Slashdot Mirror
Home Computers Equal Lower Test Scores
An anonymous reader writes "Politicians and education activists have long sought to eliminate the 'digital divide' by guaranteeing universal access to home computers, and in some cases to high-speed Internet service. But a Duke University study finds these efforts would actually widen the achievement gap in math and reading scores. Students in grades five through eight, particularly those from disadvantaged families, tend to post lower scores once these technologies arrive in their homes."
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
our obsession with school test scores is not such a hot idea.
So, they found a correlation between the two? Perhaps the decision to buy a computer was caused by poor academic performance, rather than vice-versa. Unless the decision to buy a computer was made without connection to a particular situation, they don't know which way causation ran.
I wish the luddities would stop trying to blame the technology. It's here to stay. Get over it. If you're seriously telling me a 16 year old without exposure to computers is better off in the modern world, I'll ask you to please dispose of the drugs.
If you have a 10-14 year old who suddenly gets access to a computer and all the distractions that come with it - games, (and shock horror porn if they can get to it0 etc. - you can expect a dip while the child adjusts. If the same kid had grown up with these things it'd be no big deal. I don't doubt that cable TV would have the same effect. All these things require some supervision in their use. But then so does a soccer or basket ball. Kids can find that distracting too.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
There are several problems with this:
1 - The group being tested is predisposed to lower grades.
2 - The actual use of the home computer ( games, etc instead of work )
Guess it still holds true you can make any study say what you want, they are all lies.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
They aren't memorizing facts, they are memorizing test question answers. There are two important differences:
1) A fact is something you believe to be correct. A test question answer is simply what you need to write to a test paper to get a good grade, and completely unconnected to the rest of your internal model of the world - that is, you can believe things which directly and obviously conflict with the test answer you've memorized, yet not see any problem with this, since the answer is not something you belive, it's just what you believe the test grader wants to hear. This leads us to...
2) Facts are connected to each other. You have, to some extent, considered their connections to other facts. You can use them to draw conclusions, or use them in various contexts. In short, they're part of your internal model of the world, and you might actually benefit from knowing them outside of taking tests. None of this is true of something you memorized just to regurgitate it as a reflex answer when you see a trigger sentence.
Teaching kids how to think, critical thinking, reasoning, etc will benefit them (and the rest of us) much more in the long run ... there just aren't any easy ways to measure that kind of performance.
Of course there is: give them problems to solve, then grade the solutions and the time it took them to come up with them. For example, give them an intentionally flawed argument and ask them to describe the flaw(s). Extra credit if they spot a flaw you didn't intend to put there :).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
You're on the right track here; I just want to give you some more ammo for when you discuss this with pro-test folks.
High stakes testing causes districts to replace teaching with training, or more cynically, with test prep. Because the tests themselves are not designed as pure recall exercises, you cannot do well on them simply by memorizing facts. Test prep in this case consists of finding a low level way to respond to a question designed for high level thinking. The levels to which I refer come from Bloom's Taxonomy.
So, by clever use of highlighters, and by teaching students to look for certain words or phrases, the "teacher" can get them to successfully choose the correct answer from a list without any of the real work of (say) mathematical problem solving. This is something you can read more about at Dan Meyer's blog. One of his directions for teachers is that we should be "less helpful." High stakes testing leads to district and schoolwide mandates that teachers be as helpful as possible.
At a recent faculty meeting, one of the VPs presented us with data that our state test scores were (markedly) on the rise while our SAT and AP scores were suffering. He was happy about the state test scores and said that we needed to find a way to bring that kind of success to the college-oriented tests. Later, I stopped by his office and said that I thought the AP and SAT scores were suffering not in spite of the state test scores, but because of them. The kind of teaching we do to prepare kids for those tests robs them of critical thinking skills. Namely, what information do I need for this problem? What has been given to me? What can I find out from the information given to me? What parts are irrelevant?
I'm coming from the math perspective. You might hear a different set of complaints from someone who teaches something else. Take all possible complaints across disciplines and you see the scope of what kids are losing.
When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
Do they, and technology in general, make us lazy or stupid? Or do they help us?
I think they can and do both. Being a TBI or Traumatic Brain Injury survivor I have spent years learning how to use compensatory strategies for my weaknesses. One of them is my memory so for instance when I cook, even if I only spend a few minutes to boil water for tea, I use a windup timer. When the alarm goes off I know to check the water or food. I do the same for my laundry. Or planning, I use a notebook planner to write appointments and to-do lists. However I sometimes fail to check the planner so when I can I use the built-in calendar/planner on my cellphone. When I make an appointment with my doc I'll write it in my planner and program my cellphone at the same tyme. The personal care coordinator I see at my doc's office tried to get me to use the calendar/planner software my Mac came with, iCal, but I find the cellphone better.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Nope. You're mostly wrong.
Rote learning, for SOME PEOPLE, is a great method of retaining stuff. For a lot of people, it doesn't do a damn thing. It's pretty well established that there are a lot of different learning styles. Rote learning works well for only a couple of them.
Additionally, higher test scores don't have a lot to do with much of anything related to learning. My master's thesis looked at whether or not kids even tried on the standardized tests in school. About 30% tried. The rest just blew them off. Despite that, our school was smack dab on the line between "needs a kick in the ass" and "doing ok". My little sister graduated at the top of her HS class. Then failed to get into her first 3 colleges of choice, because her SAT scores were just below average. In college, she did fantastically well, won a presidential award for her work junior year and her senior year was free.
Test scores measure a few things: Test taking ability, motivation, basic content knowledge and logic. They measure a terribly small amount of learning. I took a standardized test to become certified to teach Chemistry at the HS level, despite only taking Chem 101 seven years prior. (I might have to teach one, so I was curious as to what was on it. It wasn't necessary for the science teaching cert, which just required passing one content area.) I missed the cutoff for that by 3 points. Why? I didn't know a large chunk of the content, but I'm a damn good test taker, and I can logic my way through standardized tests pretty well.
Rote learning has a place, for sure. But it's a damn smaller place than the 90% coverage it gets in school currently. Most of the state education tests are largely rote memory. They do NOT test learning, logic, creative thinking, etc. They're just a brain dump of content, whether or not it's correct or logical.
The US isn't going to improve education until this changes. When your "learning" is based on spitting out rote memory stuff, all your "teaching" becomes rote learning. That is a huge disservice to everyone involved. Except the testing companies.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
I'm guessing it's less that the computer itself is dumbing anyone down, and more that they're doing it instead of other things. 8+ hours a day doesn't leave a lot of time to study.
It could be that using the computer can replace some studying. Games can help improve thinking skills as well as prepare people for careers. People can learn about running a business, or other things such as critical thinking skills, by playing the Hotdog Stand game. Amazon's description says "Students improve math, problem-solving, and communication skills in this real-life business simulation where they manage a busy concession stand in a big-city stadium. Students interpret information, keep records, determine prices, and plat (my comment - plot?) marketing strategies." Super Smart Games lists more games for learning.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?