The Flickering Mind 455
| The Flickering Mind | |
| author | Todd Oppenheimer |
| pages | 512 |
| publisher | Random House (Oct. 2003) |
| rating | Excellent |
| reviewer | Lloyd Dalton |
| ISBN | 1400060443 |
| summary | An extremely well-researched critique of technology's role in education. |
What's bad:
The first 350 pages of The Flickering Mind are as depressing as anything I've read. In case after case, Oppenheimer describes politicians' and educators' mindless acceptance of claims by technology pundits and technology companies. The sheer number of tax dollars poured into worthless software and soon-to-be-obsolete hardware is appalling The fact that so few lessons have been learned in 20 years beggars the imagination.Those are my words, not the author's. The book's examples are laid out in very plain, factual language. No raving rants, no wild tangents. Just record after record, study after study, interview after interview.
Oppenheimer has researched the book by interviewing teachers, students, former students, educational software employees, district policymakers and government officials across the U.S. People with hands-on experience using things like distance-learning systems, CD-ROM-based textbooks, math and reading games, multimedia software, student laptops, school intranets, web-based research papers, and dozens of pieces of educational technology.
A recurring theme in these interviews is how computers either make formerly easy things harder (like classroom discussion), and hard things avoidable (students who know how to copy-paste don't have to construct sentences).
"One English teacher could readily tell which of her students essays were conceived on a computer. "They don't link ideas," the teacher said. "They just write one thing, and then they write another one, and they don't seem to see or develop the relationships between them."
The many interviews give The Flickering Mind a personal feel, and make the reading easier. In many ways, it's like a record of the author's travels from school to school. But one of the book's great strengths is Oppenheimer's unwillingness to rely on anecdotal evidence. Much of the book is devoted to analyzing studies of technology's impact in schools. A good chunk of these studies are commissioned by firms that sell educational software. Not surprisingly, they tend to be shallow and nonscientific. Many pages are spent pointing out flaws in this research. This becomes important when Oppenheimer turns the same critical eye on studies which support his own conclusions. An interesting sub-topic of the book is how very few truly objective educational technology studies exist.
All the evidence against computers as useful learning tools wouldn't be so alarming if computers didn't cost so much. But educators seem especially blind to the continual costs of staying on the technology bandwagon. There are two faces to this problem, and The Flickering Mind addresses both. The first is schools cutting faculty and programs in order to purchase hardware and software. The second is local and national governments granting subsidies and to companies who promise to assist schools with technology. In both cases, taxpayers foot the bill.
The Flickering Mind relies mainly on educators' own criteria for determining how technology helps learning (can the kids read, write, and do math?) But it also takes time to puncture the oft-recycled dogma that society has a shortage of graduates with high-tech skills:
"When employers who were fretting about this gap were asked what skills mattered to them, this is what they said: Most important of all is a deep and broad base of knowledge. "Want to get a job using information technology to solve problems? Know something about the problems that need to be solved." This statement reflected the sentiments of nearly two thirds of the Information Technology Association of America's members. Following far behind this priority was "hands-on experience" with technical work, which less than half the nation's IT managers considered critical (Most apparently felt perfectly capable of teaching those skills on the job.)
What's good:
All is not Luddite doom-and-gloom. The Flickering Mind is careful to highlight the areas where computer technology helps kids learn. Many schools do benefit from computers--as long as the computers are in central labs (not in the classroom), and not networked. One school has a senior-level class in which students build the computers used in the labs. Programming classes are valued by upperclassmen with an interest in technology careers. Some educators have made adjustments, like the teacher who removed all but a single-size font from the machines "so the students can write instead of wasting time adjusting the text".
The final third of the book is an uplifting counterpart to the ignorance and frustration described in the first two thirds. Oppenheimer gives details of visits to several schools which buck the trend of embracing technology as an end in itself. They use computers, but not in the class:
"In an aging brick building on New York's Upper East Side, a dozen teenagers of varying ages, half of whom look like street kids, pull their desks into a circle as their teacher distributes several thick handouts. "You're killing trees," one student complains."
"Yes," says the teacher. "I'm killing lots of trees"
After the students have spent fifteen to twenty minutes with the handouts, discussion begins. The debate is constant and heated. Whenever the dialog bogs down or goes off course, the teacher quickly interrupts. "I want to hear some pieces of evidence here!" he insists.
A university professor contrasted former students of this school with others she'd met: "I've had the experience of asking students a question and there's a one-sentence answer. And it's not a question of shyness or dumbness, but the person hasn't learned how to develop an idea. How to make a statement and then qualify and describe and give examples and illustrations. Each and every one of these people could do that."
Conclusion
The Flickering Mind is one of the most well-researched books I've read. It is well worth checking out from your library. It's even more worth buying, because you'll likely be re-reading it and lending it to your friends.
You can purchase the The Flickering Mind from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, carefully read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Re:Cut 'n' Dried (Score:5, Interesting)
The fourth person in the argument is a math teacher, (and soon to be head of her school's math department) who feels that computers are a distant second to Math, Science and Writing skills.
Unfortunately, the computer has become the panacea to bad teaching. They think that if you put a student in front of a computer and he is taught to use it, he'll magically acquire a competence in the pure sciences. Really, they'll be qualified to work as data-entry clerks, but the educators don't seem to understand that.
In fairness... (Score:4, Interesting)
Meanwhile, personal computers are now on their second generation of students, their capabilities change every year, as does what is needed to know to use them and The Future is all about them. It's not astonishing that teachers haven't quite figured out what to do with them.
The problem with computer education. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Grumpy (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, computers in the classroom doesn't necessarily sound like a good idea to me. A friend of mine is a teacher at an art college here, where they have invested a ton of money in technology and teaching the latest Web design, 3-D graphics, etc. He says he has a hard time keeping kids' attention in class when every one of them has a computer installed on his or her desk. He'll be trying to give a lecture and they'll be leaning over, giggling at each others screens as they pull up random pages on the Web. And these are *college students*, let alone high school age kids or younger.
Seems like you're better off having a large computer lab that students can use as a resource on their own time, the same way they do the school library. Or, wirelessly networked laptops on the desks would be fine, too -- just so long as they stay closed until it's time to get to work.
Speak For Yourself. (Score:2, Interesting)
When I was 7, I lucked out. My elementary school was one of the first in the state to have computers for students to use in the library. This was, eh, about 1980-81 or so. Apple ][s, to be exact. Three of them. They were available for students to use both during and after school.
Within a few weeks of their being installed, the demand was high enough that the librarians had to set up a list where you had to reserve blocks of time in advance. On monday mornings, I used to go to the library, and allocate time every day afterschool for that week.
By the time I was in 4th & 5th grade, I used to stay after school so long the custodians would have to come and kick me out.
Once I got to college, I decided I wanted to be a Unix administrator. My choice of career pretty much guarantees a salary well above the national average, and even above the majority of IT-related positions. Had I never been able to sit around and hack Lemonade to paint the sky red on Wednesdays, or hack Swords & Sorcery so that I was immortal, I would have never learned how to code, how to be creative, think logically, or be involved with computers in any form.
At every step of the way, there were computers in every school I went to. By the time I was in junior high, I was writing Risk/Empire'ish stuff. It taught me how to think strategically, and introduced me to languages other than BASIC. Things snowballed from there. Fast forward 15 years.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
Yes, that one. [ibiblio.org]
Computers in the Classroom (Score:2, Interesting)
So, they blindly added hundreds of donated, underpowered PCs to our network. More often than not, they were used for downloading pr0n, playing games and cheating on tests and homework. Not only did they take up valuable classroom space (where new desks and books would do much more good), they proved to be more of a hassle and a distraction to both teachers and students. (Especially those few students responsible for maintaining the network)
Teachers were required to post grades using one of two online grading services. More often than not, the teachers complained about the hassle and speed of a P90 with 16MB running NT4 than praising the marginal advantage of accessing grades from home.
Without looking into actually securing the network, the school let loose a swarm of worms and virii. The solution, "If you want to bring your own work in on a floppy, it must be run through NAV by the computer lab teacher." I guess they only travel through word docs on floppies...
Eventually, they cut a deal with some company to install TVs in every room in exchange for advertising time in the morning. The company would broadcast a short spot of news, play some advertisements and generally just push the product of the moment in the first 10 minutes of every day.
Anyway, I'd love to rant some more about the joys and "success" of having computers in the classroom, but there's just to much to list.
Re:Cut 'n' Dried (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, a lot of them do. I got into an argument with two friends over this one day. One's the principal of a school in Austin, the other is a teacher there. They both feel that computer skills are the number one thing they need to teach to make sure that students are successful, while I believe that Math and Science are. (I'm a computer professional.)
Do you not see your own brand of blindness here? I readily admit I'm a math and science geek, and love both. But I will also say that math and science are completely useless to a LOT of people who could not care less about it, and in fact, it's OKAY that they don't care. Very few things in this world require science or high-level math past arithmetic.
Reading and writing are infinitely more important, because they underpin everything, including critical thinking. I've known a lot of people who liked math and science, but were utterly useless as thinkers. Hell, just look at Slashdot. :)
Re:Cut 'n' Dried (Score:1, Interesting)
I would also point out that Computers would have to be a distant fourth to Math, Science, and Writing. If your math teacher couldn't figure that out then perhaps we have other problems to worry about.
Re:times are changing (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Clifford Stoll's two books (Score:4, Interesting)
Cliff Stoll is one hell of a good speaker. Bizarre too. He showed up at the ESC with two TV camera crews in tow, trying to interview him. He sat on stage before the talk, writing out his lecture notes on his hands. He had three or four milk-carton crates full of gadgets that he wanted to demonstrate, although I only recall one actually making it out of the box: a radar "speed gun" made out of an old coffee can and some electronics. He wandered all though the audience during his talk, at one point even coming out and taking over one of the TV cameras taping the talk. Although he had notes written all over his hand, he constantly seemed to diverge down new paths as they occurred to him. Oh yes, and then there was the four cartons of milk (or was it chocolate milk?) he drank during the talk. Very entertaining, and despite the apparent chaos of the lecture, he had the audience right in the palm of his hand when he wanted their attention... as at the end, when he talked about computers in schools.
If you ever get the chance to see this guy talk, don't miss it.
The problem isn't computers (Score:3, Interesting)
If they are treated as one of many tools in an educators toolbox, that would be very good. In high school chemistry class, we got to do some experiments on some old Apple II's that the school couldn't afford the expense or safety risk to do. Those are things that without those computers, we simply wouldn't have been able to do more than just read about, but with them, we got to do the experiments and see what happens. Perhaps not as good as doing the experiments with actual chemicals, but a hell of a lot better than just reading.
Re:Distance learning (Score:3, Interesting)
the public schools in my district have higher paid teachers and vastly superior facilities (i mean its not even close) compared to the private school. in spite of the fact that the private school spends 2/3rds of the public school (per student) the private school produces students that consistantly score 2 grade levels above the national average in reading and math on the standford 9 tests. OTOH, 80% of california public schools fail to achieve the national average for the grade level they are teaching and the public schools in my district score in the botton 25% of all california schools.
the bottom line? it's the parents and not the schools or the money put into schools that insure academic achievment. the dictionary is used in my home almost daily. reading, math and thinking are part of our daily home life and probably part of the daily home life of the other parents sending their children to the private school. NO amount of funding will produce a level of academic achievment which will come close to that of students whose parents really really really give a shit about education. talking about educational funding is a lot like arguing about the size of the firehose while the orphanage burns. it completely ignores the real problem. the educational crisis is a cultural problem, not an economic problem.
EDUCATION IS NOT SCHOOL. (Score:5, Interesting)
Because of this, I am likely to make better decisions about cryptography. I will not confuse a stream cypher with a one time pad.
Now:
More and more, my education is coming from the Internet.
I believe we need to rethink the whole concept of school, and what it is for.
Re:Cut 'n' Dried (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:part of my thesis (Score:3, Interesting)
We've established a laptop program that has been quite successful. The girls (it's a girls' school) learn the traditional curriculum, enhanced with laptops, a knowledge management system, and other technological tools.
The main tricks are not to let technology dictate the curriculum and not to simply layer technology on top of existing curriculum. When you see an example of poor technology use in a classroom, it's often because some administrator decided that a given technology is cool looking and dumped it into a school for photo ops. When you see technology actually impeding learning, it's because a new technology was deemed "important" and it was dumped into the lap of an untrained teacher using a lesson plan he or she wrote years ago. If that teacher tries teaching the same lesson with extra doodads, the instructional time increases, effective learning time decreases, and technical problems totally draw attention away from the point of the lesson.
Here's a little one page Statement of Philosophy I give to teachers who are new to our school:
EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT A SCHOOL LAPTOP PROGRAM
Basic Assumption:
1. Laptops facilitate in two areas, processing information & sharing information
Paradigm Assumptions:
1. Laptops need to be approached as a "participatory" (Marshall McLuhan) or "cool" (Don Tapscott) medium, not a technological one
2. Collaboration & group work is highly valued - otherwise, why use networked computers?
3. The laptop project should encourage presentation & sharing. Otherwise, why use laptops instead of desktop computers or even paper & pen?
4. "Math thoughts do not occur just in math class". Integrated learning is important and needs to be reflected in how technology is used
5. Laptops should be used only when appropriate
6. A laptop program should allow laptops to be used not only for academic activities, but also for social activities. The Internet was built on the former premise, but innovation came from the latter
7. It's difficult to predict the future. Fortunately, shaping the future is much easier
Implementation Considerations:
1. Portable laptops, in theory, will allow anytime, anywhere style of investigation - not only within the school but outside as well
2. Information (raw input & finished output) must be easily accessible & feedback must be immediate
3. The needs of students & teachers drive software implementation design - the technology must be invisible (at least, for the initial laptop grade)
4. Within the same software program, teacher needs and student needs are different
5. Complexity increases with each additional piece of hardware or software beyond what is "standard" in a laptop. Every modification or addition can crash a computer.
6. There are novice users and expert users and each approaches technology differently
If every individual in a school follows the spirit of this guide, and they have a handy-dandy jack-of-all-trades like me to assist, any technology use can't help but be at least a neutral, if not entirely positive, experience in that school.
Re:Cut 'n' Dried (Score:4, Interesting)
>Do it anyway. He'll get a better education that way.
I was going to say you were right, but then I realized that you're wrong. The kid won't get a better education, he'll get an education! Schools are about schooling, and education is not included.
There are very few good teachers, but those few are responsible for all the education which happens in the schools. For a good view of what schooling is all about, and how it differs from education, see John Taylor Gatto's [johntaylorgatto.com] essay, The Six-Lesson School Teacher [cantrip.org].
Re:Cut 'n' Dried (Score:2, Interesting)
I am a new English teacher. I teach reading and writting, but I also teach critical thinking. I don't do it directly of course. We read a story. We discuss it,a nd I force them, via the discussion, to think through problems in it. I ask questions (in discussions, one assignments and on tests) that require that the students use critical thinking to get to the answer. When a student can't get to the answer I don't just give it to him or her. I start them on the path towwards figuring it out. Maybe I help them with the first step, or give them a hint in the right direction. I never help them with more than a step at a time; I make them work things out.
The problem is that this is much harder to do. Also, it produces a much higher failure rate since many students refuse to try having been conditioned to the normal style of education. High failure ratres make me look bad. It is a bit of a cache-22.
Re:Cut 'n' Dried (Score:2, Interesting)
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DyeHard/
I've known a lot of people who liked math and science, but were utterly useless as thinkers.
Conversely, I've known a lot of mediocre thinkers who could have benefitted from the logic training that advanced math provides.
"Why do I have to learn this stuff? It's so hard, and I'll never use it in the real world." The blame for the second part of the complaint lies with math teachers. They cater well to the gifted among us, but do nothing to entice the rest of humanity into something that ought to be as joyous to learn as music.
As far as the first complaint, that math is hard, I can't help that. It is hard. So is music.
Calculus in particular and math in general should not be a grind. You cannot do well at it as long as you regard it as a dreaded battleground that you must cross in order to get your card punched. Instead, think of it as a hike over a mountain pass. Yes, it's hard work to trudge up those slopes. And yes, you long to rest in the valley that lies on the other side. But the view from up there is breathtaking.
And that's what calculus and higher math do for you; gives you a vantage point on the world that you cannot have any other way. It teaches you the language you must know to understand how the wind blows, how the waters flow, how the sun shines, how music reaches your ear, how the planets cycle through the heavens, and much more. Even the ebb and flow of such human activities as population dynamics and economics are better viewed from calculus' highlands. If you don't care about any of that stuff and prefer to remain in self-imposed ignorance, staring at your CRT day after day as you enter in column after column of meaningless data that no one is ever going to look at, looking forward only to the weekend so you can go kill some more of your rapidly dwindling supply of brain cells, thus temporarily forgetting your colorless, meaningless pathetic life, then so be it. Go with God.
One of my many hobbies is stained glass. Recently I made an icosohedron storage box using stained glass construction. I wanted a depth to the glass so each triangle is compsed of two layers; one of clear glass for the outside of the box and one of textured glass for the inside. In effect, I actually built two boxes. The triangular pieces that comprised the inside had to be slightly smaller that the outside pieces so it would fit together correctly, and tightly. I could not have built it if I did not know trigonometry. It is sitting on my shelf because I couldn't bear to part with it; a testament to the joy of higher math.
Pick up a book, my friend. Math and a strong vocabulary are the crucial building blocks of all other education. To focus solely on language skills and ignore math is to hough yourself.
Re:Cut 'n' Dried (Score:3, Interesting)
I've read that a promising practice is just to let teachers observe each other teaching on a regular basis, so that they have some level of feedback.
Re:um, unstructured ideas? (Score:4, Interesting)
The facts don't bear that out: the end result of computer-editing tends to be rather scattershot. I would argue that this is because coherent arguments start as fully-formed thoughts (in the short term; in the longer term obviously they develop, as one learns). The sad fact of the matter is that most folks don't seem to think well, and computers just give them an easy out.
Writing drafts by hand forces one to think--it's slow, and painful and spends money (paper's not free). Typing, by contrast, is easy and cheap. There's no incentive to think before jotting down whatever comes to mind. Much of my /. output is proof of this:-)
Back in college, I finally figured out how to write good papers: I went down to the local pub with a briefcase full of books and paper, spread it all out and started. First I read the books; then I wrote an outline; then I fleshed it out, then I wrote the paper a few times, then I went home an typed the whole thing up in LaTeX, printed it out, proofed it one last time & turned it in. Much beer was drunk and much tobacco sacrificed in my pipe throughout the process... Anyway, I ended up with straight As that year, compared to low Bs, a few Cs and some As.
Re:EDUCATION IS NOT SCHOOL. (Score:2, Interesting)
But school can be a useful place to prod education along.
In an ideal world, education would start long before school - after all, you learn to speak before school, and many children start to learn how to read. Schools are an ideal time and place to teach children how to learn in a structured manner. It should be giving them the framework to find their own answers, and more importantly how to frame their own questions.
Re:EDUCATION IS NOT SCHOOL. (Score:3, Interesting)
And if the kids would prefer not to do these things, they have to be required to do it. They're hard skills that can only be gained by practice. As near as I can tell, a computer won't help with any of them. Maybe after they have these skills a computer would be useful.