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
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.
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
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
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.
You have completely misunderstood the point of the article. They are not discussing the utility of computers in teaching general subjects. They are discussing the utility of computers in teaching reading.
Not "book learning". Literacy.
In summary, learn to fucking read.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
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.
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.
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
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.
> 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'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.
I would have to mostly disagree. Even though I think computers in education are the most wasteful, overhyped thing in decades, I think a properly made computer program probably could teach you to read. And I know you can learn math from a computer: in college, I took M311 (Linear Algebra and Matrix Theory) by correspondence, and I did just fine in it and got an "A", despite not being that great at math (for example, I failed second-semester calculus the first 4 times I took it).
In fact, that Linear Algebra experience taught me just how superfluous the teacher can be. I just had a book and a guide that told me what to read and what problems to work, and I did fine. I had the same experience with the other correspondence course I took, which was US History. All I did was read the book and mail in an essay for each chapter to be graded. I got an A in that too, and I still remember what the prof wrote on one of my essays: "I have rarely seen this kind of insight from an undergraduate."
Now, this might all have more to do with my learning style than anything. But the point is that I was able to learn just fine without ever even meeting the teacher and just reading a book. Obviously, any content you can put in a book, you can put on a computer, so you should be able to learn anything from a computer that you can learn from a book. Of course, that does require that the software isn't so brain-damaged that it detracts from learning.
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