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.
Let's start there. Healthy physical and mental development isn't achieved by sitting in school. 4 hours school until puberty, then no more than 6 hours, no homework. The times when the economy had use for obedient worker drones are coming to an end, let's raise healthy children instead.
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.
TFA is not realistic. Sure, a kid will learn more riding a horse than watching a video of a horse? So what? How many parents have a horse available?
A more realistic question is a comparison of actual realistic alternatives. Is a kid likely to learn better from a computer or a book? In many cases, the more immersive experience of the computer will win.
To test the hypothesis I learned skydiving on youtube. Whether it works we'll know in about 1½ minute...
-- Make America hate again!
It's less expensive than you might think.
My sister sends her kids to Chicago public schools. They have screens everywhere; they teach maths with an app because have 35 kids per class and they don't want to pay the salary for a teacher's assistant. It's horrifying and I can tell that although my nieces can manipulate the numbers OK, they have trouble applying basic arithmetic to the real world.
I send my kids to a Waldorf school. I am aware that there is a lot of bullshit in Waldorf schools, but my kids learn about biology by taking care of the schools's sheep and planting out the school's garden. I can tell that they have a much easier time of connecting what they learn with the world around them, and it seems to stick longer and better.
The approach is better for your kids is a hard call; all schooling philosophies have strengths and weaknesses. But the simple fact is that you can access alternative education for a fairly small financial burden if you look around. The Waldorf school is 150 EUR per child per month, of which I have two. We moved houses to be closer to it. And I am pretty solidly middle class with an income of €40k a year.
So don't claim that putting your kids in contact with the real world is for elites; it simply is not so.
"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.
I can't think of any quality private schools in the US for $150 a month.
The big story here is the continuing reluctance of the public to support effective, quality public schools for all. The push for technology has more to do with its low cost, not with effectiveness.