Re: PCs and education

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: jordan pollack <pollack () brandeis edu>
Date: May 7, 2007 6:19:56 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] PCs and education

The idea of computers improving education isn't bad, its the
implementation which sucks, going all the way back to PLATO. Just 3
short points:

LAPTOPS HAVE BEEN BUILT AND OPTIMIZED FOR CORPORATIONS. A few years ago
when I started a project to export discoveries from co-evolutionary
machine learning to the domain of human learning, I came up with the
short phrase "One to One" learning and much to my amazement, the term
was already in use as a way to sell corporate laptops  (HP, INTEL) and
Microsoft office software  to schools as "One laptop, One Student".  As
if using Microsoft Word with its spelling and grammar checker will
improve children's ridden work. Now, its seems to be called "Freedom To
Learn"  http://www.ftlwireless.org/

PC'S ARE AS MINDLESSLY ADDICTIVE AS TELEVISION. You would not knowingly
give a kid a TV to carry around all day to get addicted to soap operas
and exercise machine infomercials. Once you give away connected machine,
kids WILL choose mindless video games and you-tube eye-candy over boring
educational content, despite porn filters. The idea of  open ducational
resources like MIT's  (which is free for you, but well-endowed for them
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i26/26a03201.htm ) might work for
career-minded adults motivated to train themselves, but kids need to be
placed in a motivating structure.

GOOD EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING WILL NEVER BE AS PROFITABLE AS OTHER
CONTENT.   Nick's new TV may cost $100, but the "free" programs will
cost a heck of a lot more, and won' have the same sponsors as American
Idol. We have a Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which makes TV
programming which is too unprofitable for the mass networks, so each
country, including ours,  might need its own non-profit Corporation for
Public Educational Software.

Anyway, my big idea is that managed-competition peer-interactions across
the Internet could lead to one-one as in "one-teacher-per-one-student"
learning, (where the "teacher" emerges from the network of  students)
solving Bloom's 2-Sigma problem and finessing the missing AI in
intelligent tutoring programs.

Cheers,
Jordan

Professor Jordan B. Pollack   Dynamic & Evolution Machine Org
Computer Science Department   FaxPhone/Lab: 781-736-2713/3366
MS018,  Brandeis University   http://www.demo.cs.brandeis.edu
Waltham Massachusetts 02454   e-mail: pollack-at-brandeis.edu
Multiplayer Education Games   FOR FREE! http://www.beeweb.org



David Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Gordon C. Thomasson, Ph.D." <gthomas1 () stny rr com>
> Date: May 6, 2007 6:54:32 PM EDT
> To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> Subject: PCs and education
>
> Dave,
> I know it is heresy for (most?) IP-people, but this should be  
> confronted honestly. With ever-shrinking education budgets (in  
> terms of $-buying power, energy costs, etc.), honest cost-benefit  
> analysis must be done and faced-up to. Even with the fabled $100  
> (now the even more fabled $10) PC, the question is not just can  
> computers be afforded financially, but educationally. I'm sure a  
> hidden camera in the back of my college classroom (I'm NOT  
> suggesting one) would show some of those apparently studious  
> laptops have something other than course notes on the screen. And  
> as for IM-ing ...
> Gordon C. Thomasson, Ph.D.
>
>
> Are PCs, especially laptops, good for schools? The general issue is  
> EFFECTIVENESS -- both program and cost. In short, what is the NET  
> effect on schooling (not just learning) and on taxes (do we get  
> good value?). More and more the answer seems to be "no". The /NY  
> Times/ story (excerpts below) reports another challenge, pointing  
> to a wide range of problems, including instructional, curricular,  
> disciplinary, and fiscal.
> tal-
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html?ei=5087% 
> 0A&em=&en=e81b274bb8b5effb&ex=1178424000 <http://www.nytimes.com/ 
> 2007/05/04/education/04laptop.html?ei=5087% 
> 0A&em=&en=e81b274bb8b5effb&ex=1178424000>
> /NY Times/ May 4, 2007
>
> *Seeing No Progress, Some Schools Drop Laptops
> *By WINNIE HU
> .....
>
> So the Liverpool Central School District, just outside Syracuse,  
> has decided to phase out laptops starting this fall, joining a  
> handful of other schools around the country that adopted one-to-one  
> computing programs and are now *abandoning them as educationally  
> empty ? and worse*.
> ....
> "After seven years, there was *literally no evidence it had any  
> impact on student achievement ? none*," said Mark Lawson, the  
> school board president here in Liverpool, one of the first  
> districts in New York State to experiment with putting technology  
> directly into students' hands. "The teachers were telling us when  
> there's a one-to-one relationship between the student and the  
> laptop, the box gets in the way. It's a *distraction to the  
> educational process*."
> .....
> Yet school officials here and in several other places said laptops  
> had been abused by students, did not fit into lesson plans, and  
> showed little, if any, measurable effect on grades and test scores  
> at a time of increased pressure to meet state standards. Districts  
> have dropped laptop programs after resistance from teachers,  
> logistical and technical problems, and escalating maintenance costs.
> Such disappointments are the latest example of how technology is  
> often embraced by philanthropists and political leaders as a quick  
> fix ....
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com