Slashdot Mirror
Interactive Learning Fails Reading Test
motivator_bob writes to tell us the Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that the latest craze of interactive computer software is actually hurting the education level rather than helping it. From the article: "Parents have also bought into the enthusiasm for technology, spending millions on educational computer games for their young. However, research published in the journal Education 3 to 13 has found that pupils who use interactive programs cannot remember stories they have just read because they are distracted by cartoons and sound effects."
I tried this out when I was a OOH SHINY!
"MY APOCALYPTIC TENOR HAS NOT BEEN DISPELLED!" - T-Rex, qwantz.com
And then made cartoons and sounds behind the couch. She was going to learn to read, but HEY, those clothes in the dryer want to play tag!
What do you think the odds are that your kids know what they're singing? If your answer isn't 'slim to fucking none', look up the lyrics to any song you think you know, then try answering again.
-- I care not for your foolish signatures.
AR had you take a test at the beginning of the year to determine your "reading level", and it had a "reading level" for practically every book out there. Kids were intentionally doing poorly on the test so that they could read 2nd-grade level books. Because the kids were only graded on what they could take an AR test on, these kids were given high grades for reading books that did them absolutely no good (whereas only one other student and I were actually reading above the 7th grade level).
Sometimes, educational software (and software in the schools) can be useful, but the biggest problem is that it seems like we use computers for the sake of using computers, and not for the sake of learning. Despite the fact that AR was KILLING our reading classes, the administration demanded that we continue to use it simply so they could brag about their computer software.
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
Education requires focus and concentration.
Entertainment amuses and distracts.
Education is not and cannot be entertainment.
It's a dangerous fad, I think ultimately brought on by the entertainment power of TV; children can be so involved in TV it's hard to get them to focus on education, so the idea arrives that if the TV can be used for education...
However, entertainment is fundamentally antagonistic to education.
Everything education is, entertainment is not.
Neil Postman wrote about this in "Amusing Ourselves to Death", a book which inspired Roger Waters epochial album, "Amused to Death"; a recommended read and a recommended listen.
For the most part I believe the studies that were just published. I have tried many computer based classes and I did find myself distracted by the "media supplements" and "interactive" links, etc. On the other hand, I think that book learning also has its flaws.
;)
Classical education theory suggests that people can be categorized by visual, aural, touch, smell, etc learning capacities. I found that a careful combination of each of the senses works for me.
Irrespective, I think that interactive learning is better than no learning
And finally, "studies" are oftentimes slanted in favor of those who are funding the research. That is, if the sponsors don't like the result they simply choose not to publish. Matt Wong
No really, the big animated ad thingy under the summery whiped it from my oh so fragile short term memory.
I think that part of learning is creating the connections between synapses (of course) I believe that happens mostly when doing creative thinking. Like using your imagination. Imagination is like working out on a treadmill. When it is time to run, you are well equiped.
That's nothing like my first computer, where the only fun thing I could do on it was learn to program.
just like "evoting", this shouldn't shock. In theory, interactive learning with the aid of a computer should benefit the students who get to use it. In practice, this turns out to be just another give-away to cronies with schlock product - just google "bush brother educational software texas schools" to see what I'm talking about. One of the Bush bros was charging millions for totally useless software that was just worthless - really lame, mindless crapware aimed at the lowest common denominator. I'm all for having programming courses in schools, and giving the rest of the students basic computer literacy (preferably with open source tools), but this "interactive software" learning crap will always come in way over-priced, and add no value to the education of our youth here in the U.S. This is also why I am convinced that the U.S. is slowly (or maybe quickly) deteriorate intellectually and be supplanted by the nations that more rapidly are able to adopt FLOSS into their learning curriculums
The other half used an interactive program which, in addition to telling the story, encourages pupils to click the computer mouse on page illustrations, triggering almost 300 animations and sound effects.
Only two-thirds of the pop-up cartoons were relevant to the storyline.
-----
Firstly and seriously, of course children will be distracted by animations and sound effects. Knowing this, and if they are irrelevent, why did the writers of the software put them there? Why not add some animations that explained part of the story? Fair enough no kid's book should read like a tech manual (and vice versa), but putting in distractions will distract the reader - child or otherwise.Secondly and less seriously... they're surprised 'only' two thirds of the popups are relevent? Put the kids on the net instead of using that software and we'll see how many 'relevent' popups they get.
Actually, that might not be such a good idea...
If all you have is a grenade, pretty soon every problem looks like a foxhole -- MightyYar
Let it work itself out on your kids. I'll give mine a good book and personal attention.
This is the song that doesn't end...
Yes, it goes on and on my friend!
Some people started singing it
not knowing what they'd done,
and they'll continue singing it
forever just because...
This is the song that doesn't end...
(EVERYONE!)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
You misspelled Larnin'.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The human mind, while extremely adaptable, has some limitations that your rhetorical style overlooks. When you say that "the human mind" will adapt, what you are really saying is that human minds are able to deal with this level of distraction right now.
There is no time for evolution to help the human mind adapt, we're basically stuck at this point in evolution. There's a limit to what our hunter/gatherer/tinkerer primate brains can handle and still work efficiently, and that we can't pass our progress on to our children genetically to help them get past that limit.
I'd be inclined to argue that we, doing more at one time with our minds than people a century ago, are very likely functioning less efficiently in many ways, though the progress of technological tools to aid us has more than made up the difference, so far.
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
These researchers can blame the bells and whistles all they want, but I doubt they tested the interactive books against a real control... If you give a 5 year old a copy of Curious George, be prepared to watch them struggle at the rate of 30 seconds per page, or 5 to 10 minutes for a whole book, reading and figuring out each word. By the end of the ordeal, they plot of the story and details wont matter to them. What matters is that they've read every word, and the monkey somehow managed to rescue his banana.
I've been saying this for years. I saw this happening with my kids in the 90's and got them away from it.
And guess what? It's not just kids and "educational" programs,
the same thing applies to adults and movies/TV..
Think about it...
I'd also fault spelling and grammar checkers in the continuing decline of proper language skills/skill's. Too/to/two many people play loose/lose with their/there/they're word processor's/processors checking facilities. If the text passes the checker, then they're/there/their convinced it's/its fine.
I'm no speeling or grammar fiend but even I am horrified by the basic language errors that now appear in supposedly edited works (e.g., the New York Times and in books). Some people claim the trend is due to e-mail/IM, but I'd argue that a well trained person doesn't make such basic mistakes even on a fast first draft.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I have seen similar experiments like the reported one in Great Britain. In the US (university) students are pushed through labs where they are suppose to learn things like physics. Those labs come with special computer programs to train the students. Before the lab begins, the students have to complete an online test. Then they conduct a few simple experiments. In the final last step they are suppose to use the computer and compare their experimental results with theoretical calculations. For example, they take a little vehicle on a ramp and measure the distance as a function of time. Then they are suppose to fit the data. The computer programs offer various functions with generic variable names. The students try them all and sometimes find the right formula. So, they pass. But, most students give the wrong answer when asked which variable in the formula represents the acceleration. They learn nothing. They quit without any idea about physics, units, and never have to do an error calculation. At some universities things went really bad: TA's are told be the professor that the students by definition do not give a "wrong" answer. Instead, students should simply discuss their results and it does not matter what their results are. I have seen it. The students are becoming the lab rats of instructors who want to find the perfect teaching method. Somehow I am wondering how the students pass the test before the lab, and what they do later in their life. What I do know is that not every faculty member is happy with the situation. But, these are new "learning techniques", funded with a lot of money. Everybody better shut up, as long as the money flows.
In the future I'm sure our children will be able to learn calculus while playing video games, chatting on their mobile communicators, and picking out their wardrobe for the following week.
What will be so different about our children and ourselves? I mean, are we going to genetically engineer them to be geniuses from day one or something? Because as far as I can tell, children receive genes from their parents and are pretty similar in intelligence (there is a correlation, although not 100%). So, what you're saying is that we're going to make an evolutionary jump in the next generation that will allow our children to learn what less than 20% of the world learns today, but in even more difficult conditions (playing video games)?
I'm just wondering, because I can't seem to understand what will be so different from now and then that will allow what you say to come true.
My page.
When I was a kid, educational software like Zork really helped, typing and spelling especially. Plus I learned never to go into a dark room lest I be eaten by a grue.
Only two-thirds of the pop-up cartoons were relevant to the storyline.
A day after the exercise, children were asked to recall the story and the characters in it. The findings showed that 90 per cent of the group that used the first program had good or excellent recall of the story.
This figure dropped to 30 per cent with the children who had used the interactive program.
Hmm, one program had 2/3 superfluous material and their story retention dropped by 2/3. What a coincidence.
That little gem has even appeared in The Washington Post. When even old time print media is coasting on the spell checker, maybe it's a lost cause.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Let's just all sit around all day imagining stuff. Like let's imagine that we know how to read and write and do arithmetic. That way, when we actually have to do it, we'll be ready!
We can just imagine up computer manuals. Or better yet, let's just pretend we are computer experts who know how to write software to fly airplanes! Then we can imagine that the software passes the FAA certification process. And we can imagine that that plane just didn't fall out of the sky, killing hundreds of the passengers on board because the pilots were imagining they were really pilots when that was the first time they stepped inside a cockpit!
Isn't imagination wonderful? We'll just imagine all of life's problems away because we can, and because, you know, Disney said it works!
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
OK, so their test programs implemented interactivity badly. Therefore, interactivity is bad.
Of course, given that people often judge video games, comics, genre fiction, etc. only by their worst examples, why should anyone be surprised by this conclusion?
That is most important. Teaching children at a young age to use technology will possibly help them later on in life.
www.IBuyMacs.com
Man, do I hate those studies. What the hell were they measuring? Two groups of six years old listening to a story while the text ist displayed on a computer screen.
Group A Will only have the posibility to listen to the story while the currently read line is highlightened on the screen. Group B Will additionaly be encouraged to click on illustrations, triggering almost 300 animations and sound effects. 100 of these have nothing to do with the story whatsoeverWhen asked about the story, 90% of group A will remember it correctly, but only 30% of group B. So what is the conclusion? Maybe that distractions, especially those that are not related to what you are currently doing will harm your concentration and therefore you will remember not as well as if you were left alone? No, the conclusion is:
Interactive learning fails reading test
WTF?
I don't claim that it is impossible that interactive learning is the wrong educational tool for six years old. I don't believe it, but I just can't prove it. But I'm annoyed by all these stupid studies making statements based on unprecise conditions, which will not allow to deduce verifyable conclusions, but will be picked up by the press (and slashdot) nonetheless.
They're just like those studies that claim over and over again that playing counterstrike will turn kids into brutal killers. Proven wrong again and again, but nobody cares.
Chriss
--
memomo.net - free online language training
memomo: free web based language trainer DE-EN-ES-FR-IT
Guys like Edward De Bono have made a career by claiming to have the inside track on creative learning. I've studied epistemology since my mid teens and in answer to the question 'what is learning?' I've acquired a vast ignorance. Ultimately, for me, learning is a nurtured drive with inherent requirements, that is nourished by the new, by information, difference that makes a difference (Bateson). The high of learning comes when one recognizes that nature has given rise to you, an individual with the potential to encompass the principles of life in the small shell that houses your brain.The truth is most people are driven by the more primitive drives and default to being entertained.
Gregory Bateson suggested we can learn to learn, possibly learn to learn to learn; but, first we must experience what it means to learn. I believe that learning is a unique multifaceted experience that, once experienced, can, depending on the individual, entice the practioner ever onward.
The day my older sister took me by the hand and walked me into the nearest library I was hooked. I knew how to, read, loved to read, but had no idea of the universes of knowledge available. Yet even into grade 1 I stubbornly refused to learn to write. I read, I had lots to read, other people were doing the writing, what need had I to write?
Whatever learning is, whether it be as simple as deriving new patterns, or, as profound as Archimedes' Eureka!, we first must introduce children to the joy of learning. Most of them can take it from there.
just my loose change.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
I can attest to the validity of this study. I don't have kids, but when I was one, I had a plastic learning device called a "Speak & Spell." Some of you may have heard of it. The only thing I can remember about this device is that if you pushed the L button, it sounded a LOT like "hell." We would use this exceedingly amusing, at the time, coincidence(?) to get around actually using bad words through such techniques as saying "What the" and then pushing L. Surprisingly, this technique proved to be completely ineffective at avoiding a spanking.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
In the future I'm sure our children will be able to learn calculus while playing video games, chatting on their mobile communicators, and picking out their wardrobe for the following week.
Sadly the reality is that kids today don't learn half of what we did many many years ago. I was taught to read by my Dad. He used the book Robinson Crusoe to teach me. I seriously doubt that kids today read anything like that or would ever study calculus. They are to busy playing video games or listening to music. The kids today get most things handed to them with little effort on their part. Probably why a lot of the tech jobs are being exported overseas.
Intelligence in the universe is a constant. The population is growing. You do the math if you still can.
with all the float-over windows with sound and graphics
That's what the History Channel is all about. I watch it as much as I can (which isn't much, b/c I don't have cable or anything at my house) just because I love learning new things.
But it's one of those things that depend on the activity and subject. If you teach something in videos or whatever, there are tons of history or language or geometry things that would go along with it. But reading isn't one of those automated-type activities. Reading is learned simply because you see the use for it and have the desire for it.
Kids don't learn to read because they want a good score. They learn to read because they want attention that only another person can give. I'm sure that there are teachers that can work with this program to help their kids, but without that teacher giving their own individual attention to the kids, no computer program can help a kid read.
ArtificialNews.com will one day SAVE YOUR LIFE from evil AI!
I don't know if the parent was a troll or not, but it does reach a very important point. At this stage of technology and instant gratification, many parents simply think it's easier to plop their kids down in front of a box (tv, computer, etc) and hope that it will give them the education that the kid needs. This way parents still have time for their own lives. The problem is that without true interaction there is a serious inability for children to learn. A computer can only answer questions which it has been programmed to answer, and children will inevitably ask that which a computer cannot answer. I'm no parent, so I open myself up willingly to the onslaught of "You don't have kids so you shouldn't speak", but I do know that a lot of my friends in the Nintendo generation (me) would be a lot better off had their parents sat down and taught them interactively rather than dosing them up with Ritalin and leaving the tv/computer/video game to the teaching.
Microsoft Sucks, F/OSS Rocks. I get mod points now right?
It's about time that people noticed this. Ever since the first "leapfrog" system came out, education has taken a backseat to marketing.
Parents are willing to spend an arm and a leg "for their child's education", but would be appalled at buying that child an equally-priced "toy".
It seems that all any company has to do anymore is design something that has more than a few words and numbers in it, call it a "learning device" or "educational system" and it sells like you wouldn't believe.
The newest leapfrog toy, "the fly", seems like a really useful invention again passed of as an educational device without any real educational content.
It can mimic a $5 pocket calculator, a $3 pocket dictionary, and a $0.50 pen all while taking up way too much space and being much to loud/obnoxious/distracting.
The potential of this technology is immensely great, but of course, what does that matter if it won't sell and make the company lots and lots of money? Best to strip it down, paint it bright colors, have it make noise, and say it helps kids learn.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
1. The fact that the computer really isn't neccessary for reading.
2. The way my school was using it (and spending TONS of money on it).
Although, I do have to say that typing programs are not as effective as instant messengers and things like that (as long as the kids aren't saying stuff like "LoL" constantly).
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
I must say, the best computer learning game I ever used was Swamp Gas (and Swamp Gas Europe). I memorized random facts about the states (or the european countries) so that I could 'beat' the game. This would then unlock a few relatively fun arcade games. After I ran out of lives, it was back to the learning so I could get back into the arcade.
Oh ya, Oregon Trail was fun too. Stupid Buffalo.
There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death.-Asimov
already, we do more with our minds on a daily basis than humans of only a half-century ago.
You clearly weren't around half a century ago. I was.
You're full of the arrogance of the modern.
What's more I have spent some time living in ancient fashions, right down to the neolithic. The mind always fills itself to its capacity and just because your modern mind is blind to the stimuli and thought processes needed to survive and prosper in a neolithic world does not imply that those stimuli and thought processes do not exist.
How do you think we got to the modern world?
KFG
> Anna Karina
So would you say your recollection of Anna Kar-en-ina was at all affected by the reading program?
(And where's my -1 Pedant mod, hmmm? It's 2006 already, and still no Pedant mod...)
I really agree with this synthesis. Computers per se can't teach you the most critical skills - including reading, writing or mathematics. The interaction with a teacher is so much more richer than with any machine yet devised. Socrates is still right, the best school is a log with the student on one end and the teacher on the other.
A computer can alleviate some of the drudgery in education, but it cannot replace or even significantly augment the teacher. We are impovershing our children if we think otherwise.
I'm going to politely disagree. I am a high school teacher (seven years junior high 3 years high school) and have yet to find a piece of software that is effective and better than a more traditional approach. In finihing my master's, I did a great deal of research and found that there is no evidence to prove that technology (i.e. computers) improves learning, and in fact, there is much research to conclude the opposite, that computers hinder learning. Todd Oppenheimer's great book is a worthy read.
That being said, there are some great tools that students can use for science, but they are not necessarily "educational", just happen to be good in schools. I know the ed software business is big business, educators, administrators, and parents get all warm and fuzzy over "kids and computers", but nothing beats a good book, and even more than that, nothing replaces the writing process. Kids today barely read at all, and their writing is awful. I rather suspect the inundation of computers and whiz-bang technology has jaded their outlooks. But, there is no substitute for reading a book. The problem with most ed software I've seen is that it is rather limited in developing critical thinking and analysis. Students tend to stay on the low end of Bloom's taxonomy. For example, how do you get them (in my discipline, history) to see cause and effect?
I use Keynote on my iBook all the time, but a teacher using a computer to present material is a far cry from kids playing on the computer. But that's just my experience. 10 years worth.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
1. Bedtime stories
2. Synthetic phonics
3. Visit the library, buy them their favourite books as presents
4. Upgrade to meta-reading using this.
At no point in the above does a computer feature as anything other than a source of readables.
That article was pretty good. But I think it just needs some sound effects and cartoons to go along with it. They could play when you clicked on some pictures or icons around the text.
I know that I went from being a terrible speller to being very good as a direct result of computers. I got my first spell checker in the 7th grade. Every teacher, as well as my parents were absolutely sure that spell checkers just make kids lazy. They were sure that I would never learn to spell if I used a spell checker. The fact was that the spell checker would immediately tell me when I misspelled a word, and would also give me the correct spelling. This was opposed to the "traditional" approach, consisting of the student turning in their writing, and a week later getting a paper back with red circles all over it. The typical student would then toss the paper in the trash, never seeing what their mistake actually was, and never finding out the correct spelling.
The funny thing is that prior to my first word processor, I don't believe I ever received a single grade higher than a C on any writing assignment. Immediately following my family getting a word processor, I started getting As. I still attribute some of that to lazy teachers who graded on how pretty your handwriting was, but a lot of it was that changing a single word in the middle of a paper didn't require an extra half of an hour to rewrite the paper.
Maybe I was the exception, but I'm not buying that immediate feedback and shifting effort to the actual task (as opposed to busywork) does not improve the learning process for kids. I also call BS on the "nothing beats a book" line. I can't count the number of times I've heard it. There is only one thing that reading a book gets you that watching TV doesn't. You learn to read better. Now, I am not saying that reading well is not a good thing, but that is all reading has on TV.
Kids today barely read at all, and their writing is awful.
That's just not fair. People have been using the "kids today" argument since the beginning of time. Your parents complained about "kids today" when you were a kid, and your grandparents complained about "kids today" when they were a kid. Kids today are the same as kids have always been. Some read plenty, some write well, and many are just plain stupid. I'm 27, and I remember wondering why so few of my classmates enjoyed reading. I also remember wondering why my teachers always picked the most boring books they could find. Nobody should have to read Dandelion Wine...and why we never got to read Slaughterhouse V in school is a mystery....but anyway, if kids today don't read, how do you explain the ridiculously popular Harry Potter series? How do you explain the bustling kids section at pretty much every bookstore? How about complaining that parents today don't spend enough time reading to their kids so that they're interested in reading at a young age? That's certainly true in plenty of cases...I have to say that if I had to choose between my child spending an hour playing an educational game on their computer or spending an hour watching TV, I'd go for the computer every time. Not to mention the tremendous resources the web has to offer a curious child. I don't think the computer is ever going to replace a good teacher, but it certainly is a better supplement than nothing.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
Have you seen "The Logical Journey of the Zoombinis"? (now called "The Mathematical Journey of the Zoombinis")
:)
It is an excellent introduction to logic, making and testing hypotheses, and more logic and reasoning. It contains 12 puzzles, some of which are highly original. Many of them are challenging and take some time even for adults on the hardest setting.
Ha! Study, knowledge and long experience aren't any guide.
Anecdotal evidence is a far more valid!
People going around with actual knowledge aren't welcome on Slashdot. It's all supposition, one-off experiences, bizarre conspiracy theories and wild guesses around here.
Sadly.
In any discussion of whether a new medium of expression is a good thing, never pay any attention to the disparaging remarks of anyone who is old enough that the medium is new to them. It does not matter how they dress it up as a study, they are too old to be unprejudiced.
If you don't agree, read about the furors over dime store novels, talking movies, or, greatest horror of horrors, the dramas that Plato complained of.
I don't do instant messaging, but at least I have the wisdom to know that it is because I am old and not because I am wise.
Hmm. Ok, I will go login to gaim, out of shame at being so old, it just doesn't excite me though....
Hans
If you're completing a Master thesis, please be aware that Todd Oppenheimer's piece of propaganda is scientifically unsound and of little use than to present a "witchhunt" mentality that is somewhat widespread in society. It bluntly ignores most research and misrepresents much. In fact, what most research says is the opposite: there are countless cases of THE USE of computers dramatically improving education - not just computer by themselves, magically, of course. If you are "yet to find a piece of software that is effective and better than a more traditional approach", that's right: you're supposed as a teacher to EMPLOY the software, not just expect it to have an impact by itself. This document presents a summary of research from various decades: Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2003). Strip mining for gold: Research and policy in educational technology--A response to " Fool's Gold." Educational Technology Review, 11(1), 7-69. Retrieved September 21, 2005 Can be found at: http://www.aace.org/pubs/etr/issue4/clements2.pdf
I'll buy that commercial education-specific software is rarely, if ever, useful for education. (For that matter, any software which is not actually evaluated on its success at performing its stated function is likely to be bad, and educational software generally has this disconnect.)
On the other hand, there is software and there are sites which are actually very useful for learning. For example, I was recently curious as to whether a US president had ever been impeached when his party controlled Congress. Without a computer, I would have had a hard time determining whether the Johnson impeachment, which is generally reported as a separation-of-powers issue, also occurred with an opposing party holding a majority in the Senate (and, if so, whether it was a two-thirds majority). A quick check on Wikipedia reveals that the House was controlled by the Republicans (as of the 1866 election) and Johnson was a Democrat (although Lincoln was a Republican, and Johnson was his Vice-President; thus there is a party-affiliation link to the fact that Congress wanted to prevent Johnson from replacing Lincoln's cabinet appointees). A couple of links further gets the Senate's chronological list of Senators, which would tell me the exact membership of the Senate at the relevant times if it weren't 3 in the morning and I was willing to look through the couple of pages and add up parties. For that matter, it's worth noting that Congress had recently passed a law such that the successor to the presidency would be the (Republican, Lincoln-appointed) Secretary of State.
But the point is that computers can store and index a lot more information than can be conveniently managed in books, which means that students can do primary research for themselves, and investigate cause and effect for themselves, rather than having it reported to them by textbooks. Furthermore, they can essentially skip "knowledge", because the computer can answer for them more questions than any person could hope to know the answer to, and they can build the rest of Bloom's taxonomy on (easy) research skills instead of laboriously gained knowledge.
There's no replacement for a book in presenting a detailed argument on a particular topic, but a computer is far better for researching a topic than any single book or short list of books.
Educational software seems to be about the least educational software one can get... roughly the equivalent of afternoon children's programming on network television.
Genuinely educational software is only accidentally so. Microsoft Word probably exposes more educational possibilities than anything in the reader rabbit series. Your friendly GCC compiler (or even javascript) is far better at teaching math and logic than that stupid frog. And Photoshop / Maya 3D will give kids a far deeper understanding of images than any "art appreciation" flash tripe.
If you want really educational software, check out how well Gran Turismo players understand what the parts of a car are and how they interact with eachother. Or Sim City players understand budgeting issues and compromises. Or the abstraction skills of people who create their own web pages.
Educational software is a failure. It takes a superficial view of education, opting instead for flashy lights and animations. However, that doesn't mean that all software is a failure at educating people.
The ______ Agenda
What is failing is the Look-Say method , which, in substituting word-shape for sounding-out of letters, effectively reduces us back to heiroglyphics where there were thousands of symbols to learn instead of twenty-six or so.
Animating the pictures may increase distraction, but that's to be expected when the basic method is fundamentally hostile to human cognition.
Perhaps that would explain all the dupes on slashdot. The editors are too busy looking at the shiny icons and banner ads, so they can't remember the stories they have just read.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
As someone who's spent many years working with kids in educational settings, my own experience tells me that these kinds of interctive learning software are junk. Any program that claims to "make learning fun" will immediately be seen for what they are by the average seven-year-old. Those who are slow learners will quickly be frustrated by having the progress of the "game" be blocked by a sudden spelling or math problem that's difficult to figure out, while more adept students will have to wonder what the monster's motivation is for handing out schoolwork. Instead of trying to disguise learning as a game, I think one should use the opposite approach of taking something that's intrinsically fun, then figuring out what one can learn from it; this is the approach that the best science educators have taken for years.