more on computers in the classroom, boondoggle or real tool?

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:25:15 +0900
From: Adam Peake <ajp () glocom ac jp>
Subject: Re: [IP] computers in the classroom, boondoggle or real tool?
X-Sender: ajp () pop glocom ac jp
To: dave () farber net

{{{Dave, from last week, but if you could send to IP list?  Thanks. Adam}}}





Dave,

Interesting reaction to the recent IP note about computers in the 
classroom.  Bob's book is a good read, review from Salon here 
<http://archive.salon.com/tech/books/2003/10/01/johnstone/print.html>

Thanks,

Adam



> Delivered-To: ajp () glocom ac jp
> Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 08:26:28 +1100
> Subject: Re: [IP] computers in the classroom, boondoggle or real tool?
> From: Bob Johnstone <bjstone () bigpond net au>
> To: Adam Peake <ajp () glocom ac jp>
>
>
> Thanks for this, Adam.  It is really extraordinary that we can still be
> having this essentially uninformed debate about the effectiveness of
> computers in 2003.  In my recent book, Never Mind the Laptops:  Kids,
> Computers, and the Transformation of Learning, I try to raise the bar
> by going over the history of computers in the classroom, then looking
> at the most successful examples of learning with laptops, most notably
> at schools here in Melbourne.  For further details, see also my website
> <http://www.nevermindthelaptops.com>.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob
>
> >  Delivered-To: ajp () glocom ac jp
> >  X-Sender: dfarber () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
> >  Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 12:45:01 -0500
> >  To: ip () v2 listbox com
> >  From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
> >  Subject: [IP] computers in the classroom, boondoggle or
> >    real tool?
> >
> >
> >  Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
> >  Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 09:39:35 -0800
> >  From: Elizabeth Ditz <ponytrax () batnet com>
> >  Subject: computers in the classroom, boondoggle or real tool?
> >  X-Sender: ponytrax () pop batnet com
> >  To: dave () farber net
> >
> >  Dave, some people think that the value of computers in education have
> >  been
> >  way oversold.  Todd Oppenheimer (the  author of The Flickering Mind:
> >  The
> >  False Promise of Technology in the Classroom and How Learning Can Be
> >  Saved )
> >  <http://www.flickeringmind.net>http://www.flickeringmind.net
> >  is one of them.
> >
> >  He's published an article
> >
> >  <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/30/>> 
> > ING8L39SIP1.DTL>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/
> >  11/30/ING8L39SIP1.DTL
> >
> >
> >  The key points are:
> >  1. Cutbacks in bodies (teachers, librarians) and proven programs
> >  (arts, PE,
> >  shop) but increased and wasteful spending by school districts on
> >  computers.
> >
> >  <snip>
> >  Shifts of this sort have made for a drastic and worrisome change in
> >  today's
> >  classrooms. Throughout the country, computer technology is dumbing
> >  down the
> >  academic experience, corrupting schools' financial integrity, cheating
> >  the
> >  poor, fooling people about the job skills youngsters need for the
> >  future
> >  and furthering the illusions of state and federal education policy.
> >  <snip>
> >
> >  2. Districts are blindly throwing computers into classrooms without
> >  considering if computer use is transformative or age appropriate.
> >  <snip>
> >  Yes, computers can open up valuable new learning opportunities. But
> >  this
> >  mostly involves older students, who should have the maturity to
> >  navigate
> >  the vagaries of the Internet and take advantage of sophisticated
> >  technology
> >  classes. (These classes involve activities such as advanced scientific
> >  and
> >  mathematical modeling, or electronic projects, in which students make
> >  circuit boards and their own software programs.) Unfortunately,
> >  classes of
> >  this sort are the great exception.
> >  <snip>
> >
> >  3. Throwing computers into classrooms in low-income districts has
> >  increased
> >  the digital devide, not decreased it.
> >  <snip>
> >
> >  In Harlem, for example, teachers have their hands full just trying to
> >  maintain order and pass on a basic level of knowledge. Now, they have
> >  to
> >  spend much of their time managing technical hassles the schools can't
> >  afford to fix and watching for cheating, instant messaging tricks and
> >  illicit material on screens that teachers cannot control or even see.
> >  <snip>
> >
> >  4. Software manufacturers prey on naive school districts
> >  <snip>
> >  Consider one popular software package for reading -- the president's
>  > top
>  > priority for education, if not for domestic policy in general -- called
> >  Accelerated Reader, or AR, which is used in more than half the nation's
> >  public schools. AR is made by Renaissance Learning Inc., an aggressive
> >  Wisconsin company that stakes its educational reputation on the
> >  volumes of
> >  research suggesting that its products raise academic achievement.
> >
> >  But the quality of that research is another matter. "This is not an
> >  honest
> >  picture of what this program is doing," Cathleen Kennedy, a researcher
> >  at
> >  UC Berkeley's Evaluation and Assessment Research Center, told me after
> >  reviewing several Renaissance studies. "It's a typical dog-and-pony
> >  show
> >  used on administrators who don't know about statistics."
> >  <snip>
> >
> >  5. Hardware manufacturers prey on naive school districts
> >  <snip>
> >  To make matters worse, when schools set out to buy computer gear, the
> >  technology industry often takes advantage of them. In San Francisco,
> >  federal authorities approved a $50 million grant in 2000 to finance the
> >  lion's share of a massive school networking project (the total cost of
> >  which would be $68 million). Surprisingly, the district later turned
> >  down
> >  the $50 million grant. After examining the contract, district
> >  technicians
> >  discovered they could build the system themselves for less than their
> >  tiny
> >  share of the costs -- that is, less than $18 million.
> >
> >  How could this be? It turns out that if San Francisco had accepted the
> >  grant, that $50 million would have gone to computer industry giant NEC,
> >  whose bid marked up prices on computer hardware by 300 to 400 percent.
> >  One
> >  small Internet switch in the bid retailed on the open market for about
> >  $4,000 apiece.
> >
> >  NEC was selling San Francisco 130 of these switches at approximately
> >  $10,000 apiece. This would have yielded a profit margin to NEC of
> >  $780,000
> >  -- on just one item.
> >  <snip>
> >  Liz Ditz
> >
> >  E-mail me at: ponytrax () batnet com
> >
> >  Read My blog at:
> >  <http://lizditz.typepad.com/>http://lizditz.typepad.com/
> >
> >  "I have not failed. I've  just found  10,000 ways that won't work."
> >  --Thomas  Edison
> >  </blockquote></x-html>
> >
> >  -------------------------------------
> >  You are subscribed as ajp () glocom ac jp
> >  To manage your subscription, go to
> >    http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
> >
> >  Archives at:
> >  http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


--

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/