Students Do Better Without Computers 672
Gogogoch writes "The Telegraph
is reporting a large study that shows that the less students use computers
at school and at home, the better they do in international tests of literacy
and math. The more access they had to computers at home, the lower they scored
in tests, partly because they diverted attention from homework. Students tended
to do worse in schools generously equipped with computers, apparently because
computerised instruction replaced more effective forms of teaching. " Worth noting that it took almost 20 years for PCs in the corporate environment to actually have a positive impact on productivity; might the same be true in education?
Hormonal (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporations still have a hell of a time keeping employees off of Solitaire and Minesweeper. I think this is not a computer problem, but a "bored at work" problem. I can remember my teachers in high school - most of them were the most boring people you would care to meet. A select few would enlighten and invoke interesting discussion and methods to achieve success on the course.
So this clearly is not a computer problem, but a teacher problem. Adding a distractive device that lets you leave a boring class is only a small price to pay to prevent the stagnation of our children's collective intellects.
Let's put more money into better programs and methods for teaching, and wash out the teachers who aren't interesting. Maybe add some profit incentives for teachers?
Re:Hormonal (Score:3, Insightful)
and yes i am "bored at work" and "reading slashdot"
Re:Hormonal (Score:4, Insightful)
I do not believe that this is quite the issue at hand.
The problem arises from educators (and parents, for that matter) that view computer proficiency as a panacea for shortcomings in the three Rs (they still have those, don't they?).
First, a little background. I am currently working on my Ph.D. in a town by the name of New Orleans. To make a little extra scratch, I tutor high-school students on the side, primarily in the sciences and maths. As a function of my expertise, I tend to only work with students whose parents are well-off. These students tend to attend the private (and very expensive) high-schools that require each student to own a laptop. The students do not even strictly need the tutoring, except Mom and Dad are hell-bent on getting them into Tulane (state schools are anathema)
This, in and of itself, is not the problem. The problem is that the schools, in an effort to justify the expense, encourage, and sometimes require, the teachers to use the laptops in every aspect of the student's education. This includes note-taking, textbooks on CD, 'math exploration', and computer labs (for the sciences). How does it work out, you ask? Well, personally, I think it works out very poorly . Note-taking devolves into solitare and IMing their significant other, CD textbooks crack after about 2 uses (and God help you if you want to make a backup copy) and cost as much as a paper edition (if not more), 'math exploration' is basically rote copying of the commands the teacher puts on the board and saying "oooh, look at the pretty pictures," and computer lab sessions are no better than following the pictures in a book.
By leaning too heavily on the crutch provided by the computer, the students learn virtually nothing (not even all of the basic computer skills). The tutoring I provide is generally nothing more than patient explanation of the material. These students need nothing more than an instructor who knows how to cater to his or her audience.
While I believe that computers have a place in education, they are currently being overused (it's the old 'if you have a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail' problem). I feel that part of the problem is discipline (or lack thereof) on the part of the students, but misapplication of a useful tool isn't helping. Most of the posts I've seen thusfar state that they often whiled away the time in boring classes with other pursuits, as did I (for me, it was origami), but I bet they got caught and corrected every now and then. It's a helluva lot more difficult to police a room full of computers, and frankly, in high school you don't have the self-discipline to know when you should but the calculator down and pay attention. As much as teachers hate playing baby-sitter, as a public speaker you also have to realize when you're losing your audience. When all your students have the glazed monitor-eyes, it's really hard to tell when you've lost them.
As suggested in the original post, it may take awhile before computer use in the classroom really has some effects, but the current usage is exceptionally detrimental to the current batches of Guinea Pigs in schools today (how else are new educational methods tested?).
To end on a humorous note, a little anecdote. One student I was tutoring was put through a summer 'Math Refresher' by her Mother, care of yours truly. Apparently her grades were not 'good enough' and Mom was concerned that there would be problems the next year. The student was not interested, and getting her to do any work was like pulling teeth. One day, she told me that she had been banned from using her computer to take notes because she had been caught IMing her boyfriend in class. I told her mother later that I believed that mandatory computer use in the class was having a detrimental effect on her daughter and, in my opinion, most students. As I ranted on, the mother's face turned into a grimace, and she began to of
Any (Score:3, Funny)
Wait - where is that? It's not on my standard 103-key.
Re:Any (Score:3, Funny)
Take a piece of paper about the same size as one of the keys on your keyboard. Write "any" on it. Tape it to a key that you don't use very often.
You now have an "any" key.
Re:Hormonal (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hormonal (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hormonal (Score:5, Insightful)
Because I can say I've almost forgotten how to write cursive, and printing is getting difficult. I think I hand write things about 10 times a year, basically when there is an essay on a test, or I have to take a note somewhere.
Everywhere else I type, either on my laptop, use grafitti on my visor, or type on my desktop. I can type much faster, with much less stress on my hands (my hand now cramps up in about 10 seconds doing handwriting).
On the other hand, I have compared my essays that are handwritten vs ones that are typed, and my typed essays are far better. Some of that has to do with not being timed, sure. But it also has to do with being able to easily do corrections with typed papers. I can rearrange paragraphs, sentances and the like to see how it flows best. I can come back a day later, and easily change a word that I've overused with a synonym, or maybe rewrite that entire sentance as it is currently redundant.
I can't do any of that with a handwritten essay. Each change listed above basically requires me to rewrite the entire paper, so I am far less likely to do that.
I'll just touch on the benefits of spell check and the ease of passing around a paper for review when it's on the PC. I'm in buffalo, I regularily have my sister in Ithaca, my cousin in Philadelphia and my friends a dorm over do a proofread of my paper. I can't realistically do that with a handwritten paper.
Re:Hormonal (Score:5, Interesting)
The common thing I see as a problem, is not the teachers or technology. All of my reletives v iew the tech as another tool. In fact, my grandfather was responsible for setting up the first computer labs in schools in Oakland County, MI in the 1970s (remember we're the lucky ones with county wide muni-wifi coming soon!).
Anyway, the problem they all cite is lack of support, software and overall expertise on the equipment. They always seem to be getting new stuff, but almost never are they properly trained. Even when they are trained it is on simple operation procedure, NOT how to make the technology an effective teacher tool.
Too often teachers simply send the kids to the lab and say go at it. Providing little instruction. the kids mindlessly point and click and have a great time, but because the concepts for a partiucular game are not reinforced it is simply an hand eye exercise.
I witness this first hand myself after taking my 5 and 3 year old to the public library. Both wanted to play the computer because it had fun games, neither actually did any thing educational. Basically clicked around and whated outdated shockwave animations.
Heck they both get more education playing my 5 year old dreamcast, because he had to learn to read the menus, and count objects and whatnot in the games.
Another big problem is the school board will push through bonds that can be used to purchase capital equipment, but NOT software. It has happened on more than one occassion that the idiots bought a bunch of new PCs but didn't have the funds to buy any software.
One time the state gavce $1500 to teachers to by a personal computer for home, but they did not give them $$ to buy the software they use at school. Since it was a "personal" machine they could not install software using any school liscenses.
My aunt and mother in-law both had nice ibooks laying around in a closet, until I rescued it and put linux on it and used it for a while. (I had to give it back when they retired, I never did hear how the new teahcer liked YellowDog).
So administration makes dumb decisions and there is never enough $$ ot support the equipment and train properly. It is sad, my local district has been spending bucku bucks lately on buildings, pools, athletic fields, theatre etc.
But in the same shortsighted way they spend all the money on tangible things, but cannot afford to properly staff the stuff. It costs $8 buck for a choir concert, that money used to be fund raiser for a trip, now almost all of it goes toward paying for the use of the theatre.
I am sure the admin people mean well, but it sure as hell seems silly that all the upper level jobs in our district are filled with $80K -$150k + jobs that have a doctorate in education requirement to "manage the pools and fitness centers" or be a athelic director. It really is ridiculous. Oh well I am ranting and getting away for the point.
The administration at all levels needs to GET A CLUE.
Re:Hormonal (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. I'm an old geek who had to use a typewriter for papers in college. Since you could not correct or change a thought in mid-page, like you can on a computer, writing consisted of multiple hand-written drafts. This was very time consuming and resulted in optimizing for the mechanics of producing an "acceptable" paper rather than polishing the content and thought process.
Add idiot pro
Re:Hormonal (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't imagine that Japanese teachers bend over backwards to make math and science fun, but Japanese students somehow excel in those subjects.
Why? Because these students have a strong work ethic. They don't go to school to be entertained, they go to learn, and they appreciate the value of education.
American students don't have the same respect for education. Unless it entertains them, they have no use for it. And even if a certain teaching style/tool does hold their attention, that alone doesn't make it effective.
All the fancy gadgets and fun projects don't amount to jack if students have no motivation to learn.
Re:Hormonal (Score:5, Insightful)
Japanese schools work better than ours because they are extremely competitive, do not refuse to provide higher level instruction to those who excel and because they innovate. The parents there also regard school very highly and go out of their way to make sure their kids are competitive.
Our highschools on the other hand are based on the least common denominator.
Whether a competitive philosophy would be useful or welcomed in American highschools is doubtful. Japanese and other Asian countrie's schools have the downside of being straight-up brutal and can only operate in a nation where conformity and obedience to the state is a keystone of the culture.
What US schools need is a few major reforms. Amend the various laws that require schools to provide services to special ed kids to include having to provide services to those who need more advanced courses and/or require them to let them graduate early. This would stop the mindless holding back of the gifted kids. I once had to repeat a math course, the exact same text in fact, just because the school did not want to inconvenience itself with a 6th grade level math group in 5th grade. So after taking 5th grade math in 4th grade I was screwed over and I think that was probably the point where I realized school was not there for my benefit but mostly for the benefit of the beuracracy.
Re:Hormonal (Score:4, Informative)
No, the problem is that every student in the U.S. gets a secondary education (high school). On the other hand, Japan weeds out the very best at an earlier age. A kid's future is decided before he or she grows up.
Re:Hormonal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hormonal (Score:4, Insightful)
I read some where that Japanese people are the most stressed out people. This leads to health issues and break downs. I value education as much as they do but not to the point were I can't stand it anymore or at the risk of my health.
Re:Hormonal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hormonal (Score:3, Informative)
I was certainly suprised when most of the students would regularly show up ten minutes late to class. The teacher, who was Chinese, wasn't terribly punctual either, but we still had a great class.
So, all of those rumors about Japanese kids all b
Re:Hormonal (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time something like this is suggested in the US we get to hear about how the self-esteem of children will be destroyed, etc. Our school system seems to value self-esteem more than learning these days.
BTW: This may also be a reason why students in other countries fair better on tests...they aren't testing the one's that are in the trade schools.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hormonal (Score:3, Insightful)
Standardized Testing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hormonal (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about those words for a second. How else do you not leave a child behind unless you hold everyone else back with him?
Re:Hormonal (Score:3, Interesting)
My son's teacher spent a lot of time on interesting and creative pojects in science and culture. Two years later when my daughter was in her class all of that was gone. Virginia's Standards of Learning (SoL) regeme was in effect. All teaching was replaced by test preparations.
This is in the best school distrect in the stat
Re:Hormonal (Score:3, Insightful)
Great, fantastic, lovely, I'm so happy your son is creative and culturally sensitive.
But does he know when the US Civil War was? What about the Revolutionary War? Who the 1st President was? What the Articles of Confederation were? Has he memorized his multiplication tables? The names of the 8+1 planets, in order? Can he locate all 50 states and most of the European countries on a map?
Kids have to learn
Re:Hormonal (Score:3, Insightful)
The real question is, can he google?
I'd rather a kid who was well-rounded, creative and innovative who didn't know those things (but knew exactly how to find out), than somebody who was dull and unintereste
Re:Hormonal (Score:5, Insightful)
Nor do most American teachers (in my experience). Or maybe not "most", but many. And enough that it serves as a partial explanation as to why students don't respect education.
Sure, teachers are extremely interested in having their students read and memorize trivia, doing exactly as their told at ever turn, but contrary to popular belief, that isn't "good education". What they're teaching kids is how to be bored and boring zombies, good little inefficient worker bees.
Probably the best way to make people disinterested in education is to force them to sit through 6 hours a day of mind-numming drek, and then force them to repeat the process at home for another 4 hours, repeat that whole process 5 days a week, 10 months a year, for 12 years, and call that "education".
The whole idea of a "work ethic" tends to be used in a bogus manner-- as though some people just have a mysterious virtue of being willing to work hard for no good reason. However, the truth is that people who have a good "work ethic" have usually been educated first that their work means something-- that their efforts are worth something. Expecting people to work hard, with no real purpose or meaning, by virtue of a mysterious "work ethic"... well, I have my doubts it will happen, and if it did, I'm not sure it would be a good thing.
But I guess I'm being off-topic.
Parents don't have respect for education. (Score:4, Interesting)
There are many faults with the school system. Parents have to realise that they are one of the problems.
Re:Hormonal (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly, learning to interact with computers is an important skill for modern life, and many concerns I've seen with computers in the classroom and home study environment are along the lines of "calculators will destroy students' math skills" from a few decades ago. Not a genuine problem, but instead a changing of what skills are important.
However, clearly the distracting power of computers is great. A teacher shouldn't have to compete with that in the classroom. After all, the primary purpose of school is to educate, not entertain, and while entertaining teachers are clearly better at their jobs, the educational system needs to work with the talent it has. In the classroom, this seems simple to sort out: only allow computer access with specific purpose, direction, and supervision for a specific assignment, or during free time.
At home it's an equal problem, but I think no worse that the introduction of the TV to the home. Everyone has to learn self discipline, and learning to avoid getting distracted when there's work to do is an important part of that. I think the only current problem is too many parents don't realize that sitting in front of the computer doesn't equate to doing something useful, and that's a temporary problem. Parents who want to make sure their kids are actually spending appropriate time doing homework will wise up soon enough, and if you take the computer away entirely, how will the student learn the important self-discipline of avoiding distraction?
Re:Hormonal (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does someone always say it's the teacher's fault?
Here's my suggestion: It's the kid's fault. If you choose to not pay attention in class, that's YOUR fault. No one else's. Enough of the bullshit about teachers needing new methods and ways to make learning fun. Sure, those help, but frankly, if the student has no work ethic, he/she isn't going to learn.
Surprisingly, I found Chemistry to be boring as hell, but I still learned the material because that was my job. Stop pretending that kids should have to be cajoled to learn and tell them it's their job. If they don't like it... fine. They can not learn, but then THEY take the consequences, not the teachers.
I'm not saying there aren't bad teachers, but I've known a LOT of them, and most of them work their arses off and buy things out of their own income to teach kids and yet they're always the ones who get blamed. In the meantime, I see a lot of parents coming into the library and doing the homework for their child without the kid even being present. Yet when Little Johnny fails that test, it's apparently the teacher's fault.
Slightly more on-topic than that rant, computers are tools. They should be used as other tools are: when appropriate. Instead schools often seem to try to integrate them into lessons that are better off not using computers. It's like giving kids Bunsen burners for every lab, even ones that don't involve heat. Too tempting to pass up and usually detrimental to what they were really supposed to learn...
Re:Hormonal (Score:3, Insightful)
There are clear correlations between the influence of various teachers and teaching techniques and methods and so forth. These will, reliably, improve the results of the teaching process. This has nothing to do with the individuals involved (assuming their are statistically normally distributed).
This is especially importart
Re:Hormonal (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the hell would I bother reading the whole book and getting a broader perspective of the topic I'm studying, or spending an afternoon in the library researching the subject, when I can type search google for a quick review or answer to my problem? This is the reality, this is what kids are doing today.
Re:Hormonal (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hormonal (Score:5, Insightful)
Likewise, if you learn to program, use reference sites for studying (or to find out more information on topics you broach in books, newspapers, conversations, etc) - then you're probably going to score well because of your mentality.
Computer usage itself is not the problem. How the computer is used is not the problem either - but it's a great indicator of your problems.
Hell, a decade ago, computers were not just some toy to hop on and chit-chat with while listening to the latest rap or pop song. While it was used for games, there was an enormous amount of learning, exploration and discovery going on. It was back before a time when everything was glossy, corporate and homogonized.
It's a bit like food. Saying "food makes you obese" is stupid. There's nothing wrong with food or eating. But if you eat doritos and twinkies all the time, there's a problem. Likewise, someone who takes the time to prepare and serve quality food with good ingredients and a generally healthy intention is making good use of food. They have the right mindset.
But hey, some people would rather blame "that evil computer!" than "my stupid kid!".
Re:Hormonal (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, students should learn how to use computers. That doesn't mean they should be in every classroom, or should be used in a pathetic attempt to replace teachers. Learning how to use a word processor and a web browser is maybe two weeks of instruction in middle school, not a major educational investment.
Computers will no more be the magic bullet
Re:Good Point: The ANY Key (Score:5, Insightful)
The vast majority of children who use computers today do not actually learn anything about them. They know how to use some apps like IM clients and word proccessors, but that's about it.
Contrast that with 20-30 years ago, when I was a child. Of those that used computers at all, the vast majority of children back then learned a lot about computers themselves. Those children are now posting on Slashdot today, talking about how much they learned about computers when they were a child, and so there must be something wrong with the study.
Re:Good Point: The ANY Key (Score:3, Funny)
I thought those children went on to build computers in their garages and found successful companies, thus not having time to post on Slashdot
zerg (Score:5, Funny)
Re:zerg (Score:3, Insightful)
Usually they simply state that companies aren't making any more money now than they used to be, and so productivity hasn't imporved. The two aren't directly connected, however.
What happened is that everybody automated, and so everybody's costs dropped, and so everybody lowered prices to compete. Everybody makes the same money, but a tax accountant today costs the same or less in 2005 dollars as they cost back in the 70's using 19
What Matters (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What Matters (Score:5, Informative)
And you just don't get any better examples ... (Score:5, Informative)
What Matters (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy didn't read the article, yet felt qualified to comment on it anyway. Other people who didn't read the article found his comments "insightful" despite the fact that they contradicted the findings of the article.
Re:What Matters (Score:3, Informative)
You did read the article and quoted part of it, yet your rating isn't as high as the guy's who skipped the reading.
Welcome to Real Life. It's just like this in the work force which is why the article makes so much sense.
It isn't what you know. It isn't what other people know. It's how well you can re-state their pre-existing opinions to impress them. It's all about what other people (who didn't do the reading) BELIEVE you know.
Re:What Matters (Score:5, Insightful)
rob:~$ python
Python 2.3.4 (#2, Dec 3 2004, 13:53:17)
[GCC 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-2)] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> sum(range(101))
5050
And if knowing the sum of the first 100 naturals was all that I ever needed, the computer would be extremely useful. On the other hand, if I had no computer, I would probably be forced to think of something clever, like Gauss, and actually learn something. The insight I derived from the thinking is much more valuable than the answer itself. I think the problem with computers is that they are a crutch as much as they are a tool.
I'd personally much rather hire someone who got in A in calculus without using a calculator rather than one who did it with a TI-89.
Parents (Score:3, Interesting)
Though of course, parents will also be using it as a surrogate TV.
This is news to people? (Score:5, Insightful)
How the hell is any of this news to anyone?
computer illiterate teachers (Score:5, Interesting)
Parents are the best tool. (Score:2, Insightful)
use them properly (Score:5, Insightful)
Add to that teachers that know less about them than the students and you get a nice mess....
Computers can do wonderfull things but you have to use them right, they should only be used to add something usefull like better representations.
They should be used to teach things USING computers not just to teach 'computer'.
Jeroen
Re:use them properly (Score:4, Informative)
I teach in the school of ed at a university, classes meant to help future teachers understand the proper way of using tech to teach something else. Even by the end of the semester, after lectures, assignments, expert models, and micro-teaching with feedback, some of them still don't get it.
I find the ones who understand us quickly are the science teachers. The English teachers are usually second to get it, followed by history, dance, and everyone else. The interesting thing is that this trend seems to be independent of the time we spend, and the resources that are available in each field. Science does have tools like Logger Pro, but we cover video editing for the dance people, and they just don't see its usefullness.
Re:use them properly (Score:3, Interesting)
But the authorities are under pressure to as much computer equipment into as many schools and classrooms as possible, so most of the money is spent on procurement rather than deployment.
So the schools get no say in whether they want the money spent on computers or not: it is top-sliced from their budgets before it ever get
Well, duh (Score:3, Interesting)
And let's not forget that when students do their homework on their computer, they're only copying and pasting stuff they found on the net. How is that learning?
Computers are tools. They CAN be used for improving learning. But they rarely are.
Anyone with a kid already know this (Score:5, Insightful)
God forbid kids without computers might actually pick up a book and read it for fun.
We've got a generation of adults who, once they're out of school, have lost the ability to read anything longer than a magazine article. It's not ADD - it's simple laziness on everyone's part.
But that's okay, ply them with Ritalin while continuing to fight the "war on drugs". So what's next in our irresponsible, don't accept blame society - people suing computer/os suppliers because their computer made them "stupid"?
Re:Anyone with a kid already know this (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the article, it's rather self contradictory. First
"Once those influences were eliminated, the relationship between use of computers and performance in maths and literacy tests was reduced to zero"
Then,
"The more access pupils had to computers at home, the lower they scored in tests, partly because they
Re:Anyone with a kid already know this (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the key phrase in your sentence was "My dad taught me ..." You could never replace your father with a computer. That's what schoools have tried to do, replace teachers with boxen - and it's failed.
Stoll's "High Tech Heretic" (Score:5, Informative)
(Stoll posts in
Re:Stoll's "High Tech Heretic" (Score:4, Informative)
The day it was discoverd when i was in primary 3( about 7 years old) I went from a D student to a straight A student, other students in my class also used computers to learn ( this is back in the mid 1980s)
I have used them all my life and to me they were and still are invaluable , so i imagine its best to see this as a situation where you just have to have the right tool for the job
Don't Blame the Tool (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't Blame the Tool (Score:3, Interesting)
"Computers can making teaching more effective, but they can't make it just happen, that's what teachers are for."
Exactly! Wish I could mod you up. Sounds more like an issue of what those kids are actually doing with the computers and for how long.
Sure, if they're planted in front of them like an interactive TV to "keep Bobby busy", you're likely to end up with a script-kiddie Spud who doesn't realize "HotBlonD69" is a 50-year old dude with a beer gut.
But pick the right programs appropriate for the
If you are interested in this reason, (Score:5, Insightful)
If anything, its a problem with education not competiting enough with other distractions.
First you have to convince me... (Score:3, Interesting)
sPh
Re:First you have to convince me... (Score:3, Interesting)
I worked in engineering offices in the drafting-pencil-and-typewriter era. Then I worked on implementing AutoCAD and word processing (for spec writing) at several offices. And finally worked in engineering again after the transition.
There is no question that task efficiency has been improved. The open question in my mind is whether task effectiveness or overall organizational efficiency has improve
It's also a money issue (Score:4, Informative)
I know of an inner city high school that had a crumbling building but was equipped with an ultramodern computer lab (we all know that it takes a 3 Ghz Pentium 4 with 1024 MB ram to do high school research) and a $100,000 3D printer. It's just sad how beauracracy manages to waste our money.
Needs time and effort (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole thing quickly turned into a babysitting device. "Do the math exercises the computer tells you to do while I grade your homework. When you're done, just sit quietly and keep yourself amused." Needless to say the plan lasted about a year before remarkably level-headed people sorted things out and things went back to normal (more-or-less).
I think most teachers already know this (Score:5, Insightful)
Do It Better (Score:2)
Oh wait. Never mind.
It's a tool (Score:2, Funny)
So no, a computer doesn't mean you worse off, using it to play minesweeper or talk on an instant messenger program as you work does.
Computers as the ONLY form of learning are bad (Score:3, Interesting)
I use a computer a lot but I also read a lot and I am perfectly capable of calculating without an electronic (or mechanical) calculator when it comes to basic arithmetic calculations (add, subtract, multiply, divide,...). Sadly that isn't true for everyone using computers today and I blame parents and the education system for that. We even have students at our Computer Science course at the University unable to calculate simply things like 2 to the power of 3. I don't think this is the result of computer use but the result of a lack of other forms of learning in addition to computer use.
It's not the computers (Score:5, Funny)
It's a difficult thing for a geek to accept, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
...computers don't belong everywhere.
Education is one of the places where computers don't really belong. A computer cannot answer questions, tell memorable stories that make information stick in your head, or deal with the oddball questions that only a living flesh-and-blood teacher can field.
Also, computers - by taking the drudgery out of your homework - leave you with less of an education. An example is Calculus. I learned calc with a pencil and a piece of paper. I had a simple calculator of the $5 kind. As a result, I have a better idea of what is going on than if I just simply plugged stuff into Student Maple. To put it another way, when I see an integral, I know about Riemann and know what I'm looking at.
Bottom line - there is no shortcut to learning. If you take one, you're not learning.
Re:It's a difficult thing for a geek to accept, bu (Score:3, Interesting)
I really have to disagree. Computers can bring a new dimension to teaching. As an example, while teaching about volcanoes a short clip of a volcano erupting could be a great addition. Sure you could always do this before with an old-style projector a
Re:It's a difficult thing for a geek to accept, bu (Score:4, Insightful)
Computers are certainly a valuable tool for instruction.
What they are not is a complete replacement.
There are certain kinds for learning for which a computer is very well optimized, and I'm not just talking about entertainment. A well written, computerized flash program could probably teach you vocab far quicker than a human instructor. The computer can keep track of your accuracy and even response time for each item, figuring out your weak points and concentrating on those. And it can do this equally well whether you have 5 classmates or 500. No teacher can match this feat.
The problem is that we are in the backlash of the education dotcom bubble. Just as with the business dotcom bubble, we're now looking at the ideas seriously and sorting out what works from what doesn't. It will take time as the correct tools and methods are identified. As with e-commerce, things will improve. Teachers won't be replaced, but their lives will be easier, and their students smarter.
Computer generally offer win-win, it's just a bumpy road.
Thats such a fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
To say that student is better off having NO computer is not only wrong, but incredibly stupid. Without good computer skills, college and real life is going to be an incredible struggle.
No, the problem isn't the computer, its the parents who don't control the situation and their environment. Granted, if a student with a computer has broadband with not restrictions, and addictive games like WoW, then yes, its going to be very detrimental to their education, but is it the computer's fault? No. Parents need to educate themselves and know/understand how to limit computer usage.
Its sad, but most children/teenagers see computers as nothing more than a toy, or a way to get "free music and movies". Don't blame computers or children, its obviously the parents.
Time on task (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have that emphasis, using computers in the classroom [indiana.edu] has a positive impact. If you just use computers for the sake of using them (or they distract students away, as in the article), they have a negative impact.
The other place where computers fall down in the classroom is that quite a bit of learning is a social activity, and some of the best teaching moments come from students teaching each other. But, if you put one student at each computer, you've just lost that opportunity. If you put multiple students at a computer, they're all focusing on the computer (and one is probably hogging the keyboard), so you lose that interaction that is so valuable.
The best use so far has been in science curricula where a simulation can replace access to expensive equipment or let students do what would otherwise be a dangerous experiment. But, for basic skills such as reading and math, computers are simply a distraction.
Some kids won't ever learn (Score:4, Insightful)
Once again, ignoring the real issue (Score:4, Insightful)
A. Computers automatically have some sort of drain on student grades because children are compelled to waste time on them no matter what.
B. Parents do not bother to properly monitor the time their children spend on the computer, even when it is at the expense of the childs educational responsibilities (homework, projects, etc).
Duh. I guarentee you this same report could have been released in 1990 with the advent of home game consoles, 1960 with the advent of television, or in 1930 with the advent of radio. If you're a good parent, you make sure your child does their homework before they get any TV/game/computer time, you're child continues to get good grades and test scores, despite the presence of those "evil" computers in your house.
Re:Once again, ignoring the real issue (Score:5, Interesting)
The best solution was my sister's (she has four kids): No one, including parents, get to use the computer, or watch the TV until everyone's homework is done. It's amazing to see her 14-yr-old helping her 12-yr-old with her math because the older one wants to get in some gaming.
Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
While I was in college, my sister was (and still is) a high school ballet teacher. She would bring home students' papers to grade over thanksgiving breaks. I would, occasionally, glance at some of the papers and be shocked at the terrible grammar and spelling. I swear it looked like an IRC chat log at times. It seems as though alot of kids don't realize that there is a difference between the way you speak to people (dialogue) and the way you write papers.
I also remember, here in the states, when our teachers would groan everytime we begged them to use calculators on math tests. They said "you'll learn more without them". They were right. Doing simple to mid level arithmetic in your head keeps your mind sharp.
On another note, look at the expression on the little girl's face who is sitting in front of the computer. Is that not classic a classic goatse reaction or what?
First teach teachers to use them (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we at least teach these people how to use the technology before we begin to blame it?
How bout other subjective tests? (Score:3, Interesting)
Students were once taught how to use a slide rule too, we don't seem to be lamenting the loss of that skill now.
Not suited for the task at hand (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's even worse than the 20 years it took for computers to be productive in the office. Not nearly enough R&D has gone into addressing the problem technology is supposed to solve, which is getting kids to learn academic subjects. There is no reason to think that a PC evolved to help already educated adult office workers is appropriate for students learning math in the first place.
Sure, I learned typing in high school, and there's nothing wrong with learning computer basics while computers remain so difficult to figure out. But that doesn't count as an academic subject any more than driver's ed.
Graphing calculators, on the other hand, have evolved with the input of math teachers and have been geared to the math curriculum, and designed with students in mind from the start. Just as graphing calculators would be sort of out of place in an English class, why do we think a PC should be appropriate across the board?
I can't imagine writing as much as I write nowadays without a computer and word processors and Emacs. But I can't work backward from there and say that means that I would have learned to write any better if everything was done on a computer.
PowerPoint (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but the moment a prof puts up a 'slideshow' and just reads it for the next hour, all education benefits go down the tubes.
I am more a fan of writing information out on the board. This forces the intstructor to explain themselves while they are writing. I think writing slows them down enough on a particular subject to allow their brains to think about all the extras they wanted to get across to the students.
Re:PowerPoint (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft hasn't invented the bad teacher. Hell, at least they can click next and keep moving, even if they don't explain or even understand the material. That's better than some profs I've had!
I will say that most excellent teachers I've known used powerpoint sparingly at most. They were alwa
Re:PowerPoint (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. PowerPoint is a tool, like any other. It can be used to create great presentations or it can be used to create terrible presentations.
I did a class in the late 1990'ies explaining internet ad and page statistics. I included pictures of an NBA game, to explain that counting pageviews was like counting basketball stats, and users were like players (each one has a unique numbers). Not only was this funny, but it made understanding the material easier.
It all depends on how you use PowerPoint.
20 years for PCs to help productivity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Man, you really can't have been paying much attention. It might not look this way, but tons of productivity enhancements have happened. Entire classes of the workforce that used to do nothing but manage paper have been eliminated. It might not be a competitive advantage (I remember there was a controversial book on that), but you definately have to keep up with the Joneses.
The reason education hasn't really worked out the same way is that one of the things computers do best is divisioning and reducing work. The average employee isn't doing things that are that much more complex than before, but the company does. If you buy a burger at McDonalds, their numbers are updated all the way up in an instant. People used to spend lots of time gathering numbers and adding them up. It's primary school algebra, but it took time.
When it comes to learning, the only real measure is how much you've improved yourself. If I get asked to write a book report, I can find one online in no time, but what have I learned? You can only go that far by being an information chameleon, able to find and present the thoughts of others as your own. When you finally get asked to do things which hasn't been done before, you're SOL.
Everything you learn in class has been done before, probably by someone smarter than you. But if we all were doing that, there'd be no progress. Only rehashes of the same time and time again. And the same lack of logic and reason also makes you a sucker for biased information, wrong information, religious indoctrination, scam artists, groupthink, racism, overall a push-over for anyone with an agenda.
The world doesn't need people to be human text-to-speech translators. We've got computers to do that.
Kjella
Maybe computer's haven't been the greatest thing.. (Score:4, Interesting)
This was all good an such, however there have been two things that have universally suffered: penmenship and spelling. I started typing reports and such at an early age and used it on everything but one report in the fifth grade which was mandated had to be hand written. Now my handwriting's been crap since day one, but I used to be able to spell worth a crap. Now I spell better in my second language (german) than I do in english primarily because I've been using spell check since MS Works 1.0 and anymore so long as I get close, office will automatically change the word.
I am sure that looking up information online has come in handy, but I can remember a couple years ago professors not allowing more than 1 internet resource per paper. And it was a good thing. Some went a step further and would allow no more than 2 electronic resources, which I found annoying because I often used Lexis-Nexis and EBSCOhost to find articles and frankly is there a difference if the New York Times article I found was on paper or electronic format if it says the same thing? Most of the students would grumble about having to actually go to the library and look up magazine articles or perodicals.
Frankly I think computers, and the Internet, has only fed the "I want it now" culture. If people now can't find the answer within the first page of Google, many are too lazy to dig deeper.
When it comes to computers in the classrooms, maybe we should hold off. Instead of having a shiny toy on every desk, anyone think we might should ensure that kids can actually read a book, spell, and do math without needing a machine to do it for them?
Only so much bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Get over it. The computer is not going to take a lazy kid and turn them into a genius. Only really attentive parents who actually spend time with their kids and teach them the correct way to use a computer deserve to have the kids with some chance of being a little smarter. The folks who want a "compuparent" or "videositter" deserve what they get.
This is not about computers... (Score:3, Insightful)
For every example you can give me of a kid who can't stay on task and get their standard work done because they are distracted by something other than real work, I can show you an example of students doing much better at some measure of success.
Put a bunch of kids within reach of a playground, freely able to access it, and a pile of work and guess what...?
This is why we organize what students do, in school (by teachers) and hopefully out of school (by parents).
Of course if we don't, unintended results take over, as they clearly have.
Computers in school are a WASTE OF MONEY (Score:5, Insightful)
Cash-strapped schools blow hundred of thousands of dollars on computers, then have to hire multiple people to maintain them for hundreds of thousand more, then have to train the teachers probably also for hundreds of thousands more, all for what? So the time spent in creative writing class can be half writing and half finding a PC not infected with Michelangelo? And if the average school is anything like my HS was, you know ever single box has a DVD+/-RW, tape drive and optical ethernet that never get used but was sold to them by a now very happy salesman.
And meanwhile the $35,000 salary for the music teacher is cut, and the art teacher, and there is no money for a can of paint or block of clay or roll of film. My school went from a Flag of Excelence school to a school with no arts/humanities and you had to pay to play sports. But we had COMPUTERS! LOTS OF EM! Burning eletricity 24/7.
It is unbelievable how much my old school district spent on computers that were literally ONLY used to replace a pencil and paper in writing class, and maybe to teach a typing class. That and for games after hours, or during class. Programming was taught on a VAX system. Ok, I'm old. Maybe times have changed since then but I'd put money on it that it hasn't.
Re:Computers in school are a WASTE OF MONEY (Score:3, Interesting)
In the public schools, we've been pretty happy with the level of access to computers - there's two in every classroom and
Business (Score:3, Insightful)
The "productivity" gains in business are due to increased facility with less competence. This type of efficiency is a benefit for business, but I dare say it is not for education in general.
Context (Score:3, Insightful)
I notice that a lot of the discussion going on here is about whether or not computers help students learn. That's not really the point of the debate. Even the referenced article says (in passing) that having computers at home is a distraction. That puts it in exactly the same league as TV, radio or friends--it's just a matter of play time versus homework time.
It's obvious that computers can be used to help students learn if used properly. That's also true of TV and pencils. Even the harshest critics of computers in education concede that one.
The real questions is whether the advantages of putting computers in schools justify their cost. A previous study (funded by a bunch of hardware and software companies--no bias there) said that yes, it was. The study TFA talks about counters that by saying, basically, that the study fails to take into account the fact that schools with computers can usually also afford more books, teachers and special programs and it's those things that are making the students better.
This whole computerization push is really good for politicians because it makes them look like they're doing something and it's really good for the hardware and software vendors because they can pocket a big chunk of the education budget. What it's bad for is the education system, because it diverts money that could be spent on useful things, and that's bad for all of us.
So in conclusion: computers are good for education but only if they're free.
Internet experience is "shallow" (Score:3, Insightful)
The internet is a useful source of information, but those who use it as their exclusive resource don't get a rich experience that's good for learning efficiently or being creative.
(I know about this stuff, because my wife just did a paper on it.)
Why are grades so important? (Score:3, Insightful)
Computers aren't Needed in High School (Score:3, Insightful)
The same thing goes on with textbooks. You don't need the 200th edition of the traditional subjects whose material hasn't changed at this level for 500 years. They load each textbook with distracting diversity crap about how some idiot halfway across the country uses math to distribute produce from their growing coop. Especially in the case of math texts. I use old school texts by the masters such as Gelfand, Spivak, Courant, etc. that are 30-100 years old and teach circles around today's math ed texts.
The whole thing is a plundering of resources that began at the administrative level. (Who deserves a several hundred thousand dollar salary for being a school district superintendant?)
Granted, there are problems with teachers and parents as well. Each of these groups of people need to get the kids to concentrate on learning and minimizing distractions. In addition, there needs to be increased discipline to get rid of people that don't want to be there and serve to be a distraction.
This is not surprising. (Score:4, Insightful)
In certain circumstances, computers can help, but overall, its not training the mind to do anything, just taking the workload off the mind so it atrophies.
Learn computer science, without computer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fast forward to college - they taught us an imaginary turing-complete Pascal-like language that no one practically used and made us do proofs and other tasks, mostly without the help of a computer. It wasn't fun, but it taught us to check our code. We'd read Knuth books, where most of the exercises were pseudo-code. We didn't just get on PCs and start coding.
Not having a computer in front of me made me THINK more about what I was going to do and how I was going to do it. As I later started programming tasks, I found that aside from typos caught by the compiler, my code normally worked the first time.
Moral: You don't need a computer to learn to be a coder.
PS: For those older than me... yes, I've heard the horror stories about having to rerun punch card decks. I don't envy having to punch all of my cards before I had a chance to run my code.
Computers in schools CAN harm education (Score:3, Interesting)
My school had the highest student-computer ratio in our state, and made a big deal of that. They spent a ton of money puting together computer labs. But aside from typing reports, no one ever used them. So then they started MAKING teachers use them. For example, all foreign language classes were required to spend one day per week in the lab. What did we do? We played Tres en Raya. A damn Spanish grammar game. I learned nothing, NOTHING from that. But I managed to waste away 20% of my learning time. Other classes had similar rules. Computers are great tools when needed, but most of the time in schools, they're not needed. The problem comes when those who signed the purchase orders for the computers try to cram them down the faculty's throat in an attempt to justify their purchase. There simply aren't a lot of places that they come in handy in schools. A few of the places that they do are:
1. Typing papers (for any class)
2. Internet research (school-related, not porn)
3. Advanced math classes (trig, calc, etc where you do a lot of complex graphing)
4. Computer classes (obviously)
5. Some science classes (interactive disection, etc)
So, if properly used, and if only used when needed, computers can be beneficial. But when used improperly, they can definitely harm and education. I won't even get into the whole "let the students run the network" issue.
IM clients with interactive spell checkers ... (Score:4, Insightful)
No message sent until the spelling is correct.
That might just work to keep the half-witted perverts out of the kids' channels by making message reception subject to correct spelling.
Who's going to get that out first? Slashdot? :-)
how did they invent computers without computers? (Score:3, Insightful)
who's going to do better - a kid using a calculator
to give him the answer, or the kid doing sums with
a pencil and paper? the point being, you don't need
a computer to invent a computer. the more you do things
manually, the more you are forced to develop your thinking.
once you've learned it the hard way, then the benefits
of automation become all the more apparent than the
person that has never had to do the work under the hood.
the same thing applies to programming - someone
who knows how to compile their own kernal
will have better insight into knowing things
are behaving the way they are.
there are many skills in the world,
one of them is computer fluency,
and because of the saturation in our environment
of them, you can almost pick them up along the way
for many things without ever having to explicitly
take a 'computer' course in school, just like you
can become taxi driver without ever having to
become a mechinic.
you want to live in the world before modelling it.
before i see formal database entries for different kinds
of fish and plants, i would think its better to experience
these things first hand (if possible - are there frogs
and milkweeds out in the creek beside the school -
why should i use a CD-ROM about them first? --first
i see the frogs, then i become curious, and i may even later
do a web search about these things to find out their history
and what other people have said. but simulation
never replaces first-hand real-world experience.
it amazes me last time i went to the museum
that they had an actual dinosaur skeleton RIGHT THERE --
first hand data from which everything is derived. and there
was nobody actually LOOKING at it - they were all too busy
watching a screen with a computer model of the artifact
in question --i.e. information ABOUT the artifact,
instead of studiously contemplating the actual thing itself.
this seems very typical of learning these days.
kids should run around, climb trees and play in the mud.
its all very good for them. then later on when they're
tired in the evening, settle donw and play a videogame,
and when they're curious enough, then maybe they'll
decide to go further, and try and learn how to programme
one themselves. but running and playing is more
important for kids then pointing and clicking.
they're already going to have loads of computers
in their life, but they're never going to have
time to play and run and climb trees again
like they do when they're young - let them.
the secret to staying young
in to never stop climbing trees.
regards,
j [earthlink.net].
Re:Note the articles doesn't bother to indicate... (Score:3, Funny)
"Their report also noted that being able to use a computer at work - one of the justifications for devoting so much teaching time to ICT (information and communications technology) - had no greater impact on employability or wage levels than being able to use a telephone or a pencil."
Probably true. After all, if you can't use a telephone or a pencil, you're at a severe disadvantage when trying to get a job.
Re:different context for improving productivity (Score:4, Interesting)
from my parent (previous) post: There is an amazing book on this topic -- it's a fairly dense (ironic) read, but hits on lots of these points, and offers research, and real life descriptions where computers were and were not effective. As one might guess after some thought, the positive "effect" of computers in the classroom has/had little to do with the fact that there were computers, and much more to do with well-rounded and caring staff dedicated to the education goals. I don't have the link or book name readily available, but if there are enough responses, or interest, I will reply to my post with the link....
As promised... here is the book and link: The Flickering Mind: The False Promise of Technology in the Classroom and How Learning Can Be Saved [amazon.com]