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."
She is one of 650 students who receive an Apple Inc laptop each day
I wish I could receive an Apple Inc laptop each day! Sounds profitable ;)
There is very little value in learning how to do things the old way when the new way is all that will ever be used.
Following your logic, we should all be hunting and gathering instead of shopping for food because now we can't feed ourselves, either.
Let us retard all progress in the name of tradition because... well, there is no good reason. But it would make you happy, I suppose.
I have a small issue with your argument. As tools become more complex, learning to use them becomes more complex. Reasoning and logical thinking are not harmed/hampered by having complex tools available. They are harmed by teachers who use complex tools to avoid doing the harder part, teaching kids to reason and think. Sure, a laptop or calculator makes fast work of math problems yet structuring a mathematical proof is something the calculator won't do. If kids want to copy someone else's work off the Internet, teachers need to ensure that testing requires the child to prove they know the material.
Did nailing guns make carpenters less skillful?
Did spreadsheets make accountants less skillful?
and so on....
You are blaming the problem on the tool instead of the teacher.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Thanks to technology, people are graduating without even knowing how to construct complete sentences. And also thanks to technology, those same people can now go on to be "editors" for major websites. : p
This guy's the limit!
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!
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
While I think computer usage in this particular school may be a little overboard, I don't see it as a major problem overall. Kids use computers all the time, and are starting at a younger and younger age. Computers can be a very good tool for these sorts of things, and I'm not sure how they can really retard basic skills other than possibly handwriting. In that regard, kids could hardly end up with worse handwriting than most of their parents, even if they never write anything by hand outside of their handwriting classes in Kindergarten through 3rd grade.
Most kids in my experience will use computer learning games because they're more interesting than long sheets of math problems. However, if given the choice between that same computer game and, say, a particularly interesting worksheet (maybe one of those where you color a picture different colors based on the answers to the math problems), the choice is not always so clear cut.
The basic upshot is that kids will learn best if they're engaged in the material. A computer game can engage them, but a particularly good teacher or a particularly good set of handouts can engage them just as well. A good education will come from a mix of various techniques to keep the kids from becoming bored with any one thing and disengaging from the process.
As for kids not learning Latin anymore, I think that's just because Latin is not particularly useful to anyone not in a specialized field (like medicine or law), and is thus not worth spending a ton of time on in the earlier grades. If you're interested in joining a profession that uses Latin, or planning on competing in a spelling bee, you'll learn Latin eventually. Otherwise, you're going to be bored out of your mind in a class you have no use for, and will eventually forget most of it anyway.
Seriously, what's wrong with the abicus?
The spelling?
(Disclaimer: I wish English would simplify its entire spelling system, blah blah blah.)
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
"Thanks to technology, people are graduating without even knowing how to construct complete sentences. And also thanks to technology, those same people can now go on to be "editors" for major websites."
Or it could be that most schools do not teach grammar or language structure at all, I know when I was in school we never got any of that crap. We got a few mentions of 'noun' vs 'verb', etc. But nothing like a lecture or classes on proper sentence structure.
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
I recently saw a demo of a classroom tool. It played upon the peer aspect of a classroom, rather than teacher-to-student. It allowed the professor, with a tablet PC, to actively write on powerpoint slides, save the edits, etc. Nothing new there. But from the student perspective, anyone with a tablet could take their own notes the same way, watching along with the slides on their own computer (those without a tablet could type as it was web-based).
In addition, there was a blogging feature -- a few students with tablet PCs could become "bloggers" for the class, and students could tune their browsers to the blogging students' pages, and watch what they were writing.
Peer respect kept it mostly to good notes but the professor said that even if she heard the class laughing at something the blogger wrote (she never actually looked at the blogs), at least the kids were awake and possibly engaged in some part of the content. More than that, it let others consider parts of the lecture they might not have before -- sort of a group collaboration, but without the professor. A blogger might note something on a slide you hadn't thought of yet, or do a quick visible search on a word you hadn't really focused on, but upon reading the definition, more made sense.
It was really interesting and I felt a very different way of performing in the classroom. Kids staying engaged is professor's number one concern -- not every teacher is dynamic and exciting. Using a tool like this kept the kids interested because it was what they were used to: reading other kids' notes and perspectives on topics.
The tool was put out by UC San Diego:
Ubiquitous Presenter
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.
Memorizing the multiplication table is not outdated yet. It might never be. Me being able to quickly, accurately estimate totals in the grocery store is quite a benefit. Being able to factor polynomials without having to use my calculator was also handy.
My state (Utah) dropped the times tables from the 3rd and 4th grade math core for a couple of years. Disaster ensued immediately.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Indeed it is... IF you've got the multiplication tables memorized...
Learning is about making connections. Memorizing is about having the bits in place to connect. Education requires both.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
As a high school English teacher I only have one (sad thing) to contribute here. We're strongly discouraged from teaching grammar... since the administration "knows" it is boring and cannot hold student interest. If a subject or lesson cannot (or does not) keep every child in the classroom entertained, no matter how diverse the population, then the teacher is faulted.
On the other hand, be glad they've got laptops to keep them entertained. Yay!
Meh.
Nothing the government does in Massachusetts is wasteful.
Its = possessive. It's = "it is"
Or it could be that most schools do not teach grammar or language structure at all, I know when I was in school we never got any of that crap. We got a few mentions of 'noun' vs 'verb', etc. But nothing like a lecture or classes on proper sentence structure.
I am 26 years old, with a degree in English, and I have taught English at the high school level in the past (I now teach computer courses for various reasons).
What does that mean besides the fact that I will invariably overlook a grammatical mistake in my own post? We don't teach grammar or language structure at all. Since about 1990, the trend in American English instruction has been the so-called "whole language" method. It is essentially based in a belief that immersion in proper English methods will result in more effective grammar instruction.
In practice, it means that children should be taught grammar through, say, correcting their own papers (where the changes and differences have more meaning than a drill) and through reading.
The fifth grade (1989-1990 for me) was the last time I had instruction in sentence diagramming. I did have one hold-out 9th grade English teacher who insisted on rote memorization of irregular verbs and their tenses, but who didn't provide much guidance for what distinguished "future perfect" from "past participle." Having sat through those courses, it's easy to understand both sides of the grammar education approach/
Like several other posters, it took foreign language instruction in middle school and high school before I started understanding the concept of infinitives, conjugations, tenses, etc. Coincidentally, it was also immensely frustrating when certain parts of foreign language instruction had to "dumbed down" because most students wouldn't have understood the terms being thrown around. In French, for example, you create the past tense of a verb by conjugating either avoir (to have) or etre (to be), then using a special ending for your action verb. Whether you use avoir or etre is determined entirely by whether or not your main verb is transitive or intransitive (one that has vs one that doesn't necessarily need a direct object). It's a simple distinction, but even at university level we were reduced to memorizing an mnemonic device (DR AND MRS VAN DER TRAMPS) to list the few intransitive verbs. Had the students received even minor direct grammar instruction, the distinction between the two would have been easy; as it is, there was much hand-wringing from students over the fact that a few uncommon verbs were not in the mnemonic but were intransitive.
So, to summarize, there are valid arguments for both teaching approaches. I am personally of the opinion that we learn grammar much more through absorption than rote memorization; this also makes it one of the most difficult subjects to teach to minority groups or recent immigrants who aren't immersed in the "proper" grammar 24/7. I can see why "whole language" grammar learning has its advocates - immersion methods are generally considered the best way to learn a foreign language, so why not apply them to our native language? On the flip side, though, ignoring the more technical instruction can substantially weaken a student's performance in other subjects. In the end, it's really a philosophical debate, like many in education, that boil down to personal or institutional preference.