|
Of course, technology brings many advantages and benefits to students. With the ubiquitous spread of the internet in the modern day, people have virtually unlimited access to vast resources for disseminating knowledge and promoting learning. Armed with smartphones and tablets, society has never been more interconnected and certainly one of the most powerful tools enabled by technology is this collaborative aspect.
However, technology also brings with it nefarious capabilities that threaten to undermine the very social fabric of our sacred institutions. One of these concerns is that technology can contribute to cheating. And the more technology advances the more difficult it becomes for teachers or administrators to discern the cheating.
A hypothetical example, suppose that time machines are invented in the near future. One of my professors posts the correct answers to his exam questions the day after we take the exam. Today while in the bathroom I was pondering how easy and convenient it would be to simply use the time machine to travel into the future (1 day after the exam), print out the correct answers, return to present day, input the correct answers into my Google glasses disguised as ordinary glasses, and copy down the correct answers on the day of the exam directly from the inside of my lens.
I know what you're thinking. Time travel has many potentially disastrous implications and ramifications. If you travel through time you have the risk of affecting something or someone so that an entire series of chain reactions are set off, impacting other people or the course of history in unexpected ways. But just printing out the answers doesn't really seem dangerous in that regard.
________________________________________________________________________
Yes, the reason I'm writing this is because I just got back my grade and I did bomb the exam.
And I know there are probably way more compelling arguments (or ones that aren't "out there") to prove my point but I don't really care.
  
|
The benefits of technology far outweigh any downsides in the grand scheme of things, so how can it be said to "destroy" education? The notion is ridiculous. Cheating doesn't harm education, because those who are there to learn will learn regardless of what others do around them. At worst, it's damaging the education system, as the value of degrees decreases as their legitimacy decreases.
But education in general greatly benefits from technology. There are downsides for education, but they are minor.
|
Hopefully with the ease of access of information we will be able to transition to an educational system that values critical thinking, problem solving, and drawing connections better than the one today.
Also I don't really get your point. The only logic-based argument you have against technology is time travel, which is hardly logical as a topic. Mostly I only see/have heard of technology simply being used to copy the work of someone else who has done the same assignment or paper before. If you do that then you may get a good grade at first but then when you actually have to write an essay, defend a thesis, or solve a complicated problem on the spot you will not be well prepared. I know a lot of people who "don't test well" simply because they are bad students who don't actually learn.
I go to a school where the students each have an ipad. The problem mostly seems to be distractions from games, not from very covert cheating. I walk through the cafeteria and all the freshmen are playing some stupid castle game, not even talking to each other. A freshman the other day got in a ton of trouble for looking at porn at school. I also have proctored this kind of academic detention for students that are failing classes mostly from not turning in their shit, so we have to make sure that they do their shit for at least an hour after school with supervision. The main problem I have is students trying to play games or look at le funny memes when they still have homework left to do. A lot of these students are the ones who end up failing out. (This is a high school though).
|
United States24700 Posts
On November 01 2013 10:11 Djzapz wrote:
The benefits of technology far outweigh any downsides in the grand scheme of things, so how can it be said to "destroy" education? The notion is ridiculous. Cheating doesn't harm education, because those who are there to learn will learn regardless of what others do around them. At worst, it's damaging the education system, as the value of degrees decreases as their legitimacy decreases.
But education in general greatly benefits from technology. There are downsides for education, but they are minor.
I want to agree with you, but I'm just not sure if I can. Certainly technology has many benefits for learning (I'm thinking mostly in the k-12 range). However, the drawbacks are far from minor in comparison. Cheating is only one small part of the difficulty created by emerging technology in the lives of school children.
|
On November 01 2013 10:35 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 10:11 Djzapz wrote:
The benefits of technology far outweigh any downsides in the grand scheme of things, so how can it be said to "destroy" education? The notion is ridiculous. Cheating doesn't harm education, because those who are there to learn will learn regardless of what others do around them. At worst, it's damaging the education system, as the value of degrees decreases as their legitimacy decreases.
But education in general greatly benefits from technology. There are downsides for education, but they are minor. I want to agree with you, but I'm just not sure if I can. Certainly technology has many benefits for learning (I'm thinking mostly in the k-12 range). However, the drawbacks are far from minor in comparison. Cheating is only one small part of the difficulty created by emerging technology in the lives of school children.
Well, what is it that could possibly counterbalance the massive benefits, ignoring the time travel business and great paradoxes...
I go to school, I have my laptop, I can take notes faster with little effort, giving me more time to really listen and let the knowledge sink in. This is especially good for me because handwriting has always sucked for me and it takes a lot of effort. I know many people who are in this situation. I can also use the internet to quickly and effortlessly deepen my knowledge, sometimes even DURING the class. I can google a term or somebody's name for instance, or a concept I'm not familiar with.
The fields of mathematics, physics, engineering and other applied sciences greatly benefit from technologies. Not only are machines able to help us develop theories and give us tools, they speed up the processes which can't be handled by machines themselves. This can lead to a certain form of dependence to those machines but provided that we keep the machines, this allows people to specialize and to spend less time doing the stuff that even dumb machines can do faster than us.
Technology helps tremendously and I think it's part of what allows more people to be educated in our societies. Our current problem is facebook and phones in the classrooms, but I've noticed that either those people have developed multitasking skills (I know a few girls who literally write and listen to the class and remember everything) or they don't belong in the classroom anyway and their facebook is the technological equivalent of a paper plane or doodles.
|
dj I'm assigning you Lyotard's "Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge"
smash the machines
tables, chairs, pencils, chalk. all you need. everything else is expensive toys and useless distractions.
|
On November 01 2013 10:56 sam!zdat wrote:
dj I'm assigning you Lyotard's "Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge"
smash the machines
tables, chairs, pencils, chalk. all you need. everything else is expensive toys and useless distractions.
Hipsters having opinions: Dark ages & Shit.
Meanwhile in reality
Edit: That book was published 34 years ago. There have been 34 years worth of technological advancements since, many of which are incredibly pedagogical. Just because you don't see the benefits of having more than pen and paper doesn't mean that they don't exist. I suspect that the fact that you can't make use of the new technologies in your learning shows your personal limits.
Edit2: Interestingly, here's a little something about the book that was published 34 years ago: "Short but influential, the book was originally written as a report on the influence of technology in exact sciences, commissioned by the Conseil des universités du Québec.[4][5] Lyotard later admitted that he had a 'less than limited' knowledge of the science he was to write about, and to compensate for this knowledge, he 'made stories up' and referred to a number of books that he hadn't actually read. In retrospect, he called it 'a parody' and 'simply the worst of all my books'." -Wikipedia
|
United States24700 Posts
On November 01 2013 10:46 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 10:35 micronesia wrote:On November 01 2013 10:11 Djzapz wrote:
The benefits of technology far outweigh any downsides in the grand scheme of things, so how can it be said to "destroy" education? The notion is ridiculous. Cheating doesn't harm education, because those who are there to learn will learn regardless of what others do around them. At worst, it's damaging the education system, as the value of degrees decreases as their legitimacy decreases.
But education in general greatly benefits from technology. There are downsides for education, but they are minor. I want to agree with you, but I'm just not sure if I can. Certainly technology has many benefits for learning (I'm thinking mostly in the k-12 range). However, the drawbacks are far from minor in comparison. Cheating is only one small part of the difficulty created by emerging technology in the lives of school children. Well, what is it that could possibly counterbalance the massive benefits, ignoring the time travel business and great paradoxes... I go to school, I have my laptop, I can take notes faster with little effort, giving me more time to really listen and let the knowledge sink in. This is especially good for me because handwriting has always sucked for me and it takes a lot of effort. Let me stop you here. First of all I'm glad the laptop seems to be helping you in your classes (honestly... it's great when technology really does help). Having difficulty with handwriting indeed makes it harder to learn, in lieu of appropriate replacements for things such as written note-taking.
In fact, many children, starting from elementary school, have difficulty with handwriting. Of course, their teachers, and sometimes specialists, work with them to improve their handwriting. Even if their handwriting isn't as good as the teacher's, the goal is to help them reach an acceptable level where they can function normally.
However, not every child is able (whether due to their own limitations, or limitations on the part of the teachers etc) to achieve a satisfactory level of handwriting. After working with the child, they realize that the child isn't going to catch up to the other children. What do they do in this case? Fortunately we have alternatives children can do. Maybe this child can type effectively, and will be allowed to type at times when other children hand-write information. This might allow the child to focus on what is being taught instead of mostly on how to write down information.
But what actually ends up happening? More and more, the option to type will start to replace an honest full-force attempt to help the child learn to write better. Children who were borderline, but might have had a shot at learning to write adequately, are ushered towards using the 'typing' option because of how much easier it is in the short term (especially with those extremely emphasized standardized tests coming up... at least in my country) Now, students seem to be learning their content knowledge a little better, but the school district has also noticed that kids' handwriting/abilities seem to be degrading, compared to prior years.
The implementation of a newly available technology in the classroom had the potential to be a positive influence, and for some kids it was, but at the same time it had devastating effects for an even larger number of children. Of course, this isn't the fault of the technology... we shouldn't ban computer keyboards. However, technology is often used in a far-from-ideal way in the classroom.
You see the same thing with calculators. More and more, school children are being taught how to do math on the calculator rather than by hand. This does have some advantages... there are some things you can learn better using the visual aids provided by a calculator rather than solely by traditional methods... but I don't think that outweighs the potential damage due to many if not most children being much worse at doing math by hand. Again, there is nothing wrong with calculators. They are an incredibly useful tool sometimes, and are very useful even well after your education (just like typing). However, how they are used is rarely anywhere near how they actually should be used to maximize student learning while minimizing disruption. My seemingly ridiculous example earlier of flooding weak-handed children with computer keyboards to push them ahead actually becomes very realistic when applied to calculators. When children have trouble in math, they are often given special permission to use calculators. This allows them to get over the immediate hurdle, but makes it that much harder for them to understand the math they are supposed to learn later on. You could teach math k-12 without a single day of calculator use at school or at home, and have much better results than we have now (granted, not solely due to the omission of calculators from the curriculum).
I know many people who are in this situation. Be careful about how strongly you rely on this anecdotal knowledge to draw your conclusions about a complex issue like the effect of technology on learning, both positive and negative. There's a reason why it wouldn't have a place if you were to write an actual academic paper on this topic.
I can also use the internet to quickly and effortlessly deepen my knowledge, sometimes even DURING the class. I can google a term or somebody's name for instance, or a concept I'm not familiar with.
The fields of mathematics, physics, engineering and other applied sciences greatly benefit from technologies. Not only are machines able to help us develop theories and give us tools, they speed up the processes which can't be handled by machines themselves. This can lead to a certain form of dependence to those machines but provided that we keep the machines, this allows people to specialize and to spend less time doing the stuff that even dumb machines can do faster than us.
Technology helps tremendously and I think it's part of what allows more people to be educated in our societies. Our current problem is facebook and phones in the classrooms, but I've noticed that either those people have developed multitasking skills (I know a few girls who literally write and listen to the class and remember everything) or they don't belong in the classroom anyway and their facebook is the technological equivalent of a paper plane or doodles. Most of what you described explained how higher learning benefits from technology much more so than how k-12 benefits. I won't argue with you on higher learning (the problem is much lesser in comparison to k-12, even if it isn't nonexistent).
The disruptions caused by cellphone related technology, combined with the social expectations imposed by parents that children should be reachable at all times, can create some very disastrous classroom management situations as well. It's easy to try to downplay it, but what your classes were like is not necessarily a good indicator of what happens across the country/world (every place is different, of course).
In conclusion, I think the comparison being made is really the potential benefits of technology in the classroom against the actual drawbacks from the same technology which is hardly a fair comparison.
|
that's irrelevant to the argument he makes, which is important
technology in the classroom is a way to make tech companies rich and shuffle kids through the credentials factory. all you need to teach someone is books and time
|
On November 01 2013 11:15 micronesia wrote:
The implementation of a newly available technology in the classroom had the potential to be a positive influence, and for some kids it was, but at the same time it had devastating effects for an even larger number of children. Of course, this isn't the fault of the technology... we shouldn't ban computer keyboards. However, technology is often used in a far-from-ideal way in the classroom.
I have two responses regarding this Micronesia, the first one will be strange to many people but here we go.
1- [Before you respond to this point, also read the second] This is going to sound strange but I love pens. I always have. Pens are elegant and awesome. But I don't really value handwriting. I think that the main goal of education is to give knowledge to people, and technical skills like writing are merely tools to develop one's intelligence. Handwriting is just a skill that we learn to be able to "save" knowledge, to write it down. A computer is perfectly adapted to this task. Handwriting is still elegant, but in many cases it almost seems like an artifact of the past now that we all have access to computers. They're both faster and our work is always going to be safer on a computer, with the internet, than on paper.
2- This point supersedes the first for now. I don't know if I'll ever get to a point where I believe handwriting has to go. And the reason why I don't buy OP's argument is that both this and your example about calculator has nothing to do with technology being a detriment, it's a purely human problem and a dilemma that deserves to be looked at. On one hand, we have the "old way", the handwriting, and the writing numbers on pages and carrying the zero... They're slow, and pose problems to certain kids. A potential solution is to "expedite" those and replace them with keyboards and calculators... In this case, yes technology can be a bad thing, but those things don't fall into the hands of students, they're given to them.
What I'm clumsily trying to say is that in this case, PEOPLE make the decisions to bypass the old teaching methods with technologies. Is it good or is it bad? Probably a bit of both. If a kid can't write or doesn't understand the fundamentals of mathematics because they were given tools that do it for them, then perhaps the teaching methods have failed. But it's not because of the calculators, it's because of the teachers, who should be the first to understand that just because we have big computers doesn't mean that we should get complacent.
On the other hand, let's not outright assume that it's necessarily always damaging the person's education. Some kids are not going to university and certain approaches using technologies COULD be more adapted to their personal needs.
Be careful about how strongly you rely on this anecdotal knowledge to draw your conclusions about a complex issue like the effect of technology on learning, both positive and negative. There's a reason why it wouldn't have a place if you were to write an actual academic paper on this topic.
I was just discussing it with you, my point is that many people benefit from technologies. If not in the classroom, the access to knowledge with the internet is undeniable. And I don't need a crash course on what goes and doesn't go in an academic paper. At this point in my life I'm actually the one with the red pen for the most part  .
Most of what you described explained how higher learning benefits from technology much more so than how k-12 benefits. I won't argue with you on higher learning (the problem is much lesser in comparison to k-12, even if it isn't nonexistent).
The disruptions caused by cellphone related technology, combined with the social expectations imposed by parents that children should be reachable at all times, can create some very disastrous classroom management situations as well. It's easy to try to downplay it, but what your classes were like is not necessarily a good indicator of what happens across the country/world (every place is different, of course).
In conclusion, I think the comparison being made is really the potential benefits of technology in the classroom against the actual drawbacks from the same technology which is hardly a fair comparison.
Well I wasn't really talking about k-12 (which I actually had to google just now!). I would agree that not all technologies belong in primary and secondary schools.
On November 01 2013 11:16 sam!zdat wrote:
all you need to teach someone is books and time
Books are great but they're limited. They have to be published, bought, shipped, they have to be with you physically. Some are dated, not so relevant...
Pdfs, online articles, peer reviewed papers, can be on my computer in the hours after they were published. Surely books can't be dismissed, they're of extreme importance - but to say that they're all we need does leave out a ridiculous amount of knowledge.
|
Modernists and po'mos fighting. *popcorn*
|
Whats so bad? if someone can get trough only with a calculator, who cares? They will always have a calculator with them in whatever form and they wont take a job where they need a lot of calculations because they obviously hate it.
And in my country, many university classes do not allow any form of help except one paper written on both sides in tests.
So you cant get any help from your calculator.
Also, if time travel would be possible, it would have been introduced instantly at all times. So since it was not, it will never be invented, sorry.
|
On November 01 2013 11:56 LaNague wrote:
Also, if time travel would be possible, it would have been introduced instantly at all times. So since it was not, it will never be invented, sorry.
Sorry but your theory doesn't make sense. I agree with the idea that if time travel was invented at some point in the future, we would have "time travelers" from the future in our present day. But these people from the future might be so good at disguising themselves that they blend into the general population. Also, the governments in the future might be using time travelers as spies which would mean they would have to conceal their true identity.
|
I read or heard somewhere, maybe it was from Michio Kaku, that if time travel was invented, you could only travel to the future and back to the point where the machine was made. In other words, if you made a machine in 2500, people could come back in time from 3000 to 2500 but they couldn't go all the way back to 5000 B.C
|
United States24700 Posts
Note: I did read the whole post before responding.
On November 01 2013 11:42 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2013 11:15 micronesia wrote:
The implementation of a newly available technology in the classroom had the potential to be a positive influence, and for some kids it was, but at the same time it had devastating effects for an even larger number of children. Of course, this isn't the fault of the technology... we shouldn't ban computer keyboards. However, technology is often used in a far-from-ideal way in the classroom. I have two responses regarding this Micronesia, the first one will be strange to many people but here we go. 1- [Before you respond to this point, also read the second] This is going to sound strange but I love pens. I always have. Pens are elegant and awesome. But I don't really value handwriting. I think that the main goal of education is to give knowledge to people, and technical skills like writing are merely tools to develop one's intelligence.
I disagree. Yesterday I relied heavily on my handwriting. Not only was my careful writing increasing my chances that all the paper forms I filled out would be entered into the computer system correctly by other people (quite important), but I was required to hand-write information on the spot and share it with another person. I had no access to a computer, nor should I have in the particular case (I won't go into the details as this is indeed anecdotal). The point of this reference is to show that the purpose of writing is not just to record information for yourself. You often write for others, at times and in places where you are not using a computer or word processor in order to do so. Also, much of what I was doing was mathematical or required labeled diagrams... you actually do that much more easily by hand than using some type of a computer interface most of the time. It's possible to create interfaces that work as well or better than handwriting, of course, but they are usually less portable than pen/paper.
Handwriting is just a skill that we learn to be able to "save" knowledge, to write it down. A computer is perfectly adapted to this task. Handwriting is still elegant, but in many cases it almost seems like an artifact of the past now that we all have access to computers. They're both faster and our work is always going to be safer on a computer, with the internet, than on paper. Well computers are faster, except for when they aren't. The work is safer, except for when it isn't. You seem to only be willing to see this issue from one side.
2- This point supersedes the first for now. I don't know if I'll ever get to a point where I believe handwriting has to go. And the reason why I don't buy OP's argument is that both this and your example about calculator has nothing to do with technology being a detriment, it's a purely human problem and a dilemma that deserves to be looked at. On one hand, we have the "old way", the handwriting, and the writing numbers on pages and carrying the zero... They're slow, and pose problems to certain kids. A potential solution is to "expedite" those and replace them with keyboards and calculators... In this case, yes technology can be a bad thing, but those things don't fall into the hands of students, they're given to them. Well yea, I mentioned calculators themselves (and other technologies) for the most part shouldn't be blamed directly for the problems they can cause in education. However, let's be reasonable and realize we are discussing the effects the technologies actually have in the classroom, and the benefits they actually have. If you want to say you think technology has the potential to be much more of a positive than negative influence on learning, then I would certainly agree with you.
If a kid can't write or doesn't understand the fundamentals of mathematics because they were given tools that do it for them, then perhaps the teaching methods have failed. But it's not because of the calculators, it's because of the teachers, who should be the first to understand that just because we have big computers doesn't mean that we should get complacent. I just want to point out that the teachers are only on small piece of the pie if you want to list all the people and 'agents' that could be responsible for the 'damage' caused by improperly used technology in the classroom. You probably did not intend to imply otherwise, but I wanted to point that out for the readers explicitly. Many decisions of this nature are actually taken entirely out of the teacher's hands.
Show nested quote +Be careful about how strongly you rely on this anecdotal knowledge to draw your conclusions about a complex issue like the effect of technology on learning, both positive and negative. There's a reason why it wouldn't have a place if you were to write an actual academic paper on this topic. I was just discussing it with you, my point is that many people benefit from technologies. If not in the classroom, the access to knowledge with the internet is undeniable. This too is a double-edged sword. Access to knowledge is a great thing... but that doesn't mean it has no negative effects... and they aren't all minor. I wouldn't argue we need to reduce the access to knowledge we have... just that we need to better understand all of the effects this has on things such as the development of children. It is not as simple an issue as it is often made out to be.
Show nested quote +Most of what you described explained how higher learning benefits from technology much more so than how k-12 benefits. I won't argue with you on higher learning (the problem is much lesser in comparison to k-12, even if it isn't nonexistent).
The disruptions caused by cellphone related technology, combined with the social expectations imposed by parents that children should be reachable at all times, can create some very disastrous classroom management situations as well. It's easy to try to downplay it, but what your classes were like is not necessarily a good indicator of what happens across the country/world (every place is different, of course).
In conclusion, I think the comparison being made is really the potential benefits of technology in the classroom against the actual drawbacks from the same technology which is hardly a fair comparison. Well I wasn't really talking about k-12 (which I actually had to google just now!). I would agree that not all technologies belong in primary and secondary schools.
|
the question is: if we skip handwriting and manual calculation learnings, will we ever be able to catch up as adults? Will it hurt our learning capabilities?
Right now I'm learning a language that doesn't use the roman alphabet, and I feel like I'll never learn if I don't know how to manually draw each of the characters.
|
On November 01 2013 12:11 micronesia wrote:
I disagree. Yesterday I relied heavily on my handwriting. Not only was my careful writing increasing my chances that all the paper forms I filled out would be entered into the computer system correctly by other people (quite important), but I was required to hand-write information on the spot and share it with another person. I had no access to a computer, nor should I have in the particular case (I won't go into the details as this is indeed anecdotal). The point of this reference is to show that the purpose of writing is not just to record information for yourself. You often write for others, at times and in places where you are not using a computer or word processor in order to do so. Also, much of what I was doing was mathematical or required labeled diagrams... you actually do that much more easily by hand than using some type of a computer interface most of the time. It's possible to create interfaces that work as well or better than handwriting, of course, but they are usually less portable than pen/paper.
And given those settings, it's still relevant today to teach kids to write with a pen and paper.
Well computers are faster, except for when they aren't. The work is safer, except for when it isn't. You seem to only be willing to see this issue from one side.
The computers are essentially always faster and safer when used right. Learning how to write with a keyboard and how to make sure your files are safe is a whole lot faster than learning to write properly. That's not to say we should substitute but I'm not just willing to see this issue from one side just because I'm arguing for that position. I happen to have the side that's right in this case.
I just want to point out that the teachers are only on small piece of the pie if you want to list all the people and 'agents' that could be responsible for the 'damage' caused by improperly used technology in the classroom. You probably did not intend to imply otherwise, but I wanted to point that out for the readers explicitly. Many decisions of this nature are actually taken entirely out of the teacher's hands.
Well yes it's likely that most of the blame belongs on the various administrative structures that sometimes take decisions without doing their research first. If a student has difficulty reading and they give him a keyboard instead, they damn better have a justification for it as far as I'm concerned. And that justification should have deep roots in science.
If that is your only point then there's no reason for anyone to argue with you.
You know it isn't, I think you're being a bit disingenuous now. Our positions are very similar. I did casually use anecdotal "evidence" to discuss a case where technology can be useful in the classroom. I gave a bunch of other examples (sciences, applied sciences, research, news, free and readily available peer reviewed papers, etc.)
This too is a double-edged sword. Access to knowledge is a great thing... but that doesn't mean it has no negative effects... and they aren't all minor. I wouldn't argue we need to reduce the access to knowledge we have... just that we need to better understand all of the effects this has on things such as the development of children. It is not as simple an issue as it is often made out to be.
I can't think of a major negative way in which education is affected by technologies. You've brought up a few and they're valid concerns but I don't believe them to be hugely problematic. Regardless, changes to the pedagogic approaches with children should be studied carefully. But also, I would be in favor of seeing how the technologies can help them.
It might be foolish to just shove a keyboard in a kid's hands, but it could be just as foolish not to consider the the possibilities. Technologies can be good. Dip pens are cool and all but when kids got their rollerball pens, they stopped spending so much time dealing with ink and more time writing and learning. Sometimes our intellectual capabilities are bottlenecked by physical limits which we can lessen with certain tools. Sometimes not.
|
On November 01 2013 11:16 sam!zdat wrote:
that's irrelevant to the argument he makes, which is important
technology in the classroom is a way to make tech companies rich and shuffle kids through the credentials factory. all you need to teach someone is books and time
you should be saying the same about books and time. both just commodities for capitalists to rape.
all you need is your brain cells and food.
|
United States24700 Posts
On November 01 2013 12:28 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +Well computers are faster, except for when they aren't. The work is safer, except for when it isn't. You seem to only be willing to see this issue from one side. The computers are essentially always faster and safer when used right. I'm not sure what you mean by 'essentially' and 'when used right.' This isn't me trying to be a pain... the 'other' cases aside from the ones you are clearly thinking of are actually very important.
Under ideal circumstances, computers are safer and faster than hand-writing documents (and easier to read when printed). However, ideal circumstances are often far from the situation you are actually in. You don't always have a computer with you... when you do that means you are carrying it around which is common nowadays but not always viable. When you need to write something, it takes a second to get out your pen. Your computer may not be booted at that moment. Some computers are faster than others, of course. My laptop still takes me probably >40 seconds to get from "I need to write something" to "I can actually write something now." When you have some type of a problem with your computer, data can get lost. Paper data doesn't get lost unless the actual paper is lost or it is destroyed somehow. Sure, you can have some type of automatic cloud backup going on, but that requires you to have access to the internet, which is not always instantly available, either. Also I'm not so sure I want every single thing I write down saved in some alternate location.
When you want to share what you just wrote with someone who doesn't also have a computer set up, connected to the same network as you, and ready to receive your file using a mutually agreed upon protocol, you better hope they are satisfied with just looking at your screen (well who is going to control scrolling through the information... you or them?) or that you have immediate access to a printer (usually I find this is a pain to set up even if there is a printer nearby). There are other things you can do like carrying around a usb drive and putting your file on to the stick, but that's still much more unwieldy than turning your paper around and showing it to the other person.
And what if you have to make a diagram? Do math that can't be easily expressed on one line? I guess you can get an absolute latex whiz and type it as fast as most people write it, but I sure as hell can't and don't expect most other people can either. Honestly I have barely scratched the surface with showing ways in which your somewhat absolute claim doesn't match the reality I live in, whether you insist you have the 'right side' in this case or not.
I am not saying that computers can't be helpful in virtually all of these general situations under the right circumstances... just that we have not reached a point where the average person can reasonably expect that computers will satisfactorily replace writing in real life, let alone in a learning environment.
Show nested quote +This too is a double-edged sword. Access to knowledge is a great thing... but that doesn't mean it has no negative effects... and they aren't all minor. I wouldn't argue we need to reduce the access to knowledge we have... just that we need to better understand all of the effects this has on things such as the development of children. It is not as simple an issue as it is often made out to be. I can't think of a major negative way in which education is affected by technologies.
You've brought up a few and they're valid concerns but I don't believe them to be hugely problematic. I'm curious how you are deciding which of these concerns are and are not hugely problematic in education. I find education is one of those areas where everyone is somehow an expert on it.
It might be foolish to just shove a keyboard in a kid's hands, but it could be just as foolish not to consider the the possibilities. Technologies can be good. Indeed. Technology is responsible for some great successes in education in recent years.
|
On November 01 2013 12:49 micronesia wrote:
I'm curious how you are deciding which of these concerns are and are not hugely problematic in education. I find education is one of those areas where everyone is somehow an expert on it.
It's just what I think. I could be wrong and that's why I advocate for research to determine which methods are good and which aren't. I can easily be wrong, and I hope that if I am, people will find out.
If the calculator is as devastating as you say, then sure it's a problem. But the internet opens so many doors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
