Navigate KTM
- KitchenTableMath
- What's New
- FAQ
- Book-style Index
- Ask a Question
- Search Comments
- Search Blog Posts
- Monthly Archives
- Search by Category
- Register as a User
- Register as our Guest
Kitchen Table Math
KTM User Pages
Service Groups
- Mathematically Correct
- WhatWorksClearinghouse
- Progressive Policy Institute
- Education Trust
- Illinois Loop
- Fordham Foundation
- New York City HOLD
Parent Groups
- Plano Parent Rights
- Informed Residents of Reading
- Teach Us Math
- Save Our Children from Mediocre Math
Personal Pages
Blogs
- Animals In Translation
- Eduwonk
- The Education Wonks
- Instructivist
- Jenny D
- Joanne Jacobs
- Learning Curves
- Math And Text
- MathMan
- Number 2 Pencil
- Oh, snap!
- Parent Pundit
- Vlorbik
- D-Ed Reckoning
- Teens And Tweens
Special lists
Help
13 Apr 2006 - 20:09
via This Week in Education, another study showing computers in the classroom don't improve learning:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I don't think any child should be looking at a computer screen more than 3 hours a day. I think Richard Louv is right; U.S. children are suffering from nature deficit disorder. (Temple is a big fan of Louv's book, fyi. I'm ordering a copy.) And it disturbs me that these kids seem to have experienced a drop in confidence. In reality their grades were up; the kids thought their grades were down.
Ed and I have always contributed to the IEF, which has purchased laptops for students. Up until a year ago, I would simply have assumed that passing out laptops to a class of 5th graders was a wonderful idea. Now I realize I don't know whether it's a good idea or not. Irvington kids may be using laptops and computers to become more knowledgeable about the subjects they study. Or they may not — I have no idea! We all need to start evaluating inputs in terms of the outputs that do or do not result. And we need to evaluate the opportunity costs involved in any program or purchase. Opportunity costs are real. If you're doing 'X,' you're not doing 'Y.' Is time alone with a laptop the best possible use of our kids' precious and limited instructional time? I don't know the answer to that, and I wish I did.
Speaking of the outdoors, I'm going to go do Saxon Math on the picnic table. I'm almost done. I've studied my last Lesson and taken my last test. I've finished the Appendix lesson (Roman numerals and base 2) Now I have two investigations left. One on scale factor in volume and one on a proof of the Pythagorean theorem. And that's it!
computers in the classroom
ed technology never fails
"Computer Delusions"
another negative study
Steven Jobs on computers in the classroom
-- CatherineJohnson - 13 Apr 2006 Back to main page.
Please consider registering as a regular user.
Look here for syntax help.
What is it about quotes from kids that I find so offensive? No expert is willing to stick their neck out and offer an opinion in view of the countervailing research, but we have to fill that space. Let's find a kid and see what he says. -- KDeRosa - 13 Apr 2006
" another study showing computers in the classroom don't improve learning:" Duh! Duh! Duh! Computers CAN improve learning, but they probably won't fix fundamental problems. This reminds me of the good old "Guess and Check" method of solving problems. Let's not figure out exactly what is going wrong. Let's just try something that sounds good and see what happens. I had students who tried to debug their programs that way. With fast compilers and linkers, it is very quick to change something and see what happens. Unfortunately, they could do this all day and not get it right. They just didn't want to take the effort to find out exactly what went wrong and study the code and logic line by line. I always told them that you don't want to debug something correct. I've seen this problem solving method in many other areas. Rather than study and define the problem(s), it's easier to do Guess and Check. As in programs, an error or problem can appear in one place that really might be caused by an error in another place. Then, there is the issue of multiple errors that interact. You can never solve these problems with guess and check. Students would do this for their programs and show me that the error went away, but I would look at their code, line by line, and show them all of the other errors that they just haven't seen yet. Like discovery learning, a student might guess a particular solution method, but it will only work for one special case. They are lost for any other variation of the problem. Computers CAN be quite helpful, just don't apply an all or nothing criterion. -- SteveH - 14 Apr 2006
"Opportunity costs are real. If you're doing 'X,' you're not doing 'Y.' Is time alone with a laptop the best possible use of our kids' precious and limited instructional time?" This is easy to answer if you have a specific curriculum and grade-by-grade expectations. One may not agree on the curriculum or expectations, but they do provide a framework for answering this question. Incredibly, most K-8 schools don't have specific curricula and expectations. At most, they have vague guidelines and the teachers have their own lesson plans. It's hard to do this kind of tradeoff if your concept of education is so fuzzy and vague. Once you get to high school, the courses, content, and goals becomes more specific. This gives teachers a better idea of how to use or not) computers. In the fuzzy education world of K-8, goals are much more vague. My 4th grade son has "Technology" (computer) class twice a week. I honestly don't know what they are learning. It all boils down to low expectations and a big lack of importance placed on a coherent approach to content and skills. Computers cannot fix a lack of focus or goals. -- SteveH - 14 Apr 2006
Ken I know what you mean. I watched Bill & Melissa (Melinda?) Gates on Oprah, and the whole show was groups of kids put together in groups to praise Bill & Melinda Gates! I don't like to use the word 'uncomfortable,' but I actually felt UNCOMFORTABLE watching that. (The small school approach may be great.....I just didn't like seeing a group of kids posed together basically doing public relations....) -- CatherineJohnson - 14 Apr 2006
Students would do this for their programs and show me that the error went away, but I would look at their code, line by line, and show them all of the other errors that they just haven't seen yet. Like discovery learning, a student might guess a particular solution method, but it will only work for one special case. They are lost for any other variation of the problem interesting.....I hadn't quite thought of it that way.....I'm still thinking Point A to Point B. I hadn't even BEGUN to think about 'multiplier errors' yikes -- CatherineJohnson - 14 Apr 2006
This is easy to answer if you have a specific curriculum and grade-by-grade expectations. One may not agree on the curriculum or expectations, but they do provide a framework for answering this question. Incredibly, most K-8 schools don't have specific curricula and expectations. We don't have a curriculum. Period. (I've been told on the QT that this is a view held by some teachers & administrators as well....can't fact-check, but that's what I was told) -- CatherineJohnson - 14 Apr 2006
If there IS a curriculum, it's a well-kept secret. -- CatherineJohnson - 14 Apr 2006
another study finding computers in the classroom
via This Week in Education, another study showing computers in the classroom don't improve learning:
Taxpayer-supported school computer and Internet giveaways are political gold, but studies have questioned whether they actually help student achievement. This research, presented at the American Educational Research Association's annual meeting, confirms skeptics' doubts. In one study, researchers from Syracuse and Michigan State universities examined a program that gave laptop computers to middle-school students in Ohio in 2003. Preliminary findings are mixed. "Overall, we don't know if it is a worthwhile investment," says Syracuse researcher Jing Lei. About 37% of the children say they stare at the screens for more than three hours a day; a few report more than five hours a day. Parents help kids with homework more often and students' grades benefit slightly, but teachers report more classroom distractions as students check e-mail. And students actually feel distracted: In the first year, their grade-point averages rose modestly, but when Lei and a colleague asked them to estimate their GPAs, students actually believed they dropped. "They felt that time is not used as effectively as before," she says. Laptop giveaways are the latest educational fad; five states either have or will soon have them. More than one in eight school districts have some sort of program in which every child gets a PC. Evidence has shown that computers are finding their way even into the homes and schools of the nation's poorest students. A Tennessee study found that schools serving low-income children had more computers than your typical school — 125 for poor kids' schools vs. 114 elsewhere, and computers in low-income schools often were more connected to the Internet. But using computers, for instance, to teach reading in primary grades actually showed negative results.
source:
Computers may not boost student achievement
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I don't think any child should be looking at a computer screen more than 3 hours a day. I think Richard Louv is right; U.S. children are suffering from nature deficit disorder. (Temple is a big fan of Louv's book, fyi. I'm ordering a copy.) And it disturbs me that these kids seem to have experienced a drop in confidence. In reality their grades were up; the kids thought their grades were down.
Ed and I have always contributed to the IEF, which has purchased laptops for students. Up until a year ago, I would simply have assumed that passing out laptops to a class of 5th graders was a wonderful idea. Now I realize I don't know whether it's a good idea or not. Irvington kids may be using laptops and computers to become more knowledgeable about the subjects they study. Or they may not — I have no idea! We all need to start evaluating inputs in terms of the outputs that do or do not result. And we need to evaluate the opportunity costs involved in any program or purchase. Opportunity costs are real. If you're doing 'X,' you're not doing 'Y.' Is time alone with a laptop the best possible use of our kids' precious and limited instructional time? I don't know the answer to that, and I wish I did.
Speaking of the outdoors, I'm going to go do Saxon Math on the picnic table. I'm almost done. I've studied my last Lesson and taken my last test. I've finished the Appendix lesson (Roman numerals and base 2) Now I have two investigations left. One on scale factor in volume and one on a proof of the Pythagorean theorem. And that's it!
computers in the classroom
ed technology never fails
"Computer Delusions"
another negative study
Steven Jobs on computers in the classroom
-- CatherineJohnson - 13 Apr 2006 Back to main page.
Comments
After entering a comment, users can login anonymously as KtmGuest (password: guest) when prompted.Please consider registering as a regular user.
Look here for syntax help.
What is it about quotes from kids that I find so offensive? No expert is willing to stick their neck out and offer an opinion in view of the countervailing research, but we have to fill that space. Let's find a kid and see what he says. -- KDeRosa - 13 Apr 2006
" another study showing computers in the classroom don't improve learning:" Duh! Duh! Duh! Computers CAN improve learning, but they probably won't fix fundamental problems. This reminds me of the good old "Guess and Check" method of solving problems. Let's not figure out exactly what is going wrong. Let's just try something that sounds good and see what happens. I had students who tried to debug their programs that way. With fast compilers and linkers, it is very quick to change something and see what happens. Unfortunately, they could do this all day and not get it right. They just didn't want to take the effort to find out exactly what went wrong and study the code and logic line by line. I always told them that you don't want to debug something correct. I've seen this problem solving method in many other areas. Rather than study and define the problem(s), it's easier to do Guess and Check. As in programs, an error or problem can appear in one place that really might be caused by an error in another place. Then, there is the issue of multiple errors that interact. You can never solve these problems with guess and check. Students would do this for their programs and show me that the error went away, but I would look at their code, line by line, and show them all of the other errors that they just haven't seen yet. Like discovery learning, a student might guess a particular solution method, but it will only work for one special case. They are lost for any other variation of the problem. Computers CAN be quite helpful, just don't apply an all or nothing criterion. -- SteveH - 14 Apr 2006
"Opportunity costs are real. If you're doing 'X,' you're not doing 'Y.' Is time alone with a laptop the best possible use of our kids' precious and limited instructional time?" This is easy to answer if you have a specific curriculum and grade-by-grade expectations. One may not agree on the curriculum or expectations, but they do provide a framework for answering this question. Incredibly, most K-8 schools don't have specific curricula and expectations. At most, they have vague guidelines and the teachers have their own lesson plans. It's hard to do this kind of tradeoff if your concept of education is so fuzzy and vague. Once you get to high school, the courses, content, and goals becomes more specific. This gives teachers a better idea of how to use or not) computers. In the fuzzy education world of K-8, goals are much more vague. My 4th grade son has "Technology" (computer) class twice a week. I honestly don't know what they are learning. It all boils down to low expectations and a big lack of importance placed on a coherent approach to content and skills. Computers cannot fix a lack of focus or goals. -- SteveH - 14 Apr 2006
Ken I know what you mean. I watched Bill & Melissa (Melinda?) Gates on Oprah, and the whole show was groups of kids put together in groups to praise Bill & Melinda Gates! I don't like to use the word 'uncomfortable,' but I actually felt UNCOMFORTABLE watching that. (The small school approach may be great.....I just didn't like seeing a group of kids posed together basically doing public relations....) -- CatherineJohnson - 14 Apr 2006
Students would do this for their programs and show me that the error went away, but I would look at their code, line by line, and show them all of the other errors that they just haven't seen yet. Like discovery learning, a student might guess a particular solution method, but it will only work for one special case. They are lost for any other variation of the problem interesting.....I hadn't quite thought of it that way.....I'm still thinking Point A to Point B. I hadn't even BEGUN to think about 'multiplier errors' yikes -- CatherineJohnson - 14 Apr 2006
This is easy to answer if you have a specific curriculum and grade-by-grade expectations. One may not agree on the curriculum or expectations, but they do provide a framework for answering this question. Incredibly, most K-8 schools don't have specific curricula and expectations. We don't have a curriculum. Period. (I've been told on the QT that this is a view held by some teachers & administrators as well....can't fact-check, but that's what I was told) -- CatherineJohnson - 14 Apr 2006
If there IS a curriculum, it's a well-kept secret. -- CatherineJohnson - 14 Apr 2006
| WebLogForm | |
|---|---|
| Title: | another study finding computers in the classroom |
| TopicType: | WebLog |
| SubjectArea: | CalculatorsAndComputers |
| LogDate: | 200604131543 |