math).
So thats exactly what my math teacher friend has started doing.
Its in its infancy, but longer term he will be using it for learning augmentation across the board. Its pretty interesting stuff, and possibly helpful for any other Math and science teachers here on /.
Right now i see the whole discourse on schools and technology centre on how much it costs to put computers into classrooms. And how to "teach technology" to our kids. Why? I think we should bury the technology and stop oohing and ahhing over it - and just start actually using it for what its meant for.
To replace textbooks in a cost effective manner would require:
1) Rugged, reliable, long-life hardware that is too boring to steal
2) eTextBooks to be a lot cheaper than the printed version
Say a textbook lasts 10 years in a school (by school, I'm talking about the UK definition of schools, not university where you buy your own or use the library) - 100 copies of $textbook will cost say £2000. 100 advanced eBook readers would currently cost £20000 and be a lot less convenient in many ways than the text book. Of course, multiply that by 10 courses (assuming the average GCSE student does 10 GCSEs these days) and you get a textbook cost of £20000, or £200/student, or £20/student-year. Aforementioned eBook hardware, assuming 10 year lifespan, would also be £20/student-year. Of course, these eTextBooks would probably be licensed on a per-year basis, say £5 a year. £50 for 10 years, but you will get updates for errata integrated easily. 100 licenses would be £50000 for the 10 years, maybe less with a bulk discount. That's £50/student-year in addition to the £20 for the hardware.
I'm just cynical, but there is a reason these things are being pushed, and it isn't concern about the weight of textbooks in a schoolbag. It is to raise revenue for textbook firms.
However, I don't think much beats using pen and paper for making notes in class. Quieter than a room full of people typing, and I think it gets the point into your head a lot quicker.
Advanced interactive content... when that comes around, let me know.
For now, I'll be sitting in a lecture hall, having a PowerPoint read to me.
Or watching a horrid video on the mating habits of salmon. For the third time in as many years.
Or getting tendonitis from a poorly-designed click-happy interface on a music theory program.
Or spending 20 minutes working through a computer program that demonstrates something incredibly simple that could be more easily and much more effectively learned by actively drawing and working it out ourselves.
Or watching a 45 minute demonstration on how to use a search engine.
Or spending 15 minutes setting up an Excel spreadsheet to add up a few numbers and make it look pretty.
The closest I've come to using "advanced interactive content" in a mainstream (i.e. not college-level computer-related) course was the Quadratic Equation solver on the TI-82. Junior year of high school, it was the teacher's recommended way of solving such equations. Yeah, that came in really handy in college calculus.
There are lots of great ways to expose people to technology. In my experience, the signal-to-noise ratio of teaching standard courses with computers is atrocious.
Also, perhaps if we were to focus on offering kids ways to live well-balanced lives, and encouraging them to use technology for what it is, rather than for "job skills," they might actually enjoy their childhood, perhaps make a real connection with the technology, and not be disgruntled when they discover that they spent 20 years preparing for 40 years in a job just so they can have money to retire and supposedly enjoy the remaining 1/4 of their life, unless cut short by death, illness, depression, etc.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
From http://www.answers.com/technology&r=67
1a. The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.
1b. The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective.
2. Electronic or digital products and systems considered as a group: a store specializing in office technology.
3. Anthropology. The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials.
To me, technology, like any other -ology, is the knowledge of something, especially using the scientific method. Everybody knows themselves and somebody else and animals, but they are not psychologists. Everybody knows a group of people, but they are not a sociologist. Most everybody has seen a calculator or a computer, but that does not make them a technologist either. Give a computer or a calculator to someone that does not know how to add, and they will not know how to add with the calculator either.
My point being is that there are a number of prerequisites besides hardware for technology to be applied in education. I get annoyed at the concept that technology is something that spontaneously does stuff for people. It doesn't.
Americans are already behind the most of the world in basic education like math, science, and history. I believe that all aspects of education should be reexamined. The feel good, "I'm confident in my ignorance", attitude simply cannot last much longer, unless we start outsourcing that too.
One computer for every three students? How did they ever think that many computers would help with the children's education?
Ridiculous quote:
Jena Haggith, one of Hansen's students last school year, said she preferred his use of technology for lessons over textbooks. "When I read from a textbook, I get so bored, so I don't know what they're saying,"
But how much time in lessons is spent reading the textbook? 5%, perhaps 10%. Hardly a justification for spending so much money. Also, the ability to read and comprehend dense factual text is a useful skill - how are these kids going to cope in the real world where everything isn't broken down into bite-size multimedia presentations?
But it gets even funnier:
But, he said, students perk up when technology is involved. "They're into computers, and they're into what computers can do," he said.
No, they're perking up because they know they won't have to do any work for the rest of the lesson because the teacher will be too busy troubleshooting to keep an eye on the kids
This is from the teacher side of me - I teach after-school classes, and I'm working on a degree in education.
The teachers treat lab periods as if they were days off. They sit the kids down, turn on the software, and let the kids zone out. There' no interaction from the teacher; the "Compass" software just does the work.
And what's worse is that the software doesn't teach concepts or methods. It teaches for the TAKS (Texas Assesment of Knowledge and Skills standardized test). The kids go from grade to grade, knowing nothing, learning nothing except how to click the X.
What happened to true educational software, like Number Munchers, Oregon Trail, and Carmen Sandiego? These actually made the kids think, do quick maths in their head (I've not met a kid outside of middle school who can pull this now), and they sure didn't teach for any standardized tests.
Now to the IT side - I manage the school LAN, which is about 250 Windows machines (ranging from Pentiums at 200MHz running Windows 98SE to quad-Xeon boxes running XP for my gaming - gotta be a BOfH) and 100 or so Macs (PPC 603e and up).
School districts, as you know, are massive organizations, easily on par with major corporations, and the different divisions require different outfits - for example, while every machine in the district I work at is loaded with Windows and Office as a base, the different levels get different software. Elementary gets Compass and a bunch of programs funded by grants (Orchard, Type to Learn, Lexia - basically total crap that's a pain both client and server side); middle and high get Plato (a version of Compass for the older kids) and development tools and editors in the labs (Dreamweaver/Fireworks/Photoshop, Codewarrior, a bunch of compilers and apps), and the admins get specialized database software to do attendance, check grades, create "student profile databases," and whatnot.
At my campus, we've got 60 laptops for the kids, in addition to four computer labs (60 Macs, 60 Dells), plus the requisite two student machines per classroom (which are never used). On top of that, we have campuswide wireless-G coverage (and that's impressive, since we're a brick-and-mortar school built in the mid-50s), quad-Xeon machines for me and the resident DBA/lunchroom and bus monitor, and bloody flat panel monitors left and right on dual-head cards. Finally, we're getting 30 more laptops on the Beaumont Grant soon, and we don't know how we're going to fit those in, since the laptops are rarely used as is.
The teachers don't know jack about their software, they surf the Web and get infected left and right since we're not allowed to install Firefox, and we're bogged down with crap software that we have to install. On top of that, the admins took the dedicated LANtech away from the building (I'm a contractor, brought in to work on a grant's machines, and the building principal - my old childhood principal, to boot - extended my contract to cover the rest of the campus, with no extra pay) and they're trying to centralize things at a helpdesk _with no remote management software_, all in the name of saving money.
You can't pull stuff like that when you have over 50 schools to deal with, a shrinking tech services department (they laid off five techs at the end of the last school year - my boss was one of them), and a staff that knows next to nothing about the systems there except how to check their mail.
Schools are losing their direction with technology, and they need to seriously reexamine what they're doing with it - both for the IT staff's sake and the kids.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
I am a techie.
My wife has a Phd in Childhood Ed.
My wife is a school adminstrator.
All comments below are valid (in my mind) to Kindergarden through 6 grade.
1) Teachers are liberal arts majors and they do not inherently know how to use tech.
2) Recent studies have shown kids pick up computers use methodologies very quickly when they need to, without adult help.
3) Computer labs need constant care, oddly enough viruses run virtually unchecked through schools, computer ones that is. I often call my wife and tell her that her computer has a virus, after an email from her.
4) It has not be shown yet that kids learn their ABC's, writing, reading or basic math better using computers. It just has not been shown.
It's about quality education. Schools can throw all the technology they want at kids, but computers alone won't give children an education.
Teachers must be properly trained to use this technology to its fullest. I'm afraid that won't realistically happen until the next generation of teachers emerges that has grown up all their lives around computers.
Computers should never come at the cost of student-teacher time, nor at the cost of fewer teachers. Nor, should schools compete with each other as to "who has the bigger, faster" setup. If it isn't actually improving education, it is worthless.
Saving schools money is good, as long as those savings are going to improve the educational experience, and not back into the budget for someone's pet project.
I remember my high school trying out computers. We only touched them when we all had to do something, and take turns, etc. The computer was a glorified typewriter, and the students were still required to hand write drafts, for instance. (I cheated, and scribbled on my notebook until a PC opened up.) But, I was patient. I knew most of the kids had never even used a computer. I, and the geeks I hung out with, averaged 2-4 at home. Still, I would have loved a school laptop back then. I finally bought my own in college.
College was different, but not much. I was more of the outsider for having it, as most of my peers had regular pen and paper. Then again, most were asking for printouts of my delicately constructed lecture outlines to compare to. While others left for the library to do a short paper, I was already half done before leaving class. Of course, I was left to my own faculties come test time.
But, that is another problem. A student who doesn't know how to work without a computer may be at a disadvantage at the college level, much as a student who doesn't know how to work with a computer is at a severe disadvantage. I remember the same debate over calculators being introduced into the SAT. Some college professors (not all, or even a majority) do not care what you work best with. They'll plop down a blue pad in front of you, and tell you to put all your fancy gadgets away.
Did computers help me in school? Not really. I didn't really care about education until college, and what mattered there was choosing a smaller school where I had lots of one on one time with professors when I needed it. They could have given away iPods and iBooks, and whatever else colleges are giving away now. Take them in exchange for 100+ student classes? No way!
As a side note, while I think moving some text to computers is good, I think I would be wearing some very thick glasses if I had to have read Anne Frank on a laptop.
I8-D
Oh yes it is. The most likely failure mode in any machine calculation is user input error. Knowledge of what order of magnitude and first digits to expect let you know if the calculation you just made is even in the right ballpark. It isn't an issue of solving non-homogeneous 2nd order differential equations in your head, this is basics to know when you are just about to make a fool of yourself.
Most certainly, the ability to do mental arithmetic is more or less useful, depending on your future career path, but most emphatically, your describing it as stupid speaks volumes.
You're never far from a calculator of some sort, and even if you were (stuck on a desert island and needed to do a caculation to get home), everyone can do the math manually just not ultra-fast.
The point is not that mental arithmetic is used to replace calculators as some sort of penis waving 'yay, look what I can do', it's to know what you just did with the calculator is sensible, so the calculator doesn't turn into a crutch that collapses at the most inopportune moment (say when your spacecraft is approaching planetary orbit or your phone/gas/electricity/grocery/restaurant bill doesn't add up).
But they don't even get as far as calculus in high school
I assume by 'high school' you mean 15-18 year olds. Here, by 17, the basics of integration and differentiation is complete in maths courses.
First of all, the price is outrageous. My little brother's brand new middle school is asking for $350, my school is asking for $150, and my younger little brother's elementary school is asking $120. $620 in donations just to start a school year is insane. Not only that, but those are just a particular donation the PTA is asking for. There is also individual funds set up for certain classes such as Art. Money is asked for on a case-to-case basis (if you're taking the class).
OK, so just because my parents are spending a lot of money, it must be getting spent on the right stuff, right? Well, unfortunately, that's usually not the case. My little brother's elementary school just recently purchase about 35 new Apple eMacs to replace their 5-year-old iMacs all running OS X. I used them for 3 years, and they were perfectly fine for the purpose that were set before them (word processing, Kid Pix, and typing programs). So why replace them? Because the PTA thinks we need to be "on the cutting edge of technology". Then the middle schools have thing like laptop carts. Basically, in each cart there is 30 iBook G4s all being wheeled around with an HP Printer and an Apple AirPort stuck on top. The teachers hook it up to the nearest ethernet port and everyone boots up...so we can type reports. That's it. Boom, $20,000 down the drain (probably more). That's a lot of money that could have been spent on something useful.
Meanwhile, every other year there is a campaign about passing some new tax reform so that things like the parent's music program and the library don't get booted. Why don't they take all this money they've saved, not spend it on computers, and keep all the programs they're in danger of losing (not to mention that not a single school in our district has recived anything more than pink slips that meant nothing).
The point is, wether it's a fad or a style here to stay, it's too expensive with little benefits. I'm a 13-year old techno-geek and I love new computers as much as anyone, but I also understand the value of a good education--new comptuers aren't it.
Software is like sex. It's better when it's free. -Linus Torvalds