Proposal Suggests UK Students Study Wikipedia and Twitter

An anonymous reader writes "Who needs crusty old rubbish like the Victorian era or World War II? Instead, an Ofsted report leaked to The Guardian details of proposals to teach UK primary school children how to use Wikipedia, Twitter, podcasts and blogs. Presumably they're already au fait with b3ta and 4chan. And you already can't get the kids off Bebo without a crowbar."

Comments

Stupid

[Spad]

It's a stupid idea by people who are trying to appear "down with the kids". I can't think of anything worse to teach children than to use Wikipedia as a primary source of research and to use Twitter as a primary means of communication.

IT teaching in schools needs to improve, but from a technical perspective, not by letting kids spend a couple of hours a week in school doing what they do at home every night anyway. Far more would be gained by teaching kids how to use and administer computers than simply jumping on whatever the current internet bandwagon is and letting kids arse around with it.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't have classed Wikipedia in that segment.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably, 'learning how to use Wikipedia' includes learning not to use it as a primary source.

Re:Stupid

[Swizec]

It's stupid to teach kids to use Wikipedia for primary research. But it's paramount to teach them just WHY it shouldn't be their only source, because otherwise they'll reach high school and do all their research on wikipedia because it's easier. Hell, I'm in college these days and I still use it as my primary research tool and almost never look at secondary sources. This is mostly because throughout my schooling I have been taught that that one book, The Book, is all I need to pass. Then I found that everything that's in The Book is also on wikipedia, except in more detail.

Similar goes for twitter and other social media. You want to Protect The Children? Don't keep them away from the internets, teach them how to tell foe from friend, teach them how to use it.

No matter what you say or do. The Internets are a paramount part of our everyday lives and primary school was meant to teach people how to deal with their everyday surroundings. Back when we were young that meant learning to read books, now it means knowing how to tell a useful blog from SEO-ed crap.

Re:Stupid

[Linker3000]

How is the OP a troll? I pretty much agree with the post from my perspectives as: a parent, a School Governor, a trainer and an Instructional Designer.

Mods on crack or of school age today?

Re:Stupid

[TheJasper]

Teaching them to use wikipedia as a starting point for further reference would be a good idea. Teaching them to use it as a primary reference is stupid. What they should be doing is teaching them how to look up information. Then either a book or a computer could be useful. Unfortunately, as sites like letmegooglethatforyou prove, people are really bad at looking things up, so for most people learning to use wikipedia probably sounds hard.

Re:Stupid

[Zumbs]

There is nothing wrong in teaching kids how to use wikipedia ... provided they are also taught to be critical of what they read.

For most regular school work (note:school, not university), the quality of wikipedia articles are reasonable. Compared to most school books, wikipedia entries often cite other articles for further reading. Many of these are even online, so the kids have access to those articles as well.

It should, however, be linked with teaching kids how to use the internet for information search in general, including how to use the online library resources and databases. Part of the above is, as I started by stating, teaching kids to be critical of what they read, particularly on the internet, and to use their own minds. Wikipedia will not teach them that.

Re:Stupid

[wisty]

What's wrong with just teaching kids facts? Good, old fashion knowledge, that they can carry around in their heads. Stuff that they won't learn under their own steam.

What is the competitive advantage of educators teaching kids thing that they will learn on their own, or in the workplace?

Re:Stupid

[Xrikcus]

What facts do you choose to teach them? You want to teach children techniques, using which they can discover the facts they need in the future. You don't want to guess what those facts might be, and try to teach them directly. History lessons, for example, are not really about memorising the dates of battles, but about learning how to compare historical sources and extract information. What facts can you think of that are both important, and will not be learnt by the children on their own?

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Learning facts is a waste of brain capacity. Computers are perfect for storing facts, and quickly looking up the facts we need.

The facts you need all the time will stick all by themselves - and the facts you need all the time are rarely the ones you were taught in school anyway. The facts you only use once are a waste, because they will take longer to learn, than to simply look them up. And all the rest - the ones you're never going to need - are nothing but waste.

Re:Stupid

[Dreen]

IT needs to improve very FAST or we will face a serious problem. If our kids are not tought(sp?) engineering-entry-to-uni level of IT in primary school, they are not going to do any good in modern world. Otherwise will face the fact that the world is driven by technology which is only understood by small fraction of population, and this fraction is getting smaller.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Teaching the kids the Victorian era or whatever else made them who they are is important in order to help them achieve their own cultural identity.

With this horrendous idea, they want the young to express themselves before they have anything to say. So, they will rely on political correctness instead of developing their sense of criticism, discussions will be abolished in favor of a consensus.

So, no. Children who just arrive need to know about themsleves and people around them before getting to use the shiny toolz.

And Twitter is an awful reduction of IRC which itself was a stupid time-wasting tool for most of its users (except some developers and people willing to meet for sex).

Re:Stupid

[Chabil Ha']

This is mostly because throughout my schooling I have been taught that that one book, The Book, is all I need to pass.

I think the reason is bit more than that. Wikipedia makes information readily accessible. It's primary search engine (not itself) is the most used search--Google. Access to it is free and not encumbered by an interface that obfuscates information more than it reveals.

If nothing else, so called 'reputable' and 'accurate' sources could increase their utility by simply making the information available in an easy way.

The collective information and knowledge of humanity is incredible--it's just not readily accessible-- and that is why people use Wikipedia as a primary source.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the fuck was this posted as AC? Is Crapdot having authentication issues?

Look at it this way, at least your post didn't default to -1.

Re:Stupid

[ciderVisor]

My kids have known how to use a phone (landline first, cellphone later) from about the age of 6. I don't think even I, as a forty-something geek with an electronic engineering degree, could tell you many of the details of how a modern digital telephone system operates. We only need a tiny fraction of the population to understand these things. We need a greater fraction of the population to support and maintain the infrastructure of the telephone system.

"..and the Wicihta lineman is still on the line".

Re:Stupid

[Big Hairy Ian]

Wikipedia is only as good as the people who update & moderate. Although I'd say in general it is unbiased I have certainly had instances where updates I've made making an article more accurate (Including all the Citations) has simply been reverted back to its original for no apparent reason. Therefore I always take wiki with a pinch of salt.

Re:Stupid

[mattwarden]

> IT teaching in schools needs to improve, but from a technical
> perspective, not by letting kids spend a couple of hours a week
> in school doing what they do at home every night anyway.

Not every kid knows how to effectively use Wikipedia or Google for that matter. I did spend time learning how to effectively search Google (but that's because I'm a geek), and my high school and college study was more efficient worthwhile for it. Even today (3 years after grad), I often get comments like "I don't know how you find the answer to crap so fast" from colleagues. It's not a secret; it's effective use of the Web coupled with an understanding of how to corroborate information you've found.

These are not "automatic" skills. The idea that you SHOULDN'T teach shit that is actually useful (ie, they do in their every day lives) is completely backwards.

We would be much better off right now, for example, if there was a class in the curriculum about personal finance and money management. Everyone must manage money and make finance decisions on a daily basis, but MOST PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS when it comes to personal finance, and that has made the current crisis that much more painful and increased the need for reliance on government.

But I guess if I'm broke because I have no savings and high debt, I can always fall back on my understanding of the functions of each organelle in the animal cell.

Re:Stupid

[TapeCutter]

"What's wrong with just teaching kids facts? Good, old fashion knowledge, that they can carry around in their heads. Stuff that they won't learn under their own steam. What is the competitive advantage of educators teaching kids thing that they will learn on their own, or in the workplace?

What's wrong with just teaching kids to research? Good, old fashion critical thinking, that they can carry around in their heads. A skill that they may never learn under their own steam. What is the competitive advantage of educators teaching kids things that they will look up on their own, even in the workplace?

Re:Stupid

[interested pyro]

I agree. Wikipedia is NOT a good primary source. For example, when I just searched "George Bush" (no clue why...) I came up with his "official" wiki page and another one that said, "Why George Bush Sucks Cock" which was full of total bullshit and nonsense. (dont get me wrong. I was looking for an answer to a "Millionaire" question) Twitter is so time consuming that kids are on their phones saying "I just walked to my room" "I just turned on the light" They should teach kids how to search using Google and using the advanced search options. Or how to use the LOC webpage.

Re:Stupid

[OolimPhon]

Learning facts is a waste of brain capacity. Computers are perfect for storing facts, and quickly looking up the facts we need.

That's assuming that you always have access to a computer. And that it will work where you are. And that it's batteries will last. And you have an internet connection. And that you know what you need to find out.

Don't give me that "I've got an iPhone/whatever" response. How's that going to help you when you're down a mine and need a question answered? Or out at sea, and your boat is about to sink? Or there's a bush fire nearby which might be heading your way?

The facts you only use once are a waste, because they will take longer to learn, than to simply look them up. And all the rest - the ones you're never going to need - are nothing but waste.

The problem with that approach is that you never know when you need to know something, and what you need to find out at that point. My life time of reading everything I can get my hands on means that I can say, "Ah, yes, I seem to remember I noticed something about that, let me see if I can find it again." Lot more efficient time-wise than just floundering about on Google.

Re:Stupid

[commodore64_love]

It was Albert Einstein himself who said there's no need to memorize that which you can look-up in a book. If we were alive today he's probably substitute "internet" for book, and last I heard he's a fairly intelligent guy who managed to accomplish a lot of work in his short time span.

I agree with him. Why waste years of my life trying to memorize everything when I can simply pick-up a book or search the net or buy the necessary material from amazon.com, and find the answer. It's the same reason why I carry a calculator instead of trying to do square roots in my head.

And of course when die, everything I memorized disappears. Better to leave the knowledge on paper or online, so it can be passed on.

Re:Stupid

[h4rm0ny]

What's wrong with just teaching kids facts? Good, old fashion knowledge, that they can carry around in their heads. Stuff that they won't learn under their own steam.

I'll tell you what's wrong with it. It's hard to teach. The degree to which children have successfully been taught the facts can be assessed and measured and inadequate schooling can thus be exposed.

We need to shift away from traditional subjects that can be assessed formally and shift to trendier and woolier subjects that, ideally, children already know anyway. This way ever decreasing educational standards can be concealed because there are no previous examples to compare it against and there are no easy metrics with which to judge it. Also, facts can be used to contradict and disagree with the authoritative sources of opinions and beliefs that are handed down.

THAT'S what's wrong with facts.

Re:Stupid

[commodore64_love]

IMHO teaching kids how to use wikipedia is acceptable, but how to use Twitter or blogs is a waste of time. It's equivalent to teaching someone how to watch tv, which serves no purpose except to entertain themselves & absorb ads from corporations.

Re:Stupid

[EL_mal0]

Well, according to this Wikipedia has faced questions about its reliability, but it's getting better.

Re:Stupid

[Pikoro]

Let me offer a quote from "The Time Ships" by Stephen Baxter:

"The Morlock began his life in these birth farms and nursery communities - the whole of the earth, to my painful recollection had been given over to one such - and there, in addition to the rudiments of civilized behavior, the youngster was taught one essential skill: the ability to learn. It is as if a schoolboy of the nineteenth century - instead of having drummed into his poor head a lot of nonsense about Greek and Latin and obscure geometric theorems - had been taught, instead, how to concentrate, and how to use libraries, and how to assimilate knowledge - how, above all, to THINK. After that, the acquisition of any specific knowledge depended on the needs of the task in hand, and the inclination of the individual."

Ever since the first time I read this, I have pushed my own children to learn for themselves. Let them determine what they were interested in, in order to teach them how to learn, not WHAT to learn.

Re:Stupid

[necro81]

I wonder: was there a similar movement in the 50s to use TV to educate kids?

[I'm not trolling, I seriously want to know if society's already covered this ground.]

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia is a steaming pile of crap.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of 4chan, I think I've been spending way too much time on there lately. I read "IT teaching" as "ITT teaching".

Re:Stupid

[Nutria]

What facts do you choose to teach them?

Multiplication tables, phonic and grammar rules, the US Civil War was from 1861-1864, the Sun is a star, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum.

You want to teach children techniques, using which they can discover the facts they need in the future.

Amazingly, it's possible to do both. But children need a foundation of knowledge upon which to build.

Otherwise, instead of "standing on the shoulders of giants", each child must start at the ground floor, but that's not a recipe for progress.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's a concept: it doesn't define me as a person

And nobody suggested it did. It does, however, give an indication of how others feel about the quality of your posts. I can't say I've read many of your posts, but your name suggests you like to troll, which would explain your bad karma. I find it somewhat pathetic that you try to use that bad karma as proof that you are a victim of the politically correct moderators, as if you somehow are the lone voice of reason that is being suppressed by the mindless masses better known as 'slashdot readers'.

Cry more, Adolf Hitroll.

Re:Stupid

[JasterBobaMereel]

Teach people how to find information (and how not to) and how to use their judgement as to how reliable that information is, is far more useful than "The Victorians" ...

If they know how to do research properly they can find out far more than they would ever learn in school

If you think teaching from a book is good... see the /. discussion on US school textbooks and how well written and reliable they are, some make Wikipedia look positively authoritative

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

But - you do need to teach people how to use the book or the internet, and how to do so with critical thinking skills.

I've dealt with adults who didn't know how to use a table of contents or an index. Apparently if it wasn't a work of fiction, they didn't bother with it.

Teaching people to use the resources, how to do so quickly, and how to assess the reliability of those resources are *highly* valuable to the individual. The fact that those skills will help them develop books and internet data which is formatted the same way is valuable to the rest of us.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

So, did you let the computer compose your post (word selection, style, grammar)? Or, did you use some memorized facts?

Re:Stupid

[NerdyLove]

If I had mod points, I would definitely mark the parent insightful. Both are very important.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

My life time of reading everything I can get my hands on means that I can say, "Ah, yes, I seem to remember I noticed something about that, let me see if I can find it again."

You do realize this undermines your own argument, right? No one's saying that one shouldn't be exposed to all sorts of knowledge, simply that bothering to memorize it when it's not something that you'll need to be able to recall from memory is useless.

That is to say, if you're trying to learn Spanish you'll want to memorize the words, but if you're trying to learn Spanish history, there's no point in memorizing the exact date of some important battle.

Not only that, but if you really need to know something, you'll automatically memorize it after looking it up a few times anyway.

Re:Stupid

[SpectreBlofeld]

If anything, the children should be teaching the adults this stuff!

Re:Stupid

[Mr. Slippery]

Learning facts is a waste of brain capacity. Computers are perfect for storing facts, and quickly looking up the facts we need.

There are indeed some sorts of facts which it is a waste to learn. I think of these as being "map of the cat" sorts of things, after a story about Richard Feynman:

I began to read the paper. It kept talking about extensors and flexors, the gastrocnemius muscle, and so on. This and that muscle were named, but I hadn't the foggiest idea of where they were located in relation to the nerves or to the cat. So I went to the librarian in the biology section and asked her if she could find me a map of the cat.

"A map of the cat, sir?" she asked, horrified. "You mean a zoological chart!" From then on there were rumors about some dumb biology graduate student who was looking for a "map of the cat."

When it came time for me to give my talk on the subject, I started off by drawing an outline of the cat and began to name the various muscles.

The other students in the class interrupt me: "We know all that!"

"Oh," I say, "you do? Then no wonder I can catch up with you so fast after you've had four years of biology." They had wasted all their time memorizing stuff like that, when it could be looked up in fifteen minutes.

But what facts these are depends in large part on what you're doing. I don't want my vet to need a map of my dog.

I'd say part of mastering a field is knowing what stuff you need to know, and what stuff you look up in a reference book (or, these days, on a computer).

I don't know every street in my neighborhood. That would be a waste of time. But I know where the major streets and big landmarks are -- I'd be lost all the time if I had to look them up. It's the same of any field of knowledge.

Re:Stupid

[Swizec]

If they aren't going to learn the facts they need on their own then it's best to just shoot them in the head as kids and save everyone the expense of bringing up someone who is no better than a cheap robot. Only worse since they can get tired, aren't accurate and whatnot. Seriously, we are fast moving into a worl, if arguably we aren't already in one, where what you know doesn't matter, only what you know how to learn does.

Re:Stupid

[scientus]

bravo, if people are not critical in what they read than it doesnt matter what they read, they will always end up believing mistruths. Its better to have them read a work with more life, and learn how people might game the system, or otherwise they will always fall prey when the government, some scammer, some corporation, or even some well-meaning individual tries to slam mis-truths down their throat. You cant protect people from mis-speech, it is far better to expose them to all speech and learn for themselves how to make us of it.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."

Re:Stupid

[mdwh2]

This is a common criticism, and it makes no sense - Wikipedia is unreliable, because your edits got reverted? If Britannica don't publish my contribution, are they unreliable too?

The joke is that on the one hand, people criticise Wikipedia because anyone could make a poor edit, but then other people criticise it because edits can get reverted. Which is it?

Let's have a link to what your edits were, please. Of course, I'm sure you thought your edit was making great improvements, but everyone would think that, including those making bad edits. And yes, I'll concede it's possible that sometimes a useful contribution is reverted, but that isn't an argument for saying that Wikipedia is unreliable - it just means that it misses out on a random piece of extra information.

Re:Stupid

[grumbel]

Teaching them how to use just use it, is of course truly useless, since they will figure that out by themselves just fine, likely must faster then most of their teachers. However teaching them how to work with it, how to interpret it, who controls it and how the whole thing works in the first place is very important. Using the Internet is easy, understanding how it all works behind the scene and how its organized however is far less obvious and often times important. Don't believe that, just look at all those retard comments on Youtube. And of course there is the whole publishing side of things, when people publish things on the net there are plenty of dangers involved, from privacy issues to getting into defamation and copyright lawsuits, a little teaching in that area can't hurt.

Re:Stupid

[mdwh2]

How can you trust that link, it's from Wikipedia!!!

Re:Stupid

[Mr. Slippery]

It is as if a schoolboy of the nineteenth century - instead of having drummed into his poor head a lot of nonsense about Greek and Latin and obscure geometric theorems - had been taught, instead, how to concentrate, and how to use libraries, and how to assimilate knowledge - how, above all, to THINK.

And how, exactly, does one teach someone to THINK? You have to teach about language -- studying a foreign language is a great way to do that. You have to teach the skills of reasoning, such as formal logic -- and an excellent way to do this is through the study of geometric proofs.

You can't teach thinking in the abstract. You need things to think about, and examples of thinking in action.

Re:Stupid

[Colonel Korn]

This is a common criticism, and it makes no sense - Wikipedia is unreliable, because your edits got reverted? If Britannica don't publish my contribution, are they unreliable too?

The joke is that on the one hand, people criticise Wikipedia because anyone could make a poor edit, but then other people criticise it because edits can get reverted. Which is it?

Let's have a link to what your edits were, please. Of course, I'm sure you thought your edit was making great improvements, but everyone would think that, including those making bad edits. And yes, I'll concede it's possible that sometimes a useful contribution is reverted, but that isn't an argument for saying that Wikipedia is unreliable - it just means that it misses out on a random piece of extra information.

Your argument is correct, but that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is indeed unreliable. With experience in a field, however, it's pretty easy to distinguish between the solid, detailed entries, the entries passing soft information off as something more authoritative, and the entries with fraudulent citations and no effective peer review. Students who use wikipedia for academic papers need to follow the citations and use those, not the article itself.

Re:Stupid

[mapkinase]

Well, I think it well downhill (or uphill, depending on your ideology) with sex education in school when it was decided that school should tap on subjects that kids will quickly learn by themselves any way and make sure that they won't miss some important boring points, like safety.

Re:Stupid

[mdwh2]

Your argument is correct, but that doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is indeed unreliable.

Well, all sources are "unreliable" in just the same sense. Some sources are more reliable than others - and IIRC studies have shown that Wikipedia does pretty good here. I don't know why Wikipedia gets all the criticism for unreliability, when there are far more unreliable sources (e.g., the media) that get swallowed as fact.

Students who use any encyclopedia for academic papers need to follow the citations and use those, not the article itself.

Fixed that for you.

And any source that doesn't have citations - unless you're referencing it as a primary or secondary source - shouldn't be used at all (this would cut out most the media, who for some reason never give their sources).

Re:Stupid

[maxume]

Here's the rub: Are your searches more effective because you 'know how teh Google', or because you bother to think about them? If you treat Google as a magic internet box, it will be really frustrating when it doesn't give you what you want; if you realize that it is just a sophisticated computer system, you will be able to think about what you are searching for and about how to improve the results. So having an organized thought process and some modicum of intelligence are probably at least as important as 'knowing how to Google'.

As far as Biology vs Life skills, schools should go ahead and try to present students with some basic life skills, but there is lots of value in also presenting a wide swath of human knowledge, as many people end up finding out about things that they are interested in pursuing, and so on (and because some basic level of general knowledge is a life skill.).

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

I too am at College in the UK. We have been warned that any essay that lists as a reference Wiki will be marked down. Primary sources only

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

What will you do when there's no book or net access?

What will you do? (trying to sound like Karl Maulden)

Re:Stupid

[Brandee07]

Therefore I always take wiki with a pinch of salt.

This is exactly why I think Wikipedia is a great research tool, and encourage my students (college freshman) to use it. Doing a couple papers with Wikipedia as a starting point will teach students that just because it's in writing doesn't mean it's true - an assumption I made all the way through grade school with my mom's Encyclopedia Brittanica.

It forces the students to trace the information to its source, and then to determine if that source is one that can be considered reliable. With newspapers and encyclopedias, it's very common to just trust that the authors did their research and aren't biased, which is not always the case.

Also, after the first time I had the class really follow up on all the citations in a wiki article, the quality of citations in their own papers dramatically improved. It had suddenly become clear to them that having citations in a paper isn't just cause the teacher wants you to suffer- they might actually have a purpose.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

The American Civil War (1861-1865), also known as the War Between the States and several other names, was a civil war in the United States of America.

About those facts-- you may want to check them on, say, Wikipedia.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Monkey]

Kind of like telling a kid to be strong and fit, but never teaching them how to stretch. Most math drills and language lessons are stretching sit ups for the brain.

Re:Stupid

[arkhan_jg]

And if all our kids were as smart as Einstein, I'd agree with you.

It's impossible to learn new things if you don't have a certain base level to work from. It'd be like say, learning how to speak french by studying the rules of grammar without learning any actual vocabulary or speech patterns - just relying on a an english/french dictionary for both every time you needed to construct a sentence.

Or in physics, trying to learn without memorizing any equations.

Learning methods of learning and research is important along with critical thinking, yes - but a base of knowledge to build on, and a general ballpark 'feel' whether something is in the right area so you spot obvious mistakes or wrong avenues are just as important.

Fortunately, we can teach both.

Re:Stupid

[pwfffff]

Why don't you try looking up the answer to that in his post? "The facts you need all the time will stick all by themselves" He's not saying to give yourself alzheimers.

Re:Stupid

[Belial6]

The problem I have with all this 'Wikipedia is not a primary source' is that people have always used poor 'primary sources' in school. Heck, there are many cases where there are no primary sources. It is just one big circular reference. Just look at the encyclopedias that we all used in school. They were not any better than Wikipedia, but were were referenced to them on a regular basis.

Every time I hear how 'Wikipedia is not a primary source' it conjures up an analogy of someone walking into an orgy, pointing at one woman over on the side of the room and complaining about how SHE is a slut.

Re:Stupid

[moose_hp]

Here in Mexico I think we still have (I have no idea if the program still continues, however, a quick search says that is still running) named "Telesecundaria" (would be translated as "tele-junior high school"), it was aimed mostly for schools in rural areas which couldn't get enought profesors for all the children, they basicly put a TV in front of the room with someone who may or may not have actual teaching skills to take care of the kids.

Discovery at the school offered material in spanish as well IIRC, but they are more like a complement than an actual sustitution.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you become an expert in grammar by reading books --- right out of the womb, so to speak. Absurd.

Re:Stupid

[Nutria]

we are fast moving into a worl, ... where what you know doesn't matter, only what you know how to learn does.

Sadly, humans haven't changed appreciably in the past 30 years. Most are still willfully ignorant of everything except their immediate concerns, don't like moving away from where they've "nested" (applies more to women, and obviously there are lots of exceptions), will follow a charismatic leader who tells them what they want to hear, etc.

IOW, civilization needs mostly Indians and just a few Chiefs. So, I think that most humans have evolved to be followers, a.k.a. sheeple.

Re:Stupid

[Hognoxious]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoosh

Re:Stupid

[shutdown -p now]

I wonder: was there a similar movement in the 50s to use TV to educate kids?

I don't know if there was a movement, but, seeing how we have e.g. Discovery, and plenty of other educational TV content, it worked out pretty well. There's no reason why computers and the Net couldn't be used in a similar way.

As for WP specifically, I wonder what they are going to make out of "Wikipedia is not censored for the children"...

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

It was Albert Einstein himself who said there's no need to memorize that which you can look-up in a book. If we were alive today

Well, you one upped him on cheating death anyway. Did you memorize how to post from the dead and he didn't?

Re:Stupid

[servognome]

Multiplication tables are a technique
The "rules" of writing are techniques
The US Civil War dates are a trivial fact, more important is to understand the political and economic factors leading to the war (state's rights, agrarian south vs industrial north, etc)
The sun is a star is a fact - but again it's pretty trivial. Astronomy should be part of a larger science class that teaches understanding of the scientific method, data gathering and analysis

One of the problems with US education is that it has become too focused on facts and not learning. Memorizing a huge set of facts is great for passing a standardized test, but it doesn't provide the foundation for gathering your own facts (other than having them drilled into you)

Re:Stupid

[Secret Rabbit]

Regarding your, "books." Then they are the wrong books. Seriously, if wikipedia can out match a purchased text, that a problem with the book, not because wikipedia is so great.

BUT, that assuming that you know what you're talking about. Seriously, you're still learning that stuff. So, by what knowledge/skill/etc can you really determine what is truth and what is conjecture. Plain fact, you just can't.

Re:Stupid

[Secret Rabbit]

What level are you talking about. As in, the first half of grade school is and should be primarily dedicated to memorization. One does need base knowledge to start from *before* they get into interpretation, etc.

Re:Stupid

[Secret Rabbit]

Wait to take a quote out of context. Perhaps you should get a higher education before you start spouting off about the need or not to memorise things. Seriously, even in higher mathematics, where it is all about the technique and application thereof, one must memorise *tonnes* of stuff. It MUST be this way otherwise one will spend there lives looking things up instead of actually being productive.

Re:Stupid

[mdwh2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whoosh

Re:Stupid

[Nutria]

One of the problems with US education is that it has become too focused on facts and not learning.

But I was educated way before standardized tests became all the rage.

Memorizing a huge set of facts is great for passing a standardized test, but it doesn't provide the foundation for gathering your own facts (other than having them drilled into you)

If you don't have a foundational set of facts in your brain, then you wouldn't be able to read anything more complicated than Dr. Seuss. Just about any reasonably-complicated book would be impossible to read, since every other sentence would require you to do some sort of research on what the author is talking about.

Re:Stupid

[mattwarden]

> So having an organized thought process and some modicum of intelligence
> are probably at least as important as 'knowing how to Google'.

Maybe. From what I can tell, it seems to me that most people have a mental block because they DO see google as some 'magic box', as you say, and have no idea how it works. If they did understand how it works, I believe that would make it possible for them to come up with an organized thought process to interact with it effectively.

> As far as Biology vs Life skills, schools should go ahead and try to present
> students with some basic life skills, but there is lots of value in also
> presenting a wide swath of human knowledge, as many people end up finding out
> about things that they are interested in pursuing, and so on (and because
> some basic level of general knowledge is a life skill.).

But that's the problem! What if I'm someone with a natural interest in finance, but I never figure out that I enjoy that stuff until it's too late, because THE STATE said I was required to learn cell biology? The state is selecting the topics that are required, and these are the topics that people are allowed to "accidentally" find out they like. The rest is relegated to electives or, worse, not even available unless you're lucky enough to go to college (eg, finance).

If you could explain to me why cell biology is elevated to a required part of the curriculum while finance is not even available as an elective, I would be very interested to hear it. Saying "some people might find they enjoy cell biology" does not explain it, because the same is true for finance.

My guess is that it has something to do with someone a long time ago thinking we needed to force students to be more science-oriented because we were "falling behind" some Communist country or other scary enemy. But this is exactly why the state has no business setting curriculum; or at least it's a strong argument for competing private curricula.

Re:Stupid

[commodore64_love]

>>>Discovery and plenty of other educational TV content, it worked out pretty well.

No it didn't. Discovery now shows lots of pointless ghost and spirtual episodes. History is being taken-over by mythology, religious, and reality programs. The Learning Channel was renamed "TLC" and now shows weddings, baby stories, and other crap.

Epic fail.

Re:Stupid

[commodore64_love]

>>>Perhaps you should get a higher education

Dear assumer:

I have two bachelors degrees and one masters degree. What was that about lacking a higher education? Hmmm. As for Einstein, he was notoriously forgetful and it's one of the reasons he said he sees no point memorizing things when he can simply look it up in a book. i.e. Why do I need to remember what year Columbus discovered America. "Sometime around 1500" is good enough for practical purposes and if I need to know the exact date, I can find it rather quickly.

Re:Stupid

[shutdown -p now]

Well, I can't say anything specific about U.S. TV programming, not being familiar with it.

In my childhood in the USSR, though, we did have some genuinely interesting stuff there.

Re:Stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a fine minute- facts are li**/ I mean truths that are declared as concretes by the authorities. If it weren't for the liberals we would all (for the most) still know that the brits are supirior, the germans were once led by some isane sociopath and that stealing is only "borrowing".
    The winners write the history, the rich make the rules, those who have power always need more and do most anything to get all they can.
      The way I see all this we can either learn the kids to be stupid pawns who soak up all the bs or enforce active and disciplined thinking. As pawns humanity will digress into a utopian lemming society and the active thinking will have us killing each other off until there would be little more than large piles of poo and people like george bush running around saying "I can't make people like me with just this- what would jesus do?"

Twitter is pretty retarded

[Daimanta]

It's basically a blog for people who are not able to write enough good stuff for blogs.

"I just took a dump" and other messages are basically the essence of Twitter and I can do exactly the same on a random IRC channel.

Wikipedia on the other hand is more interesting because it shows what perception can do to people and how that combines to an article. I teaches checking the sources instead of simply copypasting your info(although some people still do that).

Twitter has none of those redeeming values and is outside the study of microblogs or something similar(like speed of information) a completely useless research subject.

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this must be the most hyped and overrated thing since second life.

I just hope they die soon, the constant flood of Twitter news offends me. Seriously, I hate Twitter - dumb people should keep their dumb stuff amongst them, but due to Twitter complete dipshits now manage to invade the media and hype it that much, there is no escape (and the fact that /. is falling for this is sad, really sad).

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[Swizec]

Twitter is oh so much more than "I just took a dump" It's an Instant Messaging protocol.

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[RMH101]

Great. Another one. And the content is "I just took a dump". What's your point?

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[linuxci]

I guess Twitter the service and Twitter the Slashdot user have something in common. They're both pretty pointless.

There's a few people who can use Twitter well, but mostly it's just an overload of useless information. But some people seem lost without it.

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[Swizec]

My point is that isn't really teh content at all. Hell, most people don't even talk so much about what they're doing twitter as they are about more in-depth things, like how they feel for instance. Sharing interesting photos quickly is also quite popular, pasting that awesome link you just saw, but don't have anyone to show ... twitter will love it. And so on.

Hell, just earlier this week I got a job offer because I was venting on twitter about how insanely unfair my project manager was being.

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[vivaoporto]

One thing that intrigues me a lot is the number of mentions that service in getting in the media (even mainstream media) in the past weeks. Slashdot, for instance, along with this article has other two in the frontpage (Researchers Can ID Anonymous Twitterers and Build Your Own Open Source Twittering Power Meter.

But it is not only Slashdot. Lance Armstrong is doing it, I heard about it the other day on television, something in the lines of "Lance Armstrong informed the public that it may miss the Giro using this novely service, Twitter". Actually, even Associated press "noticed the trend" (or is propagating a well thought press release, depending on what really happened) and released a list with the nicknames of some of the celebrities that uses the service.

That reminds me of what happened last year, lots and lots of stories (even on Slashdot) about Second Life, how people were making money on Second life, virtual property on Second Life, virtual child abuse on Second Life, and so on and so forth, lots of stories with several things in common: lots of mentions of the service name, stock footage of people using it, a long description of the service in question, fake and minor controversies.

Sometimes I wonder if it is only a fad, a hype that is propagated naturally by the collective hysteria or if there are really people in the Marketing business powerful and competent enough to orchestrate a press campaign so pervasive and organic that looks like genuine public interest.

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[L4t3r4lu5]

Another post for which we need a special +6 rating.

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[Yvanhoe]

Wikipedia I can understand, it is probably the most important website out there (IMHO)
But twitter ? Everytime I read something about twitter I have the feeling that I missed something... I thought it was just a gimmick to enter a short message, timestamp it and put it on a website. Is there something I am missing ? Why is it called a social network ?

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory Penny-Arcade:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/4/23/

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[Tony Hoyle]

Most twitter access isn't via website.. it owes more to MSN I guess than blogs, except it's searchable and you can be friends with someone without them being friends with you back (in that sense it also behaves like RSS as well - I'm following several websites that way).

I'm not sure what makes it so useful.. critical mass plays a huge part - once all your friends are on it to not be on it you're missing out. That was the same thing that made facebook popular before it.

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're venting your spleen on Twitter instead of dealing with work issues in person? I pity your employer

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

But it is not only Slashdot. Lance Armstrong is doing it, I heard about it the other day on television, something in the lines of "Lance Armstrong informed the public that it may miss the Giro using this novely service, Twitter".

What that article linked doesn't tell you is that Lance was in fact sending a tweet during the race. How do you think he came to fall and break his clavicle?

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[Locklin]

Being able to use a wikipedia (as in edit) is also valuable to learn. There are plenty of times when a private wiki would be useful if everyone knew how to edit one, create pages, etc. Instead, we get masses of emails with hundreds of recipients and no organization.

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

ever heard of tipping point ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[Linker3000]

Funny thing is, I ignored Twitter for a long time and then decided to give it a go. Sure a lot of the stuff is banal, but I found that if I used a selective, real-time filtering service such as Twitterfall, I can keep an eye out for things that are relevant to my interests - for example, I setup a few tech search terms: Centos, Linux, Asterisk, Draytek etc., and among other things, caught sight of someone mentioning a very useful script he had jusst finished for monitoring the state of SIP VoIP trunks, and also found someone was having a similar Linux problem to me and we bounced a few ideas around. I have also discussed a couple of issues with a BBC tech reporter and a freelance broadcaster, and helped out someone with a technical problem I experienced and fixed some time ago.

'In yer face' Twitter is pointless and a time waster, but it's won me over as a useful tool to have relevant issues come to me rather than having to go hunt for them.

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[Yvanhoe]

It seems to me that it capitalize on the value people give to false friendship...

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[drsquare]

I'd imagine it's more lazy journalism. Rather than bothering to investigate real stories, they just print press releases by PR companies. Twitter obviously hired a good PR company to flood the media.

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

LAWLZ. That was my first post on twitter. It was even better tahn from teh laptop coz i did it from my iphone so i could also put in my GPS coords and attach a photo. moble technolgogy is teh COOL

Re:Twitter is pretty retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

"I just took a dump" and other messages are basically the essence of Twitter

"I'm a twitter shitter!"

sage

[dvh.tosomja]

inb4 troll

Re:sage

[snwyvern]

Sage goes in every field. ... duh.

Re:sage

[Alex Belits]

       _    ____     ___       __
go__b_|a|__|___c\k t/o/b|__go /b/
a/c_`k|t'_o\b__)g|o/b/|a'_c\k/t/o
|b(_|g|o|_)b/a__/c/k/t|o|_) /b/go
b\__,a|_.__/_____/_/ck|_.__/_/to
|___/b/

Re:sage

[snwyvern]

You should be an artist.

Idiocray in its uttermost level

[gustgr]

Why would such technologies require orientation from educators? They are ridiculously easy to use. Most children today are quite comfortable with the Internet, not rarely much more comfortable than their parents and/or teachers. Spending quality school time on teaching a kid how to "tweet" is stupidity.

What would be necessary and even critical is to teach the kids how to NOT use the net and give them a general guidance regarding the web, i.e. how to use a rational judging sense while reading what they have found, how to avoid wasting time while looking for useful blogs and content in general, or even how to improve your productivity by not posting comments on /. ;-)

Re:Idiocray in its uttermost level

[Raul654]

They aren't teaching them how to "use" Wikipedia in the sense of editing it, they are teaching them to apply critical thinking skills. That is to say, to analyze an article for themselves, determine whether or not it is valid, to use it as a springboard for jumping off into other resources, etc.

Re:Idiocray in its uttermost level

[OneSmartFellow]

...they are teaching them to apply critical thinking skills....

If only that were the case. Most teachers don't have this facility, and so are incapable of teaching it. Most children won't ever learn these skills, and actually couldn't care less about them. Sad, but true.

As a result, can't we just stick to basic education, at least until a reasonable age, say 16, where the dumbasses who are destined for a life on the dole start skipping school most of the time ?

Re:Idiocray in its uttermost level

[ciderVisor]

"Idiocray" ? Is that a really dumb 1970s supercomputer ?

Re:Idiocray in its uttermost level

[xaxa]

History lessons in the UK include work on analysing a source for accuracy and bias.

I see a lot of Americans on here complaining about bad teachers and the failure of the system to remove them, but I don't see the same from British posters. But I went to a school with mostly very good teachers, and I'm not going to assume that's the case everywhere.

Learn how to learn

[wrook]

Well, I'm not really for skipping learning about WWII, but learning how to use Wikipedia and how to blog sound like excellent things to teach kids. Should we really teach kids that knowledge comes from a single authoritarian figure like a teacher, or should we tell them that they need to investigate numerous versions of the view of history?

Learning how to use Wikipedia, including how to read the discussion page sounds fantastic. Take a topic, show how there are a lot of varied opinions about it. Show how consensus is formed and most importantly show that we can't always trust consensus.

Blogging including micro-blogging like Twitter is also a very good idea. It's almost impossible to get kids to see the relevance of writing. Read some blogs. Show how poor writing makes someone look like an idiot. Show how good writing makes someone look smart.

Now granted, they probably won't teach it like that. But they *could* and I think it would be a very good idea.

Re:Learn how to learn

[91degrees]

They'll get round to the Second World War later on when they're at an age to study it with better understanding. It's not being skipped. Just delayed.

Re:Learn how to learn

[linuxci]

The internet is probably the last place you'd want to use to teach someone the importance of good writing. The amount of people who think it's cool to type in text speak, deliberately spell certain words incorrectly and various forms of leet speak mean that kids will think that a good writing style doesn't matter.

Add to that the differences between US and UK English, also entries posted by non-native English speakers it's certainly possible that relying too much on the internet will affect a students writing skills.

Back in my GCSE days I got an A in English. I really do believe since then my English skills have suffered immensely from reading a lot of online forums. Of course, the many benefits of having Internet access outweigh this I can't imagine what my job would be without the internet being successful.

Re:Learn how to learn

[dgg3565]

Well, I'm not really for skipping learning about WWII, but learning how to use Wikipedia and how to blog sound like excellent things to teach kids. Should we really teach kids that knowledge comes from a single authoritarian figure like a teacher, or should we tell them that they need to investigate numerous versions of the view of history?

Two words come to mind: citation needed. It's interesting to note that the foundation of open, aggregated knowledge-building relies a relative handful of trusted sources which are closely and jealously maintained by trusted authorities. That is, topic experts which have an understanding of not only the basic facts, but the contours, concepts, and unique questions that arise in a given subject.

A student doesn't know what they don't know. A teacher is not simply a dispenser of knowledge, but ideally, is a guide, helping a student to understand those contours, concepts, and unique questions, along with the basic facts (allowing that student to form their own opinions and interpretations).

Without the guidance of a good teacher, a student may absorb information uncritically and in a fragmentary fashion, creating an incomplete and erroneous understanding of the subject. So, the role of a teacher is dynamic and relational. Moreover, there are unspoken aspects of knowledge that are difficult to transmit through the written word.

Now, of course, there are plenty of people who are self-taught, but even the best autodidacts rely upon sources written by experts to attain their knowledge, as well as learning from others. That mixture of the hierarchical and egalitarian, the open and the authoritative, is an essential balance, each maintaining the integrity of the other.

Re:Learn how to learn

[Candid88]

OK, I see in the report where they suggest increasing student exposure to new media entities such as Twitter and Wikipedia, but where exactly is the bit about cutting history subjects?

This seems to have been an element invented by reporters to make a good story.

Re:Learn how to learn

[smoker2]

Not only that but I don't remember having history lessons at primary school anyway. Maths and English and physical and music but no specific history. All that came at secondary school (11 years and up). It was a fair while ago though (1970s).

Re:Learn how to learn

[worip]

This web-related teachings should not replace anything like history, but should be in addition to the normal curriculum. The amount of time people spend on education are steadily increasing as the world we live in gets more complex. We might cast the web out a bit wider than just Twitter and Wikipedia, and teach them how to use the web safely, e.g. what are the privacy implications when you open up your profiles, ideas and rants up to the whole world on facebook. Or how to use search engines efficiently, or teach them a program language. Computer literacy and internet literacy should be compulsory in this day and age.

Re:Learn how to learn

[funkatron]

I'm pretty sure we touched on Greeks, Romans, Vikings and Henry VIII when I was in primary school but it was mostly just interesting stories. Stuff like the greek myths and Henry's love life.

Re:Learn how to learn

[Anonymous Coward]

Learning how to blog is at best a tiny subset of learning how to write. Learning how to use Wikipedia should be a subset of learning how to use secondary sources, including traditional encyclopedias (which, despite the famous Nature article, tend to be slightly more reliable than Wikipedia on everything except math and the hard sciences), newspapers, survey books, journals, monographs, and bibliographies. These are methods of research, not subjects of research, and the former should not displace the latter.

Re:Learn how to learn

[Chrisq]

They'll get round to the Second World War later on when they're at an age to study it with better understanding. It's not being skipped. Just delayed.

Thank god for that. I was beginning to worry that future generations of "England" football fans would not know what to chant in the England vs Germany matches.

Re:Learn how to learn

[Thaddeaus]

The internet is probably the last place you'd want to use to teach someone the importance of good writing. The amount of people who think it's cool to type in text speak, deliberately spell certain words incorrectly and various forms of leet speak mean that kids will think that a good writing style doesn't matter.

Then teach them how to distinguish between websites with good writing and websites with slashdot.com. Of course, the second example may be a little extreme.

Re:Learn how to learn

[Anonymous Coward]

Going to primary school in the nineties, I can assure anyone that the history taught to kids is laughable at best, and atrocious at worst. I did have history lessons starting at grade 4. Everything I learned was wrong.

Re:Learn how to learn

[xaxa]

Back in my GCSE days I got an A in English. I really do believe since then my English skills have suffered immensely from reading a lot of online forums.

Point taken, since I think you made at least three errors in your post, the worst is "student's writing skills"

I got an A too. I think my written English has suffered because
1a) I don't read anywhere near as much fiction as I used to.
1b) I didn't read much good quality non-fiction, like a decent newspaper. I read BBC News online too much, and their target reading age is quite low.
2) I often don't bother to expand my vocabulary. If I come across a word whose meaning I'm unsure of, I ignore it.
3) No one puts red rings around my mistakes any more, as most of the writing I do is online.

Re:Learn how to learn

[Anonymous Cowpat]

*shrug* GCSE English Language has about as much to do with writing and in using your own language skills as maths does. 50% of my marks came from re-entering the same coursework as I did for English Literature. Being able to disassemble and critique someone else's writing does not teach you how to work with the language yourself.

Re:Learn how to learn

[Hognoxious]

Bah! They didn't teach us history at school because it hadn't happened yet. NGOML!

Re:Learn how to learn

[beowulfcluster]

3) No one puts red rings around my mistakes any more, as most of the writing I do is online.

You can always use a spell checker. Red lines under the mistake is the next best thing to red rings around them. Allegedly.

Re:Learn how to learn

[xaxa]

3) No one puts red rings around my mistakes any more, as most of the writing I do is online.

You can always use a spell checker. Red lines under the mistake is the next best thing to red rings around them. Allegedly.

Spell checkers don't correct poor grammar, and can't (yet) suggest a better way of writing a whole sentence. The best red rings on my schoolwork were accompanied with a note like "awkward phrase, 'aaa bbb ccc' sounds better" or "there is a word for this: xxxxxx".

Re:Learn how to learn

[Jason Levine]

Should we really teach kids that knowledge comes from a single authoritarian figure like a teacher, or should we tell them that they need to investigate numerous versions of the view of history?

So long as we also teach them critical thinking. Make them aware that numerous views of history aren't necessarily correct. Some might be different viewpoints (from the victor in a battler, from the loser in a battle), but some might take liberties or be outright falsifications (e.g. Holocaust Deniers). Teach kids to read the numerous accounts and critically evaluate each one. Teach them to spot the falsifications and how to do backup research. ("Aushwitz never used to kill people? Well, these old news articles say differently. So do these German plans and notes.") If you teach them critical thinking and research skills, many other things will fall into place. Kids don't necessarily need to know that The French and Indian War lasted for 9 years, but if they do happen to need that knowledge sometime, they should have the skills to seek out the information.

Re:Learn how to learn

[mdwh2]

One way to teach bad writing is to show examples of it.

(I never understood why writing a lot reduces someone's writing skills anyway - I'd say the opposite, it's far more likely if you never have to write.)

Add to that the differences between US and UK English

I think you'll be fighting a losing battle here - children, and not to mention adults, are going to pick up US English anyway, whether it's taught or not in schools. Indeed, if you're worried about that, then that's all the more reason to teach it - to point out how even "English" has different dialects.

The English language is not defined by authority, it evolves, and at some point we're going to have to give up the practice of marking students wrong when they practise a particular spelling that's acceptable in US English, but not traditionally in UK English.

Re:Learn how to learn

[mdwh2]

I'm confused - if you only wrote offline, or if you didn't write much at all, no one would be putting red rings around your mistakes, surely?

I often don't bother to expand my vocabulary. If I come across a word whose meaning I'm unsure of, I ignore it.

It's the opposite for me - if there's a word I don't understand, I can look it up immediately, instead of trying to guess.

Re:Learn how to learn

[shutdown -p now]

I can't find the link now, but I've seen the results of the poll among American high school students, the question being something along the lines "who were our allies and who were our enemies in WW2?", with a list of major participants given to decide. Apparently, a lot think that USSR was the enemy, and some even think that Germany was the ally! Well, at least they always got Japan right, but that kinda shows what's being taught to them.

Re:Learn how to learn

[Alex Belits]

Spell checkers don't correct poor grammar, and can't (yet) suggest a better way of writing a whole sentence.

On the other hand, if you accidentally the whole sentence by omitting a verb, millions of people will deliberately follow your example.

Not entirely misplaced

[abigsmurf]

Kids need better practical web education. They need to know that a prince in Nigeria isn't going to give them $1m, that the 11 year old girl who wants to meet them in a quiet street at 9pm alone probably shouldn't be trusted.

From keeping online and offline persona seperated to avoiding libel on forums there proper nettique needs to be addressed in education. When I was at school pretty much the only 'how to act on the net' education we got was "if you use capitals, it looks like you're shouting". Of course that was a time when few people were on the net as you were charged by the minute.

Re:Not entirely misplaced

[ciderVisor]

the 11 year old girl who wants to meet them in a quiet street at 9pm alone probably shouldn't be trusted.

Shit, now you tell me ! :(

Re:Not entirely misplaced

[smoker2]

Kids need better practical web education. They need to know that a prince in Nigeria isn't going to give them $1m, that the 11 year old girl who wants to meet them in a quiet street at 9pm alone probably shouldn't be trusted.

None of this is new. I remember back when CB radio was a fad in the UK, I was chatting to a girl and arranged to meet in town. She told me she was 14, but she looked barely 12 when I met her, so we spent a boring hour in the arcades and then went our separate ways. I was 14 or 15 at the time.

Re:Not entirely misplaced

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a Nigerian prince, he barely has enough money to pay me back for his shopping each month :P.

Re:Not entirely misplaced

[Anonymous Coward]

A cat is fine too

Re:Not entirely misplaced

[RiotingPacifist]

brb, church!

Re:Not entirely misplaced

[Anonymous Coward]

The quantum physics textbook gives her away.

Re:Not entirely misplaced

[JeanPaulBob]

that the 11 year old girl who wants to meet them in a quiet street at 9pm alone probably shouldn't be trusted.

I know! I went to meet her, and she tried to hit me up for investing in the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC!

Re:Not entirely misplaced

[maxume]

That's a terrible story.

Grammer Nitpick

[t0qer]

Just a small nitpick but, "And you already can't get the kids off Bebo without a crowbar."" You're not really supposed to start sentences off with conjunctions. You could have dropped the conjunction, swapped you and already, and the sentence wouldn't have burned my honors English eyes as badly. "Already you can't get the kids off Bebo without a crowbar."" Still kind of shitty but better. I thought slash editors used to correct grammar and spelling mistakes?

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess your honors English didn't cover spelling. Check your title.

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[jack2000]

I thought slash editors used to correct grammar and spelling mistakes?

You must be new here....

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[Quothz]

You're not really supposed to start sentences off with conjunctions.

You are mistaken. Even in formal writing, starting a sentence with a conjunction is acceptable. But do so carefully; it's easy to write an unclear or poorly-structured sentence that way.

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[Hognoxious]

You're not really supposed to start sentences off with conjunctions.

But who says so?

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[RMH101]

"Still kind of shitty"

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[clickclickdrone]

I believe starting a sentence with 'And' is now acceptable. I went on an effective writing course a few years back and this came up and were told it's now OK. Like all things, these rules change over time. Still feels wrong but sometimes reads better.

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[PCM2]

And then came the Grammar Nazis. But for them, we would be able to carry on conversations without pointless interruptions.

Speaking as one who spent about five years as a professional editor, it is perfectly fine to start sentences with conjunctions. Like anything, it shouldn't be overused. But I will take a sentence that begins with "but" over one that inserts "however" as a clause any day. "However" reads weak. Similarly, if you can start a sentence with "and" where the only alternative would be to use a longer word or phrase, go with "and." People use it that way all the time in normal speech, and written text that sounds like natural speech is almost always preferable to a string of long words that were chosen out of a desire to sound "proper."

And by the way, starting sentences with conjunctions is not even a new practice. "But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?" It's just difficult to teach young writers to do it properly, which is why most high-school English teachers stick to the (false) rule. Your writing will be better if you don't do it at all than if you do it badly.

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

It has gone back to being acceptable. It was perfectly acceptable in the King James Bible (widely regarded as an example of exceptionally good English, even by those who reject its content), where you'll find it all over the place (I think at least one chapter begins with a conjunction). But some 19th century grammarians, out of prejudice against the English language, imported a whole pile of rules from more "noble" languages (mainly Latin & Greek) that had no place in English. The rule against splitting an infinitive is another one of those.

So advice from another English major: what makes language "right" or "wrong" is whether it is effective in its purpose. Beginning a sentence with a conjunction can increase immediacy, but can be a warning that the structure of an argument is a little loose. The tradeoff is up to you, not some 19th century grammarians or their pupils.

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[u38cg]

Humans have an incredibly complex grammar textbook they can refer to; it's called your brain. If something makes perfect sense and feels right, then it's grammatical. Really, I do get bored with injunctions to not at the end of a sentence a preposition put. Or to strongly abhor splitting an infinitive. Really, just because you can't do it in Latin doesn't mean you shouldn't do it in English.

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[Chrisq]

You're not really supposed to start sentences off with conjunctions.

But who says so?

And why do they say it?

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[Chrisq]

It has gone back to being acceptable.

Yes, whenever someone says "don't start sentences off with conjunctions" I always think of William Blake's "Jerusalem" and how much worse it sounds if you drop the "And".

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[iamdrscience]

The teachers of every English class I ever took say so. They're wrong of course and a couple even openly admitted it, but even those who admitted that told us never to do it. For English teachers it's like the GOTO statement is to programming teachers -- justifiably legitimate in some cases, but they're convinced you'll just shoot yourself in the foot with it so they tell you never to use it.

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[Inda]

Ironically, that was really hard to read.

But I don't follow the 'rules' either and I'm glad you've taken the time to highlight the point.

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

And then came the Grammar Nazis. But for them, we would be able to carry on conversations without pointless interruptions.

This isn't an example of starting a sentence with a conjunction, it's an example of "but" being used as a proposition.

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

my honors English eyes

Leave the Grammar Nazi be, he has to do something to justify his existence.

Though you could just dispense with the 'and' and 'already' altogether. The sentence would read better and be more snappy.

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[Anonymous Cowpat]

I'm surpised that it could sound worse...

"Jerusalem; a series of questions to which the answer is 'no' "

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[Hognoxious]

And then came the Grammar Nazis.

Joey.

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[ilikejam]

But I accidentally my sentence with a conjunction. Is that bad?

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

"However" reads weak.

"However" reads weakly

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a linguist, let me simply add that, when used at the beginning of a sentence, "and," "but," et al aren't even conjunctions; they're interjections.

Basically a whole bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about think it's wrong to start a sentence with these words simply because the only thing worse than l'Académie franÃaise is an English speaker who thinks they know what they're talking about, but doesn't (most of them).

PS Dear Slashdot, fuck you and your shitty encoding. Haven't you ever heard of Unicode?

Re:Grammer Nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual, posts about grammar and spelling are rarely well written.
It's always fun to receive unasked grammar critiques from someone who writes the sentence;
  "Still kind of shitty but better."

Next week

[darthvader100]

How to Google.

This is just a joke to teach kids how to do things they already do. These days your kids know how to use your new DVD player or computer before you do. Ratherteach kids the meaning of the word "Library" and "citation needed" if they have to go the wikipedia way.

Teaching them how to admin a linux VM would be more useful

Re:Next week

[ciderVisor]

Teaching them how to admin a linux VM would be more useful.

That's one end node of the tree of knowledge that is computer science / IT. Far better to teach kids how to research and in what situations Wiki and Google are invaluable.

Re:Next week

[Racemaniac]

you really think there are many people who know how to google?
lots of people know me for being good at finding things with google, while imo it's just thinking of good keywords and look at the results to see how to modify your search

and yet, it seems i hardly see any people capable of that, so if they could teach kids that google will only support you, and not magically give you an answer on everything from the first try with just about any keyword.

Google will work great if you give it the additional knowledge and insight of your own brain, but by itself it's fairly weak. and it seems very few people seem to understand that...

and frankly, why wouldn't it be good for the next generation to actually be good at finding information on the internet? it'll probably be even far more present than it is for us...

Re:Next week

[Skylinux]

ohh you are so special!

I always find what I want with Google, here is how I do it.

1) I open the Internet and it always goes to Google for me, I think my son did that.
2) I type ebay.com into the box on my screen and click "Google Search"
3) tada .... Google found it, I click on the first link and I am there

See, you are not the only who knows how to use Google

Re:Next week

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between using google and knowing /how to/ google. I work in a library and kids out of HS get frustrated because their search results give them too much "noise".

I show them a few modifiers like useing site: , +/- , quotation marks and the students start finding what they need off of scholar.google.com

Re:Next week

[RiotingPacifist]

if os == unix:
  man(problem)
else
  google(problem)
else
  irc/forum/mailinglist/project wiki/paid support #p.s how did you get here
fi

Re:Next week

[bpsbr_ernie]

Actually, they don't know how to Google or operate a DVD. Two things recently the exchange student living in my home.

• Went to Yahoo, and searched for Google...
• Told him to press STOP on the DVD remote, got a baffled look. He proceeded to explain to me, that he doesn't know what symbol is stop. On his iPod it was the Play/Pause button.

The kid certainly knows how to install Ares and download porn, so I guess he's learned something "useful."

Re:Next week

[Exitar]

I don't know if he was joking, but a coworker of mine told me that his nephew (a 14 years old girl) uses youtube (for watching music videos) and msn (to chat with friends) a lot, but doesn't know what an *email* is...

Re:Next week

[necro81]

Teaching them how to admin a linux VM would be more useful

It might be more useful, if they plan on being a linux VM admin. That kind of training is still something best left to a trade school or college, or to the motivated individual. Being an admin isn't a generally useful skill like, say, knowing how to read or properly conduct research using the Internet.

Re:Next week

[dyefade]

It's astonishing how many people in my office (intelligent folk) can't cope with using Google. My manager will frequently ask me to google something despite having the same facilities I do.

She also regularly asks me to spell words which could easily be found by searching Google with something resembling the word and selecting "did you mean..."

Weird.

Re:Next week

[tygerstripes]

his nephew (a 14 years old girl)

I think that may be the least of his nephew's eccentricities.

Re:Next week

[Exitar]

Sorry, english isn't my mother tongue...
his niece...

Re:Next week

[scientus]

yes, most people learn that if they type what they want into google, or the firefox search box, the magical answer will show up, but attributing it to magic, and assuming it will answer is fundamentally flawed.

Google may be have some things and not others, it may rank things wrongly due to flaws or outright manipulation, it is wranked by a computer so cannot see certain relationships, nor can it read your mind.

There is nothing wrong with google being limited, and it is. Nor is there anything wrong with using it, and all information should be available to use, including secondary information like the indexing of Google. But assuming that it can answer your question, and more importantly, assuming that it knows the answers in fundamentally flawed, and some lack parts of this distinction.

This was fairly basic however, and smart kids know this whether their elder teacher, who cant format his word processing correctly, is ordered to "teach" it or not.

Re:Next week

[bpsbr_ernie]

Ahh, yes, email.
I did get a response from one student, "email is for old people or formal letters, our generation only uses MSN."
Another response was, "SPAM? I've never received SPAM, I don't know what SPAM is... I have s SPAM folder?"

Re:Next week

[eugene ts wong]

When I taught English in China, the staff kept telling me that they never checked their email. They all used QQ. I asked about it, in depth, and it seems that they only check their email every few weeks, if they check it. It seems that it is considered professional to have an instant messenger number.

Re:Next week

[shutdown -p now]

How to Google.

I so wish they taught that in school these days. Maybe that would mean that I have to write fewer "JFGI" replies in the newsgroups...

On a side note, Vinge had that sort of thing mentioned in "Rainbows End", and it made sense to me. I reflect sometimes on how often I use Google, and I certainly see it as one of the more basic skills that I need in my life these days. I also see how others use Google, and how inefficient they can be at it, sometimes. There is certainly stuff to teach about there.

Welcome to the UK

[pieisgood]

Where they kill everyone with good ideas and promote the use of wikipedia and twitter. To be honest, I have a younger brother who is over seas attending a UK school. He was taking school in Massachusetts before and the kid just loves it over in the UK, why you ask? Because it's way easier! This might just be his personal experience with it but I can't support any of this bullshit.

Re:Welcome to the UK

[linuxci]

When I was at school in the UK on of the important aspects of history class was not just what happened in the past but we were supposed to think about the various sources of historical evidence and consider their reliability as a source.

The idea was to promote the fact that all sources would have some bias. You should look at evidence from all sources and consider what possible bias exists in each. e.g. look at both English and German newspaper articles published during the war, etc.

I think the critical thinking aspect of our history classes was more important than just teaching the events of the past.

Re:Welcome to the UK

[Tx]

When i was in secondary school (that's what we call high school in the UK), the GSCE's (the exams you take in 5th form at around 15/16 years old) hadn't been around long, so for practice exams we mostly used the old O levels. When we came to sit the actual GCSE's, particularly the sciences, we couldn't believe how easy they were compared to the old exams. And at that point the GCSE's were at least proper exams, since then they've brought in large amounts of continuous assessment, with students able to re-take modules several times until they get them right during the course of the year. It's basically impossible to fail GCSE's now, and I thought we were at the point where we couldn't dumb our education system down any further. Looks like I was wrong.

Re:Welcome to the UK

[Jane_Dozey]

The problem with UK schools is that they are increasingly trying to meet government targets. It's getting more difficult for kids to fail.

A child can work really hard, learn a lot and get good grades. Those grades are deserved and that kid will be better set up for later life. They will also be able to study at a more in depth level if they work hard, they just wont be tested on it so it's not compulsory for the teachers to teach that material. However, a kid can also scrape by with minimum effort and still pass. Heck, they might only be a grade below those smart kids who work hard. They'll find it harder later on though.

I find it annoying when British kids get angry at people like me who say it's getting easier* as they should be angry at the government for making ti so much harder for the smart ones to stand out.

* Having been in an academic year where I could do both the old A-levels and the new AS levels I got a good first hand comparison. The AS-levels are much, much simpler but broader in scope. I would assume the same sort of dumbing down has happened all through the school system

Re:Welcome to the UK

[Tony Hoyle]

Private school perhaps? One of the worst things about state schools is they teach facts not critical thinking.

All we learned were dates. 1066 was drummed into our heads. Henry VIII having a number of wives. Something about the Romans and the Vikings.

We didn't do WWII.. it wasn't in the curriculum then (this was 20 years ago though).

Maths was worse - I remember getting a detention for calculating the 12 times table rather than rote learning it. Actually working stuff out was a punishable offence!

Re:Welcome to the UK

[Tony Hoyle]

You're able to re-take modules? Hell. I didn't realize it had got that bad.

It's long since passed the point where I as an employer (I do interview occasionally) would take a GCSE or A level at face value, which is a shame - in the drive to create a 'nobody loses' culture they've devalued the one thing that allowed the bright students to stand out, so now *everybody* loses because without other experience your CV now goes in the bin.

Re:Welcome to the UK

[RiotingPacifist]

For starters the summary is bullshit nobody is suggesting replacing history with wikistudies (what they are doing is removing a lot of the bullshit regulations,targets & goals), just that teaching kids how to use internet resources wisely (e.g not wasting time arguing on slashdot) is a good idea, just think of all the times you tell somebody to just fucking google it. they also say

It emphasizes traditional areas of learning - including phonics, the chronology of history and mental arithmetic

Which are much more useful that a list of facts i learn't about the Tudors when i was 12.
Additionally the proposal is NOT being made by ofsted, so the entire summary is just retarded.

He was taking school in Massachusetts before and the kid just loves it over in the UK, why you ask? Because it's way easier!

Interesting, is your brother less than 11 though, i think the UK system may be much easier at primary school. It seams i had an easier time in primary school than my cousins in Spain, but by the time we leave secondary school we are pretty much par with the EU/US (give or take believing in creationism), its only china that seam to be able to produce large numbers of smarter kids (could be that they only export the smart ones though)

Re:Welcome to the UK

[ciderVisor]

Private school perhaps? One of the worst things about state schools is they teach facts not critical thinking.

I call BS.

My 14yo daughter is taking history at a state school and the very first thing they learn is how to separate the wheat from the chaffe in written anecdotes from the past. For instance, they're taught to question why someone might have a particular bias against another segment of the community. They're taught how such a bias could have arisen as a result of previous events. Yes, specific aspects/eras of history are examined (it is after all impossible to teach everything) but at the same time, the fundamental framework of understanding history is also being instilled. I don't recall the same emphasis being pushed when I was at high school in the '80s.

Similarly, in biology they are taught the elements of experimental techniques such as control groups and sampling theory and how to minimise errors. The concept of 'tolerance' and 'significance' in reported data is also examined.

I'm really happy with the standard of education both my daughters are getting in the UK. It's up to them to make the most of it.

Re:Welcome to the UK

[xaxa]

it wasn't in the curriculum then (this was 20 years ago though)

Don't you think the curriculum might just have changed since 20 years ago? Private schools don't teach much different to state schools anyway, the children will be taking the same exam at the end of it. (The difference is the teacher can concentrate on making sure they know how to answer the hardest questions on the exam.)

I did my GCSEs in 2002. I learnt hardly any dates and couldn't name more than a couple of Henry VIII's wives, but in the exam we were given multiple sources -- sometimes contradictory -- and had to analyse them for reliability and bias.

Re:Welcome to the UK

[xaxa]

You're able to re-take modules? Hell. I didn't realize it had got that bad.

It hasn't just yet for GCSEs, but you can keep trying to improve written coursework for some subjects.

It's long since passed the point where I as an employer (I do interview occasionally) would take a GCSE or A level at face value

I think I'd look the other way round (although I don't employ anyone). If someone doesn't have good grades for GCSE Maths, English and Science then something's wrong. (But presumably it's difficult to compare someone who did GCSE Maths in 1980 with someone who did it in 2008?)

I got all A*s and As with pretty much zero effort, but I know others who worked really hard to get their As. I agree that the grades are devalued -- there were people that were clearly better than me at some subjects, but there isn't a grade better than A* to give them. I got "full marks" in GCSE Biology (and a letter congratulating me). So did two other people at my school. I thought the two others were better than me, but maybe I was just being modest (they were *hot*). And who can tell?

On the other hand, there's a lot of children that don't manage to get 5 A*-C grades. I think the problem here is caused by parents and British society, and I have no idea how to fix it.

Re:Welcome to the UK

[teh kurisu]

Learning 'enquiry skills' was certainly part of my (ordinary Scottish comprehensive school) Standard Grade history class, and there wasn't much emphasis on dates at all. Really, being able to remember dates isn't much use if one book has one date and another book has another date. What matters is knowing which book to trust.

I didn't do WWII either, I somehow managed to get right through both primary and secondary school without studying it. We did study WWI quite extensively though. The above link shows three units on differing topics, and different schools are able to choose which topics they teach. For example, this school teaches WWII instead of Russian history.

The Scottish curriculum consistently separates out knowledge and understanding (KU) and problem solving (PS), I think to the point where it's denoted on exam papers which category a question falls under. It's pretty easy to see at-a-glance where teaching and testing of analytical skills is being neglected.

Normally I would've complained that the summary should have specified that this only applies to schools in England, not the rest of the UK... but even the Guardian article didn't specify. Bad Guardian!

Re:Welcome to the UK

[Jane_Dozey]

It's also a problem that if a teacher doesn't think a student will achieve a decent grade they wont enter them for the exam or will only enter them for an easier paper (where they can't attain higher than a certain grade. In my day D was the highest possible for a foundation paper. Useless).

Re:Welcome to the UK

[ittybad]

I wish my high school history classes were modeled more like this. My AP history classes were drill and kill dates and time lines. It was not until a college course that sources became the focus.

When I Was a Lad...

[Quothz]

Y'know, when I was a schoolkid, we were required to keep a daily journal in some English classes. I don't see a fundamental difference between that and blogging as a method of developing writing skills.

We were also taught how to use encyclopedias, and allowed to use them as source material. Given that the error-per-word rate in Wikipedia is lower than Encyclopedia Britannica, I see nothing wrong with using it. Better, Wikipedia lists primary sources, something I don't recall from ink-and-paper encyclopedias. Teaching kids to use it well seems like a fine idea to me.

Twitter and podcasts? Not so much. I don't see the educational value in these. I could see a school doing a podcast as a class project, I s'pose, but as part of a formal curriculum?

Re:When I Was a Lad...

[DamienNightbane]

Did you know that the population of African Elephants has tripled in the past six months?

Like anything else in life

[ciderVisor]

Like anything else in life, kids learn more by observing the actions of the people important to them, than by what they might say.

If dad is helping with a homework assignment and his first instinct is to go to Wikipedia, then that behaviour will be picked up on. A generation ago, adults might have looked up the family encyclopedia or gone down to the local library to get info. Now, that course of action might seem like the 'proper', old-skool way to go about things but just consider how limited those resources truly were; For historical events and people, the family encyclopedia would be pretty useful but for information about new technology or current affairs, it'd be obsolete almost as soon as it's printed. It's the same with library books.

Consider also that you can find websites dedicated to the most arcane subjects - subjects which would not make for a commercially viable printed book and so could never be found in ANY reference library, never mind a local one.

If a parent is skeptical and knows a little bit about research and authorative references, then that'll be picked up on too. A curious child will wonder what makes one reference trustworthy and useful where another might be biased and worthless. At that point, an adult can explain what to look out for and - BINGO ! - a new life skill has been nurtured.

Hell, if I'm looking for info on a subject new to me, my first ports of call are almost always Wiki and Google. Wiki will give you a useful overview and links to more in-depth definitions. It'll also give you a good source of key words for typing into Google.

Say I wanted to know about the Crimean War. At this moment in time, it's honestly nothing to me other than a name. I think it happened in the 19th Century, but that's about it. This is all serious, not a hypothetical example:

I go to Wiki and now know that it was fought between the Russian Empire and a western alliance consisting of UK, France, Sardinia and the Ottoman Empire. It lasted from Oct 1853 to Feb 1856. It was considered to be the first 'modern' conflict. Significant names to research further: "Tsar Nicholas I", "Count Karl Nesselrode", "Sir George Hamilton Seymour", "Constantinople", "Turkey", "Crimean Peninsula", "Baltic Sea", "Holy Land", "Telegraph", "Minié Ball", "Florence Nightingale". Google can supply all sorts of leads from these phrases, either alone or combined.

OK, so don't treat it as a primary source of info (and for Bog's sake don't EVER put it in your list of references) but as a launchpad for your initial investigation, Wikipedia is without equal.

Re:Like anything else in life

[Anonymous Coward]

(and for Bog's sake don't EVER put it in your list of references)

Even that needs qualifying. I've got some of my best grades (firsts) for assignments in which I've cited Wikipedia -- but showed in the body of the assignment that I'd treated the Wikipedia information with due caution.

AC because modding.

Re:Like anything else in life

[Hognoxious]

It was considered to be the first 'modern' conflict.

I'm only an amateur military historian, but considering the weapons and tactics were hardly changed from the Napoleaonic wars I'd somewhat disagree.

But that's wikipedia for you. Anyone can edit it and usually does.

Re:Like anything else in life

[mdwh2]

In the Wiki article, this is quoted, and given a reference (Royle). It also clearly states "sometimes considered", not that it was. If fail to see what it's doing wrong?

But that's wikipedia for you.

No, that's misquoting people on Slashdot for you. I find it interesting that you distrust Wikipedia without even reading it, but you trust a random person's summary of it.

Re:Like anything else in life

[Hognoxious]

I find it interesting that you distrust Wikipedia without even reading it

I find it interesting that you think you can telepathically determine whether I read it or not.

It also clearly states "sometimes considered"

"Sometimes considered" is meaningless fluff. You're sometimes considered a stupid, pedantic fuckwit.

you trust a random person's summary of it.

Since most of the writing on wankipedia is random, I don't see the problem.

Re:Like anything else in life

[mdwh2]

I find it interesting that you think you can telepathically determine whether I read it or not.

If you did read it, then why did you criticise it for something it doesn't say?

"Sometimes considered" is meaningless fluff. You're sometimes considered a stupid, pedantic fuckwit.

It's not ideal, but far more intelligent than the writing ability of someone who resorts to ad-hominems, and thinks names like "wankipedia" are funny. Seriously, are you 12? Or some chav that got let loose here?

The claim in Wikipedia is cited to a source. But I'm sure that won't affect your straw man argument, as you're more interested in insulting anyone who dares to disagree with you.

Your claim however is not cited to a source - it's your own opinion, but you attempt to hide it because you're not only a troll, but you're not man enough to say it directly.

I like this!

[Cornwallis]

Completely disconnect kids from reality AND factual history and you've got a guaranteed pliable population. Works for me.

Uncyclopedia

[Anonymous Coward]

How about teaching American kids how to do their research using Uncyclopedia? It would be kind of interesting to see if the general population over there could get much dumber.

Still, there would be some bright points to including uncyclopedia in the curriculum.
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Evolution seems like a much more accurate account of how things actually work than what is beeing taught to the kids over there now.

The number of religious people over there is pretty hillarious.. I mean.. in a cry-my-eyes-out-in-despair-at-humanitys-immense-collective-stupidity kinda way. *sigh*

PlastBox

Kids need help with teh Web

[benwiggy]

Brilliant idea. Yeah, because kids are well-known to have trouble embracing new technology. Most of them can't even use FaceBook and have to get their grandparents to do it for them.

What next? Skipping rope lessons? Running and screaming lessons? Dipping a ball in dogshit and throwing to someone lessons?

Those who do not learn from History are condemned to repeat its mistakes. But of course, they won't know that.

Re:Kids need help with teh Web

[Locklin]

Knowing the latest cool buzz websites and understanding how to use technological tools effectively and responsibly for a productive purpose are two entirely different things.

Re:Kids need help with teh Web

[benwiggy]

Damn. If only they'd taught me that at school.

Re:Kids need help with teh Web

[mdwh2]

Running and screaming lessons? Dipping a ball in dogshit and throwing to someone lessons?

Well they were compulsory at my school, we called them PE and Games...

Wikipedia yes, the others, no

[Anonymous Coward]

The majorty of twitter, blogs, and podcasts are of no educational interest. Wiki is a reasonable idea, but does it really take more than 10 minuites to figure it out

Yeah, like kool kids

[iworm]

Fantastic idea! Since they gave up teaching children grammar, spelling, written communication skills, good manners, literacy and so on, this at least gives them something to do during all the free time they now have.

I just thank deity that my children are not in the UK...

Re:Yeah, like kool kids

[Anonymous Coward]

I just thank deity that my children are not in the UK...

Clearly they're not, because if they were (as mine are) you would be aware that UK schoolkids are taught grammar, spelling, written communication skills, good manners and many other things. Sure, the teaching doesn't always take -- that has a bit to do with the kid and a lot to do with whether the teaching gets reinforced at home -- but it all gets taught. Of course, the media like to pretend it doesn't, because that sells copy to folks who like to have their prejudices against young people confirmed.

Re:Yeah, like kool kids

[RiotingPacifist]

Yeah if much rather be from a country where you can leave school believing in creationism as science.

Re:Yeah, like kool kids

[Anonymous Coward]

For 'the media' read 'the Daily Mail' throughout

Re:Yeah, like kool kids

[iworm]

I suppose it all depends on what one understands by "taught". I suppose what *I* mean is "taught, such that the results are actually observable". As you rightly say, teaching depends on many things.

From first-hand experience of the UK education system (rather a lot...) and considerable exposure to the output, I maintain that the items I mention are not taught, at least in so far as the results are not there. Whether that is due to the teachers, parents, or, no doubt, some complex mix of those and other factors, is an interesting and important debate. But I maintain that, at the end of it all, the UK turns out a large number of people with a striking lack of education.

Re:Yeah, like kool kids

[iworm]

I was going to ask what your point was, but after re-reading I think you actually make it quite well.

On a positive note...

[PCM2]

If this practice were instituted in the U.S., American school kids would be able to get more out of NPR's Talk of the Nation Science Friday.

ass backwards???

[CheshireFerk-o]

Wouldnt it be the children teaching the adults to use twitter/facebook/podcasts??? ive been online since 1994 and i still have not found I need these "social" tools for anything at all, let alone figure out their pourpose.

Yeah right

[SmallFurryCreature]

Or perhaps we should teach kids about libraries. Where dozens of books are found on the same subject, each with a different view. Not constrained by size or editors who insist that their view is the neutral view.

Libraries, Wikipedia without the trolls, random edits and shallowness of the net. An amazing invention and they are right there in your neighbourhood.

Wikipedia is a tool, but don't pretend that it is any more then an extremely shallow encyclopedia. This is important. If you want to know about a subject an encyclopedia will only tell you the barest minimum on it. That is its function. Sadly most of the internet is like this. Everything got to be short, shorter, shortest and depth and with that accuracy goes right out of the window.

Don't get me wrong, I like wikipedia and use it a lot, but it is an encyclopedia. Libraries contain DOZENS of those.

What kids need is hope

[Anonymous Coward]

Teach them to read and write then you can teach then Genesis and Gospels. That's all they need to know. The real life isn't on earth.

Re:What kids need is hope

[shutdown -p now]

Teach them to read and write then you can teach then Genesis and Gospels.

Better yet, don't teach them to read and write, and just recite the Scripture to them. It still works, and you can skip all the inconvenient parts as needed without questions asked.

Re:What kids need is hope

[PhxBlue]

Who let Texas on the Internet?

:)

primary school!

[Fishy]

Christ, this is little kids, they never did WW2 or the victorians anyway. Just like the comment on the story says, you draw pictures of vikings and romans at that age, you don't study the damm Potsdam Conference!

You teach WW2 at secondary, in a long segment, starting with WW1 to get everything in context. The same as we have been doing for years.

THERE IS NO STORY HERE MOVE ALONG

Re:primary school!

[Tony Hoyle]

Even that's recent - when I went to school the only thing we did was an hour on WW1, and that was just that someone shot Archduke Ferdinand and Britain went to war over it.. which doesn't even make sense (but as a child you don't question, and this was pre-internet and definately pre-history channel so we didn't have any other sources).

Re:primary school!

[mdwh2]

It seems to vary - at my UK primary school, we did WW2 (more than just pictures), and then WW1 in secondary school.

Re:primary school!

[dkf]

Even that's recent - when I went to school the only thing we did was an hour on WW1, and that was just that someone shot Archduke Ferdinand and Britain went to war over it.. which doesn't even make sense (but as a child you don't question, and this was pre-internet and definately pre-history channel so we didn't have any other sources).

The roots of WW1 are rather complicated, but it seems to have been an outcome of a complex system (european imperial politics) that was just a catastrophe (in a mathematical sense) waiting to happen. The shooting of the Archduke was just the trigger that set it all off.

How long does it take to learn twitter

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure teach them these things, but really, how long does it take for someone to learn how to use twitter or Wikipedia. If you can read and write and have basic (very basic) computer skills you will pick them up in an afternoon.

Then we can all get back to learning the difficult stuff.

Re:How long does it take to learn twitter

[Hognoxious]

If you can read and write and have basic (very basic) computer skills you will pick them up in an afternoon.

The critical part there is "if".

Off topic, is Coral Cache down?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't access Coral Cache. Anybody else having this problem, or am I being blocked? Here's a test URL: http://www.coralcdn.org.nyud.net/

But they already know about them...

[tobe]

This is pretty ridiculous. As if these kids don't already know all about these services and have used them more than their tutors.

'And this is Twitter.. it's an instant messaging protocol that allows us to share our thoughts and dreams with the world. Isn't that marvellous, children."

"Nah miss.. it's just a way for me to chat shit to my mates, innit. Look.. it's on my phone."

Re:But they already know about them...

[tygerstripes]

"Explaining the facts of life to a teenager is like giving a fish a bath."

Supplant "facts of life" with "web".

Age 11 and under

[merlinokos]

It should be noted that this proposal is for children aged 11 and under. That is, 5th grade and lower (British call it Year 6).
I don't remember studying much American history when I was that age. In fact, I mostly remember reading, arithmetic, and P.E.
The truth is that the UK has over-legislated what to teach, leaving little room for children to be children. These recommendations are actually a step in the right direction, in that they decrease the amount of mandated work that little children have to do.

Re:Age 11 and under

[xaxa]

IIRC from 12+ years ago, history then is tied in to the other subjects. For instance, for really young kids they might make Roman mosaics, or paint pictures of ancient houses. Reading and writing could become non-fiction about when Vikings invaded Britain.

I remember going to the museum in the nearest city, and looking at the Roman mosaics that had been discovered, the 2000-year-old ruined walls, and seeing the old armour and weapons.
Also, a man came to the school dressed as an 18th century soldier. I volunteered to wear the replica armour, and it was damn heavy! Especially when trying to hold a shield and lance at the same time.
When I was 7 I had the lead role in a play about time travelling, there were scenes set in several historic periods (as well as the future, with spacemen and a robot). I think I had to ask all the historic characters what kind of food they ate, and what they did in their spare time.

It's probably all changed since 12+ years ago though; I don't know what they do now.

Re:critical thinking skills

[ciderVisor]

Most teachers don't have this facility, and so are incapable of teaching it.

[Citation needed]

Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher !

[ciderVisor]

"Lance Armstrong informed the public that it may miss the Giro using this novely service, Twitter".

Why would anyone forget to pick up their dole cheque after using Twitter ?

RT@Ofsted: "Primary schools to teach Twitter and W

[David Gerard]

Primary school pupils should learn how to blog and use internet sites like Twitter and Wikipedia and spend less time studying history, says a review of the primary school curriculum in England by Sir Jim Rose of Ofsted.

Students will also be required to familiarise themselves with podcasts, the iTunes store, the Pirate Bay, b3ta and 4chan. They will gain fluency in handwriting and keyboard skills and learn how two use a spell chequer proper Lee. Literature classes will involve young adult novels written entirely in txt spk.

Earlier versions of the proposal suggested students learn about AltaVista, GeoCities and the dangers of internet paedophiles on Usenet.

Pupils will no longer have to study the Victorian period or the Second World War. But ministers said British history would always be a core part of education. "The history books will undergo proper Party review, of course," said Schools Minister Jim Knight. "The life of Jade Goody is far more relevant to modern culture than patriarchal oppression from dead white males like Churchill or Cromwell."

The move has met some opposition. "How will kids understand Hitler jokes?" said Mary Bousted of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, "or how Hitler instantly makes any joke funnier? Will anyone watch the UK Hitler Channel again?"

Wikipedia welcomed the move, looking forward to more twenty thousand word articles on minor characters in Charlie & Lola. "Our coverage of Sizzles the dog will be enhanced immeasurably," said administrator WikiFiddler451. "Of course, my article on Lotte's fur coat just reached 'featured' status."

"RT@neilhimself Bally dashed curriculum bally dashed hors de combat. Tish, fie and pish. Maybe they're finally getting their arse in gear xxx," noted Stephen Fry.

They're going to learn this anyway

[vic-traill]

However, the draft plans will require children to master Twitter and Wikipedia

What kid isn't going to learn how to use Twitter (or whatever) on their own? So what is the point of devising and delivering curriculum that kids don't need to learn, because they've learnt it already on their own?

Wow - next we'll be teaching them how to breath and walk.

As a side note, by the time the Twitter curriculum is ready to go, Twitter will be passe and The Next Big Thing will be hip. Internet service popularity moves faster than the speed of curriculum development, at least in my experience.

He comes...

[Anonymous Coward]

ZALGO!

Re:Stupid - Yes and No

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's not a stupid idea as such. The idea behind it is pretty good. You or I could show classes of kids how to use many current online services and how to get the most out of them (e.g. better keywords for google searches, choosing the right micro-blogging tool for the audience you want, multiple sources rather than believing everything a wiki says...). Most of the class could probably take something useful away from it.

The problem will be that most teachers will be incapable of teaching it without recourse to other material! This will, of course, be out of date before it is even published. They will be completely flummoxed by simple UI changes and will still teach twitter as an example long after it's been surpassed by a new flavour of the month.

This is just the sort of topic that is better presented by the parent who most 'gets it'. Or by a traveling show of experts (i know of a number of places that already do a technology bus type of thing) rather than your jack of all subjects primary school teacher.

Security awareness

[Arancaytar]

Teach them how to use Tor, OTR and PGP encryption, as well as basic counter-surveillance. The way our privacy laws are going, they're going to need it.

Re:Stupid Facts

[Ralph Spoilsport]

from some Talking Heads some 28 years ago:

Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things
Facts don't stain the furniture
Facts go out and slam the door
Facts are written all over your face
Facts continue to change their shape

I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...
I'm still waiting...
I'm still waiting...I'm still waiting...
I'm still waiting...
Im still waiting...Im still waiting...

Hermaphroditus, son of gods.

[ciderVisor]

a coworker of mine told me that his nephew (a 14 years old girl)

Uuuhhhh...

From the classroom:

[KefkaZ]

As a teacher in lower grades of high school (mostly 10th graders), I find Twitter to be more of an annoyance than anything else. Wikipedia, however, has a lot of benefits when used correctly. When I have students do research, I send them to Wikipedia first to get a general feel for the topic. Say they're researching Miranda V. Arizona (I teach a projects-based law class,) Wikipedia will give a general, concise explanation of what that case is about, its issues and some of the areas surrounding the case. It also serves as a springboard to more scholarly sites and sources. If you look at law sources on the web, they can be pretty daunting for the average 10th grader, as many of them are designed for use by lawyers, law students or poli sci students. More so if the student has little to no background knowledge on the topic to begin with. Wikipedia provides enough background knowledge to fit in more important, scholarly details, and that aspect of learning is often overlooked by the /. crowd from what I've seen. Do keep in mind that while you are probably brilliant, you had to start somewhere. For many things, and for your average student, Wikipedia is a great portal to start with, although as stated by an earlier poster it should NOT be the only source. There is a reason that the people blasting Wikipedia tend to teach at the college level and AP or IB level classes. Mainly, the students in those classes should already have the ability and desire to access that generalized information.

Hmm...

[kabocox]

I think this could be a good idea. I think the wikipedia part should be more along the lines of properly adding, verifying, and/or updating existing articles on wikipedia. Anything below about junior high age, and wikipedia is usually fine as being the only source. At that age, it's condensing the pages and pages of stuff on wikipedia down to oh two paragraphs of stuff that you think is useful for some random project.

I use wikipedia and google all the time as my only research tools. I think that I'm fairly good at it, but it would be nice to actually be taught a few things rather than just using the search box and typing in 2-3 keywords.

I'm very mixed on the twitter thing. I don't know how useful that one could be.

On IM, E-mail, and blogging, I think that it is a grand idea. Especially for e-mail. I wish some one would have taught my boss how to properly address people in e-mail and how to properly compose sentences. He will address an e-mail to 3-4 people, the people that he should be CCing he puts in the To block, the folks in the CC he usually talks to, though sometimes he'll put you in BCC and talk to you. In the body of the message, he will randomly talk to all individuals at his own whim. After experiencing that, I really, really want our kids to be taught the basics of on-line manners, how to properly compose a sentence, and how to properly address individuals. Also they need to teach at an early age that anything that you write is liable to be found and read by those that you don't want to read it.

Blogging would be a great way of tricking students into just keeping a daily journal and reporting on random topics that they found interesting that day. Teachers can just grade by spelling/grammar and the occasional you sound odd part here and there. Assigning for them to read each others blogs and comment about poor spelling/grammar or where a spell checker changed a word into something that you didn't quite mean would be useful traits to give to the next generation. How long should that really take though?

You're a grammar nazi too

[Anonymous Coward]

You just have a different grammar to promote. Don't kid yourself you're any better.

Re:Stupid Straw Man

[mdwh2]

I can't think of anything worse to teach children than to use Wikipedia as a primary source of research and to use Twitter as a primary means of communication.

I don't really care about the proposal, but I wondered how long it would be before anti-Wikipedia rants came. First post, it seems.

Where in TFA does it claim teaching Wikipedia as a primary source? It's not a primary source, so that would be flat out wrong - it's a tertiary source, just like any other encyclopedia. And if you're worried about people misusing Wikipedia, surely that's all the more reason to teach people how to assess sources properly?

As for twitter, where in TFA does it say using it as the primary means of communication?

This is an article about primary schools - perhaps this confused you?

Far more would be gained by teaching kids how to use and administer computers than simply jumping on whatever the current internet bandwagon is and letting kids arse around with it.

Why would letting kids "arse around with computers" as you suggest, be any better? See, it's easy to criticise a policy if you sum it up as "arse around", without reading anything about it.

Nice straw man.

What's all this brouhaha?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the people expressing disgust at the idea of teaching kids about internet research, take into account that, when I was in school, they taught us the Dewey Decimel System.

Surely you can see the parallels? Teaching students how to effectively find sources and conduct research. A simple system that could reasonably have been learned through simple observation or trial-and-error.

The difference being that I cannot remember he last time I have actually *manually* looked for a book, let alone have to recall the Dewey Flippin' Decimel System. Nearly everything that I was taught regarding libraries, encyclopedias, etc. has been replaced or made obsolete by technology or the internet. And yet they, and I can only assume all of you, were perfectly fine with them taking valuable school time to teach it to us. And Home Economics. And some wonky computer program that I can't even be dicked to remember the name of.

Wikipedia is an integral part of everyday life, and learning how to use and NOT use Wikipedia is crucial for the remainder of one's education. There are MUCH worse things we could be wasting time teaching.

I've said it before, I'll say it again

[maxume]

I tweet each plop.

I love the smell of Mimeograph in the morning

[ClosedSource]

More like the 70s or 80s. Even in the 60s we got film strips and movies. TVs were expensive and there was no such thing as video tape.

Re:I love the smell of Mimeograph in the morning

[commodore64_love]

That idea to use films or play VHS tapes in classes didn't work at all. The films were terrible and we kids didn't learn anything from them. It was a tremendous waste of time.

The best way to learn is to solve lots and lots of problems. It forces the brain to do work.

In Russia students teach teachers

[peter303]

Object-verb-subject jokes aside, sometimes the young are more in tune with technological advances than their elders.

Cool! A Lindsay Lohan/Sela Ward love scene!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> "Who needs crusty old rubbish like the Victorian era or World War II?
> Instead, an Ofsted report leaked to The Guardian details of proposals
> to teach UK primary school children how to use Wikipedia, Twitter,
> podcasts and blogs"

Why not teach them how to download pr0n and rocket jump off a guy's head while you're at it?

Dumbasses. Just more politicians jumping on the too-late bandwagon again.

More policies from dribbling idiots

[sy5t3m]

I guess whichever moron is responsible for adding twitter to the proposals didn't even read the twitter TOS.
Number 1 of twitters basic terms is: You must be 13 years or older to use this site.

In the U.K, kids are in primary school up to the age of 11. I guess Sir Jim Rose skipped a few maths lessons of his own if he thinks 11 is bigger than 13.

Wikipedia yes, else no thx

[Verdatum]

My sister is a 4th grade teacher, and being a Wikipedia addict, I got her to let me give a presentation on Wikipedia and the ideas behind it. Granted, the age group is a little young, but the values that can be gathered from Wikipedia involve writing to inform, as separate from writing to persuade or writing to entertain, and more importantly, techniques for writing quality research papers. I took AP courses all through HS and had my share of research paper assignments, but none of the instruction was as good as what I learned from understanding Wikipedia policy and guidelines. What you can teach kids is how to read an article and figure out for yourself if it is quality properly cited information or not. This teaches children to not only "don't believe everything you read" but more importantly, to know under what circumstances you can believe the things you read.

Research vs Facts?

[Nerdposeur]

There is no dichotomy here. You can't research without some factual ground to start from. For example, American kids will never research the meaning of the Constitution unless someone has made them learn the basic circumstances of its creation and why it's relevant to modern life. Intellectual curiosity starts with learning something interesting. Someone has to force you to learn the first things before you start seeing neat connections.

Re:Research vs Facts?

[TapeCutter]

Yes, the two statements go together like bread and butter. Although kids only need to be coerced when they are not interested in what you are teaching.

Re:Research vs Facts?

[Nerdposeur]

Although kids only need to be coerced when they are not interested in what you are teaching.

I'm not a teacher, and I'm sure there are ways to make learning fun, but I doubt that everything can be made interesting for every student all the time, but which may still be important.

Example: some kids may not be interested in learning to read, but they must be helped and even forced along. They will understand why it was worthwhile later.

Things that are needed as a foundation

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>What facts can you think of that are both important, and will not be learnt by the children on their own?

Most of what's in that category are skills rather than facts, but still:

Vocabulary. People are not picking up the meaning of "theory" or "statistically significant" on their own.

Statistics. Anyone who votes should understand the base rate fallacy. Only a small minority actually does.

Civics/history, or what might be called political engineering: why things work the way they do and what problems they're meant to solve. People are clearly not picking this up on their own.

Re:Grammar Nitpick

[colinrichardday]

I believe that what you meant was that some people consider it improper to begin a sentence with a coordinate conjunction. One can start a sentence with a subordinate conjunction such as "if" or "because".