I once worked for a guy in the '80s who, when I wasn't there, would place a stick-on label onto his 5-1/4" floppy and then insert the damned thing into a typewriter to type the label for that disk's contents.
Oh, and I never could break him of the habit of dumping everything into the root drive (DOS days). Simply couldn't grasp sub-directories but wondered why the computer was slow as snot.
I also remember a time when a client's Mac harddrive had no fewer than seven System Folders in various locations.
Ummm, no, these are not ignored costs; these are simply the costs of continuing to use M$ products
Which of my points do not apply for using Sun, IBM, or any other major vendor?
The Solaris I've used for more than a decade hasn't changed its (command-line) look'n'feel to my noticing it; I never did use OS/2 so can't comment on that, and Apple's changed its look'n'feel so gradually over the course of time that nothing compares to the total UI indifference of M$ in terms of the end-user learning experience.
For many years I taught the "how to turn on your computer" course for my local university, and I taught it on Mac (OS 6-9), PC (DOS through 98 & NT I believe) and Solaris (in both sections, just to give them an exposure to file management, ftp, telnet, email and emacs).
Making my own handouts for the PC sections was a never-ending nightmare of an experience (I think at one point, between the various versions of Word/Excell and Works across the two major OS platforms, I counted something like *6* different menu locations for something really mundane, like "insert header/footer" or some such thing). Students would be completely befuddled and frustrated to the point of asking me why, in the name of all things holy, couldn't M$ have made the Office "standard" they used in our PC labs even remotely like the Works "standard" that came preinstalled on their computers.
By contrast, I rarely had to update my Mac handouts (unless it was for a Windows app, especially after the disaster that was Office 6 for the Mac) and never at all if memory serves me for my Solaris handouts.
And I cannot even begin to *think* about the "ribbon interface" of current Office without feeling the need to spit tacks as if I were a nuclear detonator.
There's simply NO EXCUSE for this kind of UI crap.
You are 100% correct, if you completely ignore corporate America using Windows.
Lets take a large corporation as an example and look at the costs you ignored:
Dozens of in house Windows apps, which would either need to be re-written or at least fully tested again in an emulation environment.
Training for the end users for a new OS.
Training for the end users for a new Office suite.
snip...
Ummm, no, these are not ignored costs; these are simply the costs of continuing to use M$ products (Am I the only person who's slogged through the Windows and Office Bataan Death March??
We had one of those clones -- a Power Computing machine. I don't know that I'd say it was faster than similar Apple-branded machines, but I will say that it didn't take me long to decide that it would be the LAST clone I'd ever buy.
There's a reason why they were cheaper... made from much cheaper components. The case was flimsy, the cables looked gerry-rigged to make them work with Apple monitors, everything about them just screamed cheap!
Right, because obviously we can lay rather alot of this crap at the whole "constructivist" teaching revolution in which there simply is no such thing as objective reality.
There is no gravity; we've all simply and separately come to the conclusion that the earth sucks.
This is why education in the US sucks. Because they refuse to admit that there is such a thing as objective reality. And that's why they can't be taught technology.
This stuff needs to be covered where we can MAKE them pay attention, like, before they get their degree/certification. But THAT would require that the older-than-dirt Ph.D.'s in ed who oversee their teacher prep coursework would know/understand the need to know anything about technology.
Actually, not music. There's some very interesting software being used at our local middle school. Used with a mic, the software will evaluate the student's playing of a piece in the accompanying book. It will point out errors. It also will play accompanying sounds from other instruments. I don't recall the name, but it really is pretty neat!
I'm currently doing some research on this, and here are just the beginnings of what I suspect will turn out to be a seriously depressing state of teacher technology training:
Most teachers have not had the education or training to use technology effectively in their teaching. Only 15 percent of U.S. teachers reported having at least nine hours of training in education technology in 1994. In 18 states, teacher education students do not need courses in educational technology to obtain a teaching license. -- Computers and Classrooms: The Status of Technology in U.S. Schools. (Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service, 1997).
When making millions available to place computers in the classroom and wire said classrooms, the Clinton administration listed as number 1 of its 4 related goals the following:
All teachers in the nation will have the training and support they need to help students learn using computers and the information superhighway. And 10 years later, here we are, again, with the incoming administration proposing to just dump still more money into the same technology black hole.
Who will train the teachers? Currently... the national average for funds devoted to technology training is only 5% of the technology budget (Mageau, 1995)... superintendents... contention is that precious staff development funds are being eaten away by initial training that should, and could, be provided by preservice teacher education programs... A recent report from the Office of Technology Assessment (1995) confirms that only 3% of recent teacher education graduates felt "very well prepared" to use technology in the classroom... Sadly, Researchers have been reporting for at least a decade that schools and colleges of education are woefully behind schedule in areas related to technological uses in today's K-12 classroom (Brooks & Kopp, 1991; Dublin, 1994). Individually, most professors recognize technology training as a growing need... Programmatically, though, they still think it should be taught as a stand alone course, not necessarily integrated into their specific content area (Barksdale, 1996)... The same author notes in the abstract the resistance of many schools, colleges, and departments of education to embrace technological applications into their methods coursework. -- Technology and teacher preparation: an oxymoron?, Stetson & T. Bagwell, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, v. 7 No. 2 (1999).
Why do 11 year olds need to learn "a real-world language" that (a) will only frustrate the hell out of them and (b) may well be on its way to obsolescence once *they* are ready for the "real world"?
Pascal at least (which I'm certainly not recommending) was developed as a *teaching* language.
Today's kids are not going to be enthralled with "Hello World."
Revolution would be ideal for the following reasons:
1. You can download a 30-day demo for Mac, Windows and various flavours of *nix.
2. It supports the basic programming concepts you mentioned without being overly burdened by misplaced semi-colons, strongly typed data, or really.hard.to.read.crappy.dot.syntax
3. It has a GUI with drag-and-drop GUI interface elements that appear platform-native on the platform on which it is being used (and later deployed -- it's truly write once, run anywhere).
4. It uses a scripting language that is like Hypertalk on steroids and thus leverages the students' naturally occurring understanding of natural English language constructs (e.g., "put 3 into myVariable" etc.).
Because it's graphical, because you can test without compiling, because you can start something out in class on, say, a Windows or *nix box, then take your project home and continue working on it on, say, a Mac, and then back again, because it leverages natural language, it really is an ideal introductory programming environment.
Ummm, I'm embarrassed to admit that I HAVE one of 'those master's degrees'... mostly because what you say of them is god's honest truth.
Here's an actual textbook example of the teaching theory crap I got in my master's program:
(1) What does it feel like be a tree?
(2) What does it feel like to feel bias?
(3) What does it feel like to be a tree that feels bias?
Weelllllll.... (a) I don't give a shit, (b) I fail to see how this helps little Johnny learn to read/count/not beat up his classmates, and (c) we wouldn't be having this pointlessly stupid attempt to artificially kick-start the creative brain if we hadn't taken the arts out of the schools.
I had to drink half a bottle of wine on an empty stomach to get through the weekly online discussions of crap like this.
Yeah, but what's really 'unacceptable' is that, 10 years after the last failure of an administration's dumping millions of dollars into 'computers for the schools,' we STILL have teachers who either (a) are positively disinclined to use said computers and/or (b) haven't the foggiest of idea of what to do with them because all they know how to do is surf the web, send email, and use PowerPoint, that oh-so-useful K-12 app.
A few years ago I was faced with a similar dilemma: a book on computer game creation, one which I wished for my students to read, was regrettably out of print.
I found a PDF of it online, being used at another university. I contacted the professor and asked how she had come by it; she gave me the author's email address.
I contacted the author, explained what I wanted to do, and he gave me authorization to freely use the PDF.
Well, I agree that 'nearly 2' is not the age to be getting the child a computer.
However, try back in a year or two... I'd recommend an old Mac clamshell iBook and a keyboard condom.
Nearly indestructible.
I also agree with other poster comments with regard to sandboxes, crayons, actually spending time with your child, etc.
I think we held off until our twins were nearly 4 because we didn't want them forever tethered to electronic devices as children (unlike their parents as adults, of course).
Well, I agree with a large part of what you've said.
I also think the ramifications of the jury's decision are chilling.
But depression and antidepressants in children simply aren't well understood. Perhaps Tina was exercising 'tough love'. Clearly she was pissed that she'd told Megan to get off the computer *for her own good* and was annoyed that Megan did not.
Do you coddle such behavior? (that is, in your view, not knowing the outcome)?
All I'm saying is that Lori Drew deliberately set out to hurt a child. It's not clear that Tina Meier did so.
And I'm still to see any evidence that Lori Drew regrets her actions, which was my original point.
Slashdot Mirror
I once worked for a guy in the '80s who, when I wasn't there, would place a stick-on label onto his 5-1/4" floppy and then insert the damned thing into a typewriter to type the label for that disk's contents.
Oh, and I never could break him of the habit of dumping everything into the root drive (DOS days). Simply couldn't grasp sub-directories but wondered why the computer was slow as snot.
I also remember a time when a client's Mac harddrive had no fewer than seven System Folders in various locations.
bad link?
Nope. I've tried it twice and had it work.
Try this:
http://www.deadtroll.com/index2.html?/video/helldeskcable.html~content
I've had many a student like this.
Obligatory Tom Lehrer Smut! reference...
Ummm, no, these are not ignored costs; these are simply the costs of continuing to use M$ products
Which of my points do not apply for using Sun, IBM, or any other major vendor?
The Solaris I've used for more than a decade hasn't changed its (command-line) look'n'feel to my noticing it; I never did use OS/2 so can't comment on that, and Apple's changed its look'n'feel so gradually over the course of time that nothing compares to the total UI indifference of M$ in terms of the end-user learning experience.
For many years I taught the "how to turn on your computer" course for my local university, and I taught it on Mac (OS 6-9), PC (DOS through 98 & NT I believe) and Solaris (in both sections, just to give them an exposure to file management, ftp, telnet, email and emacs).
Making my own handouts for the PC sections was a never-ending nightmare of an experience (I think at one point, between the various versions of Word/Excell and Works across the two major OS platforms, I counted something like *6* different menu locations for something really mundane, like "insert header/footer" or some such thing). Students would be completely befuddled and frustrated to the point of asking me why, in the name of all things holy, couldn't M$ have made the Office "standard" they used in our PC labs even remotely like the Works "standard" that came preinstalled on their computers.
By contrast, I rarely had to update my Mac handouts (unless it was for a Windows app, especially after the disaster that was Office 6 for the Mac) and never at all if memory serves me for my Solaris handouts.
And I cannot even begin to *think* about the "ribbon interface" of current Office without feeling the need to spit tacks as if I were a nuclear detonator.
There's simply NO EXCUSE for this kind of UI crap.
You are 100% correct, if you completely ignore corporate America using Windows.
Lets take a large corporation as an example and look at the costs you ignored:
Dozens of in house Windows apps, which would either need to be re-written or at least fully tested again in an emulation environment. Training for the end users for a new OS. Training for the end users for a new Office suite.
snip...
Ummm, no, these are not ignored costs; these are simply the costs of continuing to use M$ products (Am I the only person who's slogged through the Windows and Office Bataan Death March??
Yeah, or, better still (price-wise), SmallDog Electronics.
We had one of those clones -- a Power Computing machine. I don't know that I'd say it was faster than similar Apple-branded machines, but I will say that it didn't take me long to decide that it would be the LAST clone I'd ever buy.
There's a reason why they were cheaper... made from much cheaper components. The case was flimsy, the cables looked gerry-rigged to make them work with Apple monitors, everything about them just screamed cheap!
Google "deauth dead machine iTunes".
It's right there on Apple's website. You don't need said PowerBook.
R E L A X.....
Right, because obviously we can lay rather alot of this crap at the whole "constructivist" teaching revolution in which there simply is no such thing as objective reality.
There is no gravity; we've all simply and separately come to the conclusion that the earth sucks.
This is why education in the US sucks. Because they refuse to admit that there is such a thing as objective reality. And that's why they can't be taught technology.
This stuff needs to be covered where we can MAKE them pay attention, like, before they get their degree/certification. But THAT would require that the older-than-dirt Ph.D.'s in ed who oversee their teacher prep coursework would know/understand the need to know anything about technology.
And that obviously ain't a gonna happen...
In all fairness, PowerPoint is pretty hard to use properly. I can't stop it from putting in *WHOOSH* sounds every time it changes slides.
That's because it sucks. There really isn't any good use for it in K-12.
I think I read it best here: Power corrupts; PowerPoint corrupts absolutely!
At least it wasn't PowerPoint.
Actually, not music. There's some very interesting software being used at our local middle school. Used with a mic, the software will evaluate the student's playing of a piece in the accompanying book. It will point out errors. It also will play accompanying sounds from other instruments. I don't recall the name, but it really is pretty neat!
I'm currently doing some research on this, and here are just the beginnings of what I suspect will turn out to be a seriously depressing state of teacher technology training:
... contention is that precious staff development funds are being eaten away by initial training that should, and could, be provided by preservice teacher education programs... A recent report from the Office of Technology Assessment (1995) confirms that only 3% of recent teacher education graduates felt "very well prepared" to use technology in the classroom... Sadly, Researchers have been reporting for at least a decade that schools and colleges of education are woefully behind schedule in areas related to technological uses in today's K-12 classroom (Brooks & Kopp, 1991; Dublin, 1994). Individually, most professors recognize technology training as a growing need... Programmatically, though, they still think it should be taught as a stand alone course, not necessarily integrated into their specific content area (Barksdale, 1996)... The same author notes in the abstract the resistance of many schools, colleges, and departments of education to embrace technological applications into their methods coursework. -- Technology and teacher preparation: an oxymoron?, Stetson & T. Bagwell, Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, v. 7 No. 2 (1999).
Most teachers have not had the education or training to use technology effectively in their teaching. Only 15 percent of U.S. teachers reported having at least nine hours of training in education technology in 1994. In 18 states, teacher education students do not need courses in educational technology to obtain a teaching license. -- Computers and Classrooms: The Status of Technology in U.S. Schools. (Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service, 1997).
When making millions available to place computers in the classroom and wire said classrooms, the Clinton administration listed as number 1 of its 4 related goals the following:
All teachers in the nation will have the training and support they need to help students learn using computers and the information superhighway. And 10 years later, here we are, again, with the incoming administration proposing to just dump still more money into the same technology black hole.
Who will train the teachers? Currently... the national average for funds devoted to technology training is only 5% of the technology budget (Mageau, 1995)... superintendents
Hey, hey, HEY! This is slashdot! No guitar analogies allowed -- only car analogies.
I thought we recently amended that rule to include sky-diving analogies...
Because then THEY'D have to admit that they are incredibly undereducated when it comes to technology. Really.
How about this:
if "foo" = myBar then
answer myBar
end if
Revolution
Why do 11 year olds need to learn "a real-world language" that (a) will only frustrate the hell out of them and (b) may well be on its way to obsolescence once *they* are ready for the "real world"?
Pascal at least (which I'm certainly not recommending) was developed as a *teaching* language.
Today's kids are not going to be enthralled with "Hello World."
Revolution would be ideal for the following reasons:
1. You can download a 30-day demo for Mac, Windows and various flavours of *nix.
2. It supports the basic programming concepts you mentioned without being overly burdened by misplaced semi-colons, strongly typed data, or really.hard.to.read.crappy.dot.syntax
3. It has a GUI with drag-and-drop GUI interface elements that appear platform-native on the platform on which it is being used (and later deployed -- it's truly write once, run anywhere).
4. It uses a scripting language that is like Hypertalk on steroids and thus leverages the students' naturally occurring understanding of natural English language constructs (e.g., "put 3 into myVariable" etc.).
Because it's graphical, because you can test without compiling, because you can start something out in class on, say, a Windows or *nix box, then take your project home and continue working on it on, say, a Mac, and then back again, because it leverages natural language, it really is an ideal introductory programming environment.
Give it a try!
Ummm, I'm embarrassed to admit that I HAVE one of 'those master's degrees' ... mostly because what you say of them is god's honest truth.
Here's an actual textbook example of the teaching theory crap I got in my master's program:
(1) What does it feel like be a tree?
(2) What does it feel like to feel bias?
(3) What does it feel like to be a tree that feels bias?
Weelllllll.... (a) I don't give a shit, (b) I fail to see how this helps little Johnny learn to read/count/not beat up his classmates, and (c) we wouldn't be having this pointlessly stupid attempt to artificially kick-start the creative brain if we hadn't taken the arts out of the schools.
I had to drink half a bottle of wine on an empty stomach to get through the weekly online discussions of crap like this.
Yeah, but what's really 'unacceptable' is that, 10 years after the last failure of an administration's dumping millions of dollars into 'computers for the schools,' we STILL have teachers who either (a) are positively disinclined to use said computers and/or (b) haven't the foggiest of idea of what to do with them because all they know how to do is surf the web, send email, and use PowerPoint, that oh-so-useful K-12 app.
A few years ago I was faced with a similar dilemma: a book on computer game creation, one which I wished for my students to read, was regrettably out of print.
I found a PDF of it online, being used at another university. I contacted the professor and asked how she had come by it; she gave me the author's email address.
I contacted the author, explained what I wanted to do, and he gave me authorization to freely use the PDF.
Well, I agree that 'nearly 2' is not the age to be getting the child a computer. However, try back in a year or two... I'd recommend an old Mac clamshell iBook and a keyboard condom. Nearly indestructible. I also agree with other poster comments with regard to sandboxes, crayons, actually spending time with your child, etc. I think we held off until our twins were nearly 4 because we didn't want them forever tethered to electronic devices as children (unlike their parents as adults, of course).
Well, I agree with a large part of what you've said.
I also think the ramifications of the jury's decision are chilling.
But depression and antidepressants in children simply aren't well understood. Perhaps Tina was exercising 'tough love'. Clearly she was pissed that she'd told Megan to get off the computer *for her own good* and was annoyed that Megan did not.
Do you coddle such behavior? (that is, in your view, not knowing the outcome)?
All I'm saying is that Lori Drew deliberately set out to hurt a child. It's not clear that Tina Meier did so.
And I'm still to see any evidence that Lori Drew regrets her actions, which was my original point.