Slashdot Mirror
Children Learn Best When Their Bodies Are Engaged in the Living World. We Must Resist the Ideology of Screen-Based Learning (aeon.co)
Nicholas Tampio, associate professor of political science at Fordham University in New York, writing for Aeon magazine: As a parent, it is obvious that children learn more when they engage their entire body in a meaningful experience than when they sit at a computer. If you doubt this, just observe children watching an activity on a screen and then doing the same activity for themselves. They are much more engaged riding a horse than watching a video about it, playing a sport with their whole bodies rather than a simulated version of it in an online game.
Today, however, many powerful people are pushing for children to spend more time in front of computer screens, not less. Philanthropists such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg have contributed millions of dollars to 'personal learning', a term that describes children working by themselves on computers, and Laurene Powell Jobs has bankrolled the XQ Super School project to use technology to 'transcend the confines of traditional teaching methodologies'. Policymakers such as the US Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos call personalised learning 'one of the most promising developments in K-12 education', and Rhode Island has announced a statewide personalised learning push for all public school students. Think tanks such as the Brookings Institution recommend that Latin-American countries build 'massive e-learning hubs that reach millions'. School administrators tout the advantages of giving all students, including those at kindergarten, personal computers.
Many adults appreciate the power of computers and the internet, and think that children should have access to them as soon as possible. Yet screen learning displaces other, more tactile ways to discover the world. Human beings learn with their eyes, yes, but also their ears, nose, mouth, skin, heart, hands, feet. The more time kids spend on computers, the less time they have to go on field trips, build model airplanes, have recess, hold a book in their hands, or talk with teachers and friends. In the 21st century, schools should not get with the times, as it were, and place children on computers for even more of their days. Instead, schools should provide children with rich experiences that engage their entire bodies.
Today, however, many powerful people are pushing for children to spend more time in front of computer screens, not less. Philanthropists such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg have contributed millions of dollars to 'personal learning', a term that describes children working by themselves on computers, and Laurene Powell Jobs has bankrolled the XQ Super School project to use technology to 'transcend the confines of traditional teaching methodologies'. Policymakers such as the US Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos call personalised learning 'one of the most promising developments in K-12 education', and Rhode Island has announced a statewide personalised learning push for all public school students. Think tanks such as the Brookings Institution recommend that Latin-American countries build 'massive e-learning hubs that reach millions'. School administrators tout the advantages of giving all students, including those at kindergarten, personal computers.
Many adults appreciate the power of computers and the internet, and think that children should have access to them as soon as possible. Yet screen learning displaces other, more tactile ways to discover the world. Human beings learn with their eyes, yes, but also their ears, nose, mouth, skin, heart, hands, feet. The more time kids spend on computers, the less time they have to go on field trips, build model airplanes, have recess, hold a book in their hands, or talk with teachers and friends. In the 21st century, schools should not get with the times, as it were, and place children on computers for even more of their days. Instead, schools should provide children with rich experiences that engage their entire bodies.
I might not even necessarily disagree, but "it's obvious" DOESN'T CUT IT, when you're debating a controversial topic, and neither does being a professor of political science who seems to think that having national education standards is evil and will destroy democracy as we know it.
Doing something yourself teaches you more about it than reading about it? Who would have thought...
So let's put little Johnny behind the wheel of that SUV, I'm pretty sure driving is more sensible for him than watching a destruction derby on the screen.
But seriously now. That's not even close to being the problem. The problem is that children want to learn. They come into the world as little information sponges. They want to know everything. You have one simple job: Not killing that willingness to learn.
We usually fail. No later than when we stuff them into schools. Quite frankly, so far school has managed to kill that willingness to learn in everyone.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
By observing children, you can also learn that gummy bears are the perfect lunch. And dinner. And of course breakfast.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
most human societies worked out how to raise their kids, within an extended family, with gender based division of labor, over the millennia. but advocating that sort of thing, or merely pointing it out, would result in accusations of sexism, and go against the deification and incentivization of nuclear or single parent families.
Did you ever think why human societies had gender based division of labor? It seems you may have but so many others have not. It's because men tend to be bigger and stronger than women. I grew up on a dairy farm and I'd be packing hay bales in the barn while my sisters would be digging up potatoes in the garden. Why would that be? Maybe it's because a hay bale weighs 40 pounds and a potato doesn't. Even though there was a time I was smaller and weaker than my older sisters I was expected to go with Dad to the barn to move bales around while Mom took my sisters to work in the garden. This is because my parents knew that in time I'd be bigger than my sisters and I needed to know how to stack hay bales. It might also be because I couldn't stomp all over the vegetables in the barn.
Today we see women that want to make as much money as men. I don't blame them, it's with money that we get resources like housing, food, clothing, and so forth. Here's the problem though, men still are on the average bigger and stronger than women. I thought I could make good money driving a truck after I injured my knees. I thought I could sit in a truck and drive it about with bad knees like anyone else. It turns out that truck driving was a bad idea. Truck drivers don't just drive a truck, their job is to load the truck, unload the truck, and maintain the truck. There aren't many women truck drivers because after a while women find out that driving a truck is hard work. They might find a job driving a bus with a CDL but that does not pay as well as moving cargo. Often men would rather pack boxes on a truck, and get paid more for it, than deal with screaming schoolkids on a bus.
It's not sexism or the "patriarchy" creating this division of labor. It's people finding out that little Jimmy can shovel more shit than little Jenny, and Jimmy doesn't much mind getting covered in shit if it means he doesn't have to wash dishes and scrub floors. Men and women are built differently, and this shows in the jobs they are good at and enjoy. Societies that recognize this tend to be more successful. Forcing men and women into being "equal" with the same jobs will bring a less successful society.
"it's obvious" DOESN'T CUT IT, when you're debating a controversial topic
This is exactly correct because it's not just a controversial topic it is also a highly complex topic. For example, it is extremely "obvious" to me that my son is far more engaged in front of a screen learning to program than he was going around several European cities on holiday this summer. So, going on this idiot's logic this clearly means that I must conclude that all students, everywhere are better off learning in front of a screen. If you also like the utterly wrong appeal to authority I'm a full professor of a real science.
However, as a real scientist, I know that without data on many different students my observation of one student is irrelevant for determining education policy for everyone. Not only that but, unlike say electrons people do not always respond in the same way towards any one stimulus. My son loves computers and learning from a screen works well for him. My daughter does not and she definitely benefits more from non-screen learning.
I would have expected that a vaulted associate professor of "political science" would both be politically and scientifically aware enough to know you need data to back up any argument and that people are complex and a variety of approaches is needed to get the best from everyone.
Neither the author nor anyone he cites has a background in child psychology, development psychology, neuroscience, or education. He also fails to cite any research supporting his claims. He does cite a few tangential pieces of philosophy, but that doesn't demonstrate any facts in support of his argument.
While he seems to have some credentials relevant to political philosophy, he sadly lacks any discernible expertise relevant to the topic of the article.
This is just another scarcely-informed opinion piece. We've got quite enough of those already. This is almost pointless: weak signal, mostly noise.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
In the Netherlands we had this discussion in the 1990s. We had teachers not only failing simple math tests but also not being able to spell. We then introduced a math test for wannabe teachers. Passing that was a prerequisite for entering teacher school. Many people were devastated because they didn't want to pass math tests, they wanted to work with children. The math test, together with some other new rules made sure those people are not in front of classes anymore. Things have improved since then.
-- Cheers!
You know how we got there? The first few words of the summary:
"As a parent, it is obvious..." ...which leads to "Think of the children!!!" laws which have overly bubble-wrapped our society... ...leading to children who are unprepared to deal with the harsh realities of "life"... ...who turn into adults that need safe spaces and trigger warnings and an ever growing cocktail of psychotropics to get by...
Enough ellipses for one post:
Children need to fall down so they can learn to get up.
Children need to get hurt (hopefully in non-permanent ways) so their bodies and minds know how to heal.
Children need to be exposed to dirt and germs so their immune systems can learn to protect them.
Children need to explore their ever growing universe on their own terms so they can experience and learn about it both in the physical and today in the digital.
I grew up in the "Tell me where you're going, be home by dinner and then be home before dark" world.. it was a wonderful place.. Can we get back there or is it too late?