Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Education Technology

Report: Computers 'Do Not Improve' Pupil Results 283

An anonymous reader writes: A report issued by the UK's Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has evaluated how technology in classrooms affects test results, and found that the availability of computers provides "no noticeable improvement" to students' test scores. According to the report, "Students who use computers very frequently at school get worse results." Also, "high achieving school systems such as South Korea and Shanghai in China have lower levels of computer use in school." The organization warns that classroom technology can be a distraction if implemented unwisely, and it also opens the door to easy ways of cheating.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Report: Computers 'Do Not Improve' Pupil Results

Comments Filter:
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @02:50PM (#50526875) Journal
    Most computers now a days use LED screens which emit bright light. Using it a lot and staring at it for extended period of time will damage all parts of the eye, the cornea, the retina too, not merely the pupils. So it is understanda..

    wait, you are not talking about these pupils, right?

    • Having the pupil's grades on a computer secured by someone deemed knowledgeable enough to teach our future generation, tends to improve their grades.

    • by Adriax ( 746043 )

      Nope. This is a UK study, so you have to remember they use "proper" english slang. Like lift and flat instead of elevator and apartment.

      I believe Pupil is slang for Badger over there.
      Which makes sense. Badgers would get nothing out of a computer, except maybe a scratching post.

  • by Camel Pilot ( 78781 ) on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @02:51PM (#50526879) Homepage Journal

    Computers enable procrastination always providing readily available diversionary escape. Learning is still hard work... no short cuts.

    • I agree and disagree. There is a point that memorization is beneficial but just like multiplication tables after a point it is wasted effort with an unlikely return. LMGTFY is a huge modern skill lacking in many. Is it bad that kids in a programming class are pouring through stackoverflow to get the answers to the test? How many programmers here tweak Google searches in such sites as a normal occurrence of their day? That is cheating in the eyes of a school. So yeah, playing games all day is a distraction b
      • This was my thought exactly. It's like a headline reading:

        Study finds that computers do not assist students reshoe their horses any faster!

        You're testing for the wrong shit. If your test is "In what year did Columbus land in America?" And then you take away the computer the student won't do any better. Sure Asian students are fantastic little encyclopedias of useless shit but that is useful in one place: school; more specifically: during a test in school.

        Now let's take computers out of the class room and have a test which asks fourth graders "What month did Napoleon III start the

  • by rtkluttz ( 244325 ) on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @02:51PM (#50526881) Homepage

    Its not computers, magnet schools, charter schools, teacher pay, higher taxes or any of those even when statistics sometimes hint at showing otherwise. The commonality is involved parents who help their kids when struggle, demand they toe the line when they get hardheaded, and have expectations for success. Its just not politically correct to say so because parent involvement lines up so closely with racial lines. Not exact, but close enough.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Please have all the mod points.

      I don't know how many times we have to debate this, but no shiny new toy ever makes anyone more willing to learn.

      If you want to learn, you will. If not, nothing will help you.

      And yes, the strong correlation with parental involvement is not fictional.

      • by irving47 ( 73147 )

        Hell, he can have all the mod points, and I'll leverage our children's childrens' mod points to boot. It's depressing as hell that not only can we not talk about the statistics and demographics, but to change/improve the situation, what in the world would have to be done?

        BUT, I disagree on your different media/shiny toy point.
        A shiny, new interface that can engage more senses than a Ticonderoga #2 and loose-leaf paper or workbook.
        Sure, it might make a difference between interaction with a computer or watch

    • by Ayanami_R ( 1725178 ) on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @03:04PM (#50526999)

      Live in ghetto, am minority, can confirm. We are pretty tough on our 14 year old and DEMAND good grades. His friends parents... not so much. They pretty much check out once their kids hit middle school.

    • by Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @03:05PM (#50527011)
      You mean spending millions on Ipads doesn't mean we are progressing in education?
      • by Jhon ( 241832 )

        Well, LAUSD learned a valuable lesson. Don't buy ipads.

        • by irving47 ( 73147 )

          But would you entertain the argument that it could depend A LOT on what the iPad is loaded with?

          • But would you entertain the argument that it could depend A LOT on what the iPad is loaded with?

            To this point, I've not seen anything to convince me there are apps that make much of a difference. I'm sure there are some clever ones, but I've not seen anything yet that is any sort of game changer. My kid uses chromebook in school, most of the time it is for report generation and researching stuff on the internet. Some convenient methods to submit finished items to the teacher are nice, and help productivity, but are nothing you can't do on the home computer as well.

            Lots of stuff looks impressive whe

      • You mean spending millions on Ipads

        Billions, with a B. Spent in one city, Los Angeles. We're not talking nationwide here. And guess how the test scores are in the lovely public schools of Los Angeles?

        It seems to me there's an inverse correlation here. Yes to have effective schools you need money, you gotta pay teacher salaries and buy textbooks and so on. But after a certain point, more money poured into schools seems to degrade education rather than improve it. Public schools in DC and Los Angeles have some of the highest per-student budget

    • Its just not politically correct to say so because parent involvement lines up so closely with racial lines. Not exact, but close enough.

      Indefensible xeonphobia.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      The commonality is involved parents who help their kids when struggle, demand they toe the line when they get hardheaded, and have expectations for success.

      This is "obvious" and something that everyone "knows", but there is actually very little supporting evidence. Although involved parents, who buy lots of books, read to their kids, and push them to study, are correlated with academic success, they don't cause it. Once you correct for the things that DO matter (IQ of biological parents and family income) all of that correlation vanishes [wordpress.com].

      The secret to academic success is simple: be born to smart, rich parents.

      • Once you correct for the things that DO matter (IQ of biological parents and family income) all of that correlation vanishes [wordpress.com].

        Your link to the WordPress article doesn't support your claim. Care to try again?

      • Once you correct for the things that DO matter (IQ of biological parents and family income) all of that correlation vanishes.

        Sorry but you're about a decade behind in terms of progressive political correctness. What you said is so 2005. Modern social science has shown that IQ does not exist. If you insist that it exists or that some people are smarter than others, you're a racist.

    • you come off sounding like a racist asshole. the problem is socioeconomic, not racial.

      and one might postulate that worrying about where your next meal is going to come from or working 3 part time jobs might make one less able to engage with their children.

    • by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @03:29PM (#50527173)

      . Its just not politically correct to say so because parent involvement lines up so closely with racial lines. Not exact, but close enough.

      Then you notice that hours worked to provide food for the children lines up on racial lines as well. The parents aren't involved. They are out working their second job so their children can eat. If you can solve poverty, you solve 90% of the "race issue" in the US, other than the bigots who assert it's about the lazy race, and not economics.

      • by OhPlz ( 168413 )

        What do you want, more social nets? We're in a messed up situation where those that can afford to raise a family and are responsible enough to do a good job at it at the least likely to want to have offspring, meanwhile the government is doing everything possible to encourage those who are less responsible and have no means to support a family to have children anyway. I don't think poverty is the root of this issue. Poverty is a symptom of a bigger problem.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        They are out working their second job so their children can eat.

        No they aren't. 60% of households in the bottom quintile (20%) have NO ONE employed. Households in the top quintile, have, on average, 2.1 people employed. It is the rich, not the poor, that are pressed for time.

      • by Jhon ( 241832 )

        I think you'll also find the problem with lack of parental involvement has increased as the number of single parent house holds have increased.

        I further think you'll find that having kids after 22 will increase ones chances of not being poor.

        And lastly, I think you'll find that not having kids until you are married will increase ones chances of not being poor.

        Is the solution to further break the traditional family unit which has worked for recorded history by offering further incentives to lack any type of

    • Its just not politically correct to say so because parent involvement lines up so closely with racial lines. Not exact, but close enough.

      I'm guessing you mean in the USA? This isn't generally true in the UK.

    • Its not computers, magnet schools, charter schools, teacher pay, higher taxes or any of those even when statistics sometimes hint at showing otherwise. The commonality is involved parents who help their kids when struggle, demand they toe the line when they get hardheaded, and have expectations for success

      My inclination is to agree, but I'd really like to see some data to support this claim

    • A researcher actually ranked the influences that effect grades. [visible-learning.org] The results are astounding. Most of these techniques I had never heard of. Probably because no one profits from using them.
    • by ADRA ( 37398 )

      Putting all that aside, learning on computers is just yet another thing to learn. Taking time away from learning core princples may actually be beneficial if those tertiary disciplines are rewarding to the individual in the long run, but may not improve the quality of 'core' curriculum.

      1. Calculators make tests without calculators a lot harder but are essential to any disipline. In all but the earliest grades, calculators are all but required for modern schools' math programs. This wasn't always the case. I

  • Thank you (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TWX ( 665546 ) on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @02:52PM (#50526891)

    "The organization warns that classroom technology can be a distraction if implemented unwisely..."

    I've been saying this for a decade. If the computer that the student uses is a general-purpose computer and can do 10,000 things, of which only one thing is that which the student should be doing, the student is going to be overwhelmingly tempted to do one of the rest of those 9,999 things instead, especially if that other thing is more fun.

    Software for teaching computers needs to be developed. It needs to limit the available options to the lessons and only a few diversions, like how computers were before they were networked in schools.

    • by F34nor ( 321515 )

      Give em a command line, a compliler, and a programming language. If they want multi purpose make em make it.

    • This student got a 4.0 in a CS Master's degree while mining in Eve Online during most each class. If I try to take notes on paper and focus on what the professor is saying I'll end up with most going in one ear and out the other while my mind wanders and when I try to focus I only get meaningless words. If I play a game that takes limited focus I was less distracted and able to think about the concepts rather than the words. I tried MxO at one point also but active participation games did not work well f
      • That I think is more like what you see in the studies that show doodling helps concentration. Its just enough extra work to keep the mind from truly drifting. I don't think its necessarily related to the technology you are using. I believe the doodling thing, I used to do it a lot during classes and meetings.

        http://content.time.com/time/h... [time.com]
      • Did you just refer to yourself as "This student"?
      • by creimer ( 824291 )
        This student made the president's list for maintaining a 4.0 G.P.A. in a Computer Programming A.S. degree while taking two classes per semester for five years, working 80 hours a week a lead video game tester, and occasionally teaching Sunday school.
    • I've been saying this for a decade. If the computer that the student uses is a general-purpose computer and can do 10,000 things, of which only one thing is that which the student should be doing, the student is going to be overwhelmingly tempted to do one of the rest of those 9,999 things instead, especially if that other thing is more fun.

      Even in professional School this is the case. If you look from the back of a large classroom in law school, you will see sports on a large number of guys' laptops and shopping on a large number of girls' laptops. Some profs ban laptops, but that's pretty rare and is a good way to get people not to take your class.

      Of course, in law school your entire grade or 90% of your grade is also based on one final exam, so they have to learn material anyway. They just might not pay as much attention to the lecture.

    • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      Computers do what they are programmed/allowed to do. When I started using computers, there was no Internet. None of the computers in school were connected to anything, other than one modem on the teacher's desk in high school, until I got to college, and they were all connected all the time. There's no reason they have to be connected 100% of the time.
      • by TWX ( 665546 )
        There are lots of reasons to be networked, even for specific-purpose computers. For education, simply being able to use any random kiosk or tablet on the network to pick-up where one left-off instead of being tied to a specific device is already a good reason.

        The problem comes about when an attempt to satisfy that good reason becomes an avenue for a whole bunch of bad consequences.
        • by AK Marc ( 707885 )

          For education, simply being able to use any random kiosk or tablet on the network to pick-up where one left-off instead of being tied to a specific device is already a good reason.

          Yeah, we had that in the '80s. The network was called "sneakernet" and any computer would pick up where you left off, you just had to save and take your floppy with you. A USB stick per student (All of $5 for a 4GB at overpriced stores) and you have all that you've asked for, without any network.

  • Computers are to the brain as a front end loader is to the construction worker. It replaces the manual labor.

    But since results are measured without access to computers, then the students must rely on their poorly exercised brain.

    • by Trepidity ( 597 )

      I wonder if just the mismatch between teaching and testing methods accounts for some of the difference. If the test is paper-and-pencil, you might expect students who were taught using pen-and-pencil methods to do better than those taught mainly using computer-based methods, even if the two worked just as well, because the first group of students are more used to doing the work in the same setting as the test will use.

  • I actually RTFA (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    but I still think it was a dumb conclusion because it is simply treating correlation as causation. The raw data does not show anything about what the computers were used for or what teaching methods were employed. If they were just digital babysitters then naturally the effect would be nil. You could probably come up with the similar statistics for "books" or relative desk area or minutes spent in class.

  • Society tends to think that throwing money a problem will somehow improve things. Don't get me wrong up to a point it does, but after that there is very little return for dollar spent. And in most schools, in most first world countries that point has long since been reached especially ones that can afford computers for every student.

    Currently computers are no replacement for the two way communication that happens when an actual person is teaching you.

  • Parents suck too (Score:4, Insightful)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @03:00PM (#50526963) Homepage Journal
    How many of these parents work with their kids when at home? How many let the kids to go their room and play on the iPad or xbox and only see them at dinner? Or are too busy driving them to useless and expensive team sports events?

    Education requires major input from the parents but many of them treat the schools like babysitters and get mad at the teachers when their kids can barely read.
    • Re:Parents suck too (Score:5, Interesting)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @03:19PM (#50527117)

      Or are too busy driving them to useless and expensive team sports events?

      Was with you right up until this point. Team sports and sports in general are neither useless nor expensive. Maybe a small minority of them are disproportionately so but people learn a lot from team sports and fitness improves cognitive ability to boot.

      • by grub ( 11606 )
        I meant using teams and coaches as expensive babysitters or allowing the kids to do that stuff without ensuring their more important school work is done.
  • by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @03:01PM (#50526969) Homepage Journal

    Computers rarely help. Ever.

    Now watch as those whose salaries are paid by pushing more computers and testing post lies that aren't backed by peer reviewed scientific studies, to feather their nests.

    "the More you Know"

    • Nooooooooooooooo! No you fucktard! Computers are important! We must teach programming and computers to first graders! Otherwise they won't magically learn critical thinking--definitely not problem solving by rote to pass their programming classes--and will become more sheeple!

      We need to cram computers in every orifice big enough to take a mouse up it in every child in every school in America!

    • Mod parent up.

      Seriously:
      1. Recess helps as it lets the brain absorb some of what is learned; it also lets the kids get rid of any energy so they can actually pay attention to what is being taught (and do so without drugs!)
      2. Lunch helps because they need energy to learn, etc - e.g not falling asleep in class - and live.
      3. Teachers help because someone actually needs to teach something.

      Too many tests (ala No Child Left Behind) don't help because then you're not testing the students, you're testing
    • Computers rarely help. Ever.

      Citation? Or are those only required for

      those whose salaries are paid by pushing more computers and testing post[ing] lies that aren't backed by peer reviewed scientific studies

      ?

    • by ledow ( 319597 ) on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @03:43PM (#50527259) Homepage

      I work in schools.
      I work IT in schools.
      I work exclusively in schools.
      I've only ever worked in schools.
      I've worked in private and state, primary, secondary, further education, and after-school tuition centres.

      Computers are a tool. Like a pen, a textbook, a folder, a table, a desk, or anything else.

      Use them properly and they can help make things more efficient. That includes teaching. Use them improperly, buy them "for show", or think they'll work some magic on their own and you'll be disappointed.

      In the same way that signing in 30 kids every morning and again in the afternoon takes ten minutes with pen and paper and lots of shuffling paper and people involved, but electronic registers take seconds and everyone who needs to can see the results instantly. It's a tool. Use it properly and it works.

      What it does NOT do is teach kids. That's what teachers do (or at least are supposed to do). A teacher with an electronic timetable, who knows how to use it, is more productive and gets more time to teach than those who are shuffling bits of paper around multiple room. A teacher who can share his document with the kids and get a collaborative result, even as part of homework without themselves being present, can work wonders.

      But what makes it work is the teacher. Not the tool. Give a carpenter or wood craftsman a cheap chisel and he can still produce a work of art. Give him the right tools and they'll be more refined and better quality and take less time. But give a chisel to a monkey and you won't get a mahogany table out of it. Computers are no different - a tool for professionals.

      The misconception is that somehow computers on their own magically transform the most mediocre of teachers into teaching geniuses with wonderfully attentive students. It's not true.

      I work in IT in schools, it's all I know and all I've ever done. Remove the IT and good teachers will still thrive and bad teachers still fail. Remove the teachers and the IT is next to fucking useless. Bear in mind that I spend vast portions of my working life at opposition to these people, that many schools have a large "teacher/non-teacher" divide that rarely gets crossed, socially or otherwise. That these people are the bane of my life.

      But still, it's the teachers that make the difference, and the way they teach. And if we can get all the crap and paperwork and tracking and other shit out of their way as much as possible, they will have more time to teach kids. It's literally an admin task. Bringing tech into the classroom "just because" is dangerous and stupid.

      The right teacher with the right tool can work wonders. But it's not the tool that's doing it. It's not the chisel that's so wonderful that it's making works of art. It's the way it's put to use.

      In the UK, schools have been expected to get in computers to meet official ratios (X computers per Y pupils). That's fucking ludicrous. They have been expected to make use of things "just because" they are there. They have been expected to fully kit out every classroom no matter the subject or how little used. We have parents who are able to use their kids school iPads as a status symbol amongst over parents in other schools. We have teachers performing death-by-powerpoint thinking it improves their teaching. It does not.

      But computers still have a place. They are merely an automation tool. A machine. That removes the repetitive burden of filling out a thousand school reports in twenty subjects. That allows the kids to manipulate 3D objects that I couldn't even get my computer to DRAW on the screen when I was a kid.

      The problem is that people think that every app on the appstores, every website they are sold, every resource available must be used for every god-damn thing. Teachers BUY lesson plans, in big books, on what apps to use and what services to sign up to, and what looks cool to senior management. And so some of them have actually stopped teaching.

      I've been fortunate enough

    • by imidan ( 559239 )

      Now watch as those whose salaries are paid by pushing more computers and testing post lies that aren't backed by peer reviewed scientific studies, to feather their nests.

      It started even before TFA was over. There was a marketing guy from Microsoft and a guy who is a 'head teacher' who say that this study is obviously bullshit because... computers are great!

      FTFA MS guy: "The internet gives any student access to the sum of human knowledge, 3D printing brings advanced manufacturing capabilities to your deskto

  • by zerofoo ( 262795 ) on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @03:02PM (#50526983)

    We've moved away from very expensive smartboards and higher-end computers in favor of cheap projectors, whiteboards, and chromebooks.

    The chromebooks are strictly for web-research, writing, spreadsheets, and presentations.

    The projectors help a teacher share content with a class during a lesson.

    We have some iPads, but we only use them to run some special-ed specific reading apps. They do help the kids read material that would otherwise be very difficult for some.

    The past few years have been filled with schools blindly deploying smartboards, iPads, and high end windows/apple laptops. Unfortunately many of these districts didn't put in enough support systems or integrate the technology into the curriculum. We are only deploying tech where we see tangible benefits to classroom activities.

    • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @03:22PM (#50527137)

      The past few years have been filled with schools blindly deploying smartboards, iPads, and high end windows/apple laptops. Unfortunately many of these districts didn't put in enough support systems or integrate the technology into the curriculum.

      This right here! A lot of districts are deploying technology based on sales presentations by iMarketing folk. My girlfriend is a teacher at a school where this has failed spectacularly. Next semester they start a 2 year program to phase out the iPads and replace them with something that doesn't make students cry and teachers put their firsts through the wall when doing such incredibly complicated feats such as adding a greek letter to a word document in a science assignment.

      A lot of these places were oversold on the hardware capabilities and absolutely had no idea how if at all software would support student learning.

  • Is by firing most language teachers and making students do 1 hour Rosetta Stone. When I was growing up, I don't think I ever had a Spanish class that actually even attempted to teach Spanish at the level where you could converse fluently with a 4 year old. So based on my experience, there's probably not a damn thing technology could do to screw up those subjects at most public schools.

  • by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @03:22PM (#50527129)

    So you'll give me a free vacation and all I have to do is sell my district on buying a shitload of your iPads?

    I'm a believer!

  • I would never have predicted that. I would have thought students would do much better. After all, computers are shiny.

  • by ErichTheRed ( 39327 ) on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @03:30PM (#50527177)

    When I was in elementary school, eons ago, the most advanced computers we had were Apple ][e machines. High school gave us Macintosh SEs and IBM PS/2 model 30s. I think the difference then vs now is that we had to learn to do something useful (i.e. programming) on them to make them fun. There was LOGO, Oregon Trail and AppleWorks, but they were pretty primitive. Especially today, computers can be "consumer-only" devices and just another screen to stare blankly into.

    One thing that isn't different is that the best predictor of student success is good teachers, a good school and a decent home life with caring parents. Adding computers into the classroom without a clear purpose or reason is just a waste of money. Not because it's some kind of Luddite fantasy, but because students need to learn fundamentals before they are put in front of the computer.

    Take me for example -- I'm reasonably successful but have a serious math handicap that I developed in elementary school. Exactly how would a computer, especially a locked down one-way device like an iPad have helped me? I struggled though math all the way to a degree in chemistry, probably for the simple reason that I had crappy early math teachers that couldn't pound the basics into my thick skull. Good instruction is the key to good performance, especially in a subject like math where everything is cumulative. I have no idea how people are taught math in a way that makes it all make sense, but it would be interesting to see what's being tried now. I guess I'll find out soon since I have 2 kids about to enter elementary school!

    • by rgbscan ( 321794 )

      Out of curiosity - did you learn the "Touch Math" method? I was in a pilot class in the very early 80's, where that pedagogy was all the rage and I'm 99% sure it's the reason I ended up math disabled. I couldn't make the leap from touch dots to real world math concepts, and to this day math takes me forever - even simple multiplication - as I have to "air touch" all those dots. It's seriously crazy.

  • Adding technology without changing your process doesn't change anything except your overhead.
  • BEGIN;
    UPDATE grades SET finalexam=100;
    COMMIT;
  • I had to take Apple ][ Logo in the seventh grade (circa 1984). That's when I found out I came from a "poor" family because we didn't have cable TV to get MTV and I got a $250 Commodore 64 instead of a $2,500 Apple ][ for Christmas. My childhood was forever ruined.
  • Without being snarky, I don't think we should write off computers yet. I think most of these programs just dump a bunch of money on laptops or ipads and are shocked when standardized test scores don't magically go up.

    A computer is a tool, not a solution. It's all about the complete system used to educate. That's the hardware, software and processes working in concert to create an effective solution for learning.
    • I think the important question is, why are we placing so much emphasis on a tool which makes the situation worse? It is like a garage that insists its mechanics only use pliers and a hammer. Your statement kind of misses the point.
  • What an incredibly MYOPIC article.
    It purports to evaluate the benefits of using computers in school based on some undefined performance metrics. The ONLY specific metric applied is 'reading skill'.

    What if computer use improved the student's MATH skills? (Khan Academy) What if it improved critical thinking, because the student has to identify what's nonsense and what's reliable on the net? What if we can use animated dissections to teach biology? What if we are still discovering the best use of compute
  • While not mentioned here, Singapore also gets very good results with their public education system. They achieve this by having several tiers, each with a dedicated set of teachers. These teachers focus on the students who are placed in the tier corresponding to their level. A student moves up a tier any time they are ready, the goal is obviously to have them as high as possible. A student is in any given tier for as long as they need.

    What does the US have? One group of 30 with one teacher, on iPads.
  • by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @04:49PM (#50527687) Journal
    Technology should be used to augment classroom instruction, not replace it. Sadly, too many administrators & politicians seem to fall into the "This Will Revolutionize Education [youtube.com]" mentality. Even when I was studying computer science, none of my courses was in an actual computer room. We had 3 hours of lecture for theory and then a 2 hour lab for application, plus extra hours outside of class time for homework. I almost loathe having to teach in a computer classroom, because some students are busy screwing around with "social media" instead of paying attention.
  • Just gonna throw this out there.... My niece and nephew will almost certainly not learn cursive. They are learning no-look touch-typing instead.
    What argument could be made that that is not a good trade-up?
    I'm not baiting/challenging. I just can't think of a reason to oppose that idea...

  • In the 14 years my children have been going to school about the only place I saw an even slightly useful deployment was in a day care. They had some basic software for teaching the alphabet that the kids seemed to like.

    In all other deployments I could see no educational purpose to the computers. As far as I could tell the computers were there to serve three non-educational purposes:
    • First was to give administrators and politicians the ability to say that the schools were modern and computerized.
    • The sec
  • by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Tuesday September 15, 2015 @06:09PM (#50528203)
    So people are finally figuring out that all the hype from Apple was just hype. I want my money back!

"Don't tell me I'm burning the candle at both ends -- tell me where to get more wax!!"

Working...