Slashdot Mirror
How Technology Changes Classrooms
Corrupt writes "Just ask 11-year-old Jemella Chambers. She is one of 650 students who receive an Apple Inc laptop each day at a state-funded school in Boston. From the second row of her classroom, she taps out math assignments on animated education software that she likens to a video game."
Nail guns allowed less skillful people to work as carpenters, to do an adequate job in situations where they would have not been able to do so before. Nail guns also allowed skilled carpenters to do simple jobs more easily and quickly.
If all you need is a wall frame of 2x4s, a carpenter of limited skill with a nailgun will do. But if you want fine furniture built, you need someone with more skills, who knows the properties of different sorts of wood and different types of joints and fasteners. Before nailguns, every carpenter knew these things.
I notice that TFA - like most in praise of computers in the classroom - makes no mention of test scores or any other metric that demonstrates that students are actually learning better ithis way than in more traditional classrooms.
I recommend Cliff Stoll's books Silicon Snake Oil and High Tech Heretic.
Worse, this system doesn't just use computers, it is totally reliant on them.
Says the principal in TFA, "Why would we ever buy a book when we can buy a computer? Textbooks are often obsolete before they are even printed." But that's not true: fundamental fields change slowly, a ten year old geometry or physics or art textbook will do quite well. And students can take them home, read them on the bus or under a tree, do homework anywhere - apparently this system pretty much requires kids to have computers at home. Grandma, who's uninterested in all these modern gadgets, picks you up after school and you stay at her house until your mom gets off work? Can't do homework while you wait, no computer.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
And following your logic we should not be teaching math at all just how to use a calculator.. See how silly following logic can be!
Its not that teaching math is outdated. Its that memorizing multiplication tables might be outdated.
The main point of modern math class is how to translate real life problems into numerical equations. Once you can do that, solving those equations is rather trivial.
The main point of modern math class is how to translate real life problems into numerical equations. Once you can do that, solving those equations is rather trivial.
While that is the point of the math classes I took in high school, I'm not at all sure that's the best method to be teaching mathematics. My high school used the "Chicago Math" method of teaching, which focuses heavily on "real-life" examples and encourages heavy use of computers and calculators to ease computation.
It seemed like a pretty good method at the time, but when I got into the electrical engineering program in college, I found myself woefully under-prepared mathematically. I found that the de-emphasis on computation had caused my basic knowledge of mathematical formulae to atrophy. And, since math is cumulative, I found that I had a very difficult time catching up (especially in calculus), since my knowledge of basic algebraic principles was never developed properly. Indeed, this lack of basic skills led me to switch to the computer science program, since I found that discrete math and set theory were easier to learn, as I was learning them from first principles, making my lack of algebraic preparation less of a hindrance.
So, while its tempting to say that computation and practice are irrelevant, the fact remains that these things do matter, because its the practice that fixes the knowledge in the student's head. My father learned math in India, which has a much heavier emphasis on practice, and, even now, he's still much better at algebra and calculus than I am, because he's practiced it so much more than I have.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Indeed it is... IF you've got the multiplication tables memorized...
I have a PhD in math, and I still don't have the multiplication tables memorized. I can multiply without problems, because these things are very easy to figure out. In fact, I thing that should my school require me to memorize the tables, I probably would not choose to study math. And if I did, I would probably be worse at it.
Learning is about making connections. Memorizing is about having the bits in place to connect. Education requires both.
True. However, after memorizing "the tables", how much space is there to make connections? There are number of fascinating connections related to multiplication that can be discovered after memorizing just a few simple rules. And after kids spend several months memorizing and drilling multiplication tables, how much time and how much desire is there to make connections?
AccountKiller
I remember reading of a program that studied the effects of teaching Latin. Not only did they do better in English, they also did better in history. Naturally, the program was cancelled.
"more teachers" does not improve schools any more than "more gristle" improves a meal. It is quality of teachers that is important, and class-size limitations hurt this effort:
Some teachers and classes are naturally better suited to larger class sizes than others. If everyone teaches 30 kids, you can't take advantage of the ones that could handle 200, and you can't use that advantage to support the ones that can handle only 12.
For example, there's no reason why phys.ed. must be limited to only thirty students (except the very early grades where school is as much babysitting as anything). On the other hand, some grammar or math classes might require more individual attention than one thirtieth of a period can represent.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!