Computers in classrooms are dramatically altering the way our children experience the world, fostering a manipulative, exploitative attitude toward others and toward the environment. What's more, they don't even improve academic performance!
Computers don't belong in classrooms?
Computers don't belong in classrooms?
http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/05-5om/Monke.html
Computers are a tool that we may need to learn to use Not a tool that we must use to learn.
Computers don't provide inteligence or experience. They help develop one small part of the brain, while smells, touch, physical exploration, social interactions (even schoolyard rough playing), music, arts, abstract thinking, etc. help develop other parts of the brain.
Computers cannot evaluate mood, or interest or aptitude. So they cannot addapt to individual differences.
Even we computer knowledge workers use it as a tool. I am a Software developer. But from my whole work day I may spend less than 30% in front of the computer, the rest is Interacting with other people, be it management, other team members, in front of a white board designing or with the client trying to understand what they really need.
I agree, computers in schools belong in the computer room as much as gym matts belong in the gym or the drums in the music room.
Computers don't provide inteligence or experience. They help develop one small part of the brain, while smells, touch, physical exploration, social interactions (even schoolyard rough playing), music, arts, abstract thinking, etc. help develop other parts of the brain.
Computers cannot evaluate mood, or interest or aptitude. So they cannot addapt to individual differences.
Even we computer knowledge workers use it as a tool. I am a Software developer. But from my whole work day I may spend less than 30% in front of the computer, the rest is Interacting with other people, be it management, other team members, in front of a white board designing or with the client trying to understand what they really need.
I agree, computers in schools belong in the computer room as much as gym matts belong in the gym or the drums in the music room.
Computers can be very educational, when they are used for something worth learning. In elementary school I taught myself how to program LOGO, then BASICA and later Qbasic. I also helped with menial admin tasks, like setting up new accounts for the teachers when the network went down. (For perspective, this was a token-ring network of CGA 286s.) Programming helped me learn algebra. I taught a few of my friends how to program.
Making a powerpoint* is about the most worthless thing a young kid can do. Programming improves analytical thought and empowers students because they have made something. Sure, art classes are similar. If it were up to me, elementary school would be art/music, gym and programming.
* Not saying that basic presentation skills are unimportant. It's just a poor way to teach them.
Making a powerpoint* is about the most worthless thing a young kid can do. Programming improves analytical thought and empowers students because they have made something. Sure, art classes are similar. If it were up to me, elementary school would be art/music, gym and programming.
* Not saying that basic presentation skills are unimportant. It's just a poor way to teach them.
I also agree with you, computers are a way to learn computers. Not history or sociology or psycology or engineering or music, or even reading and writing.
There is something where I strongly disagree:
There is something where I strongly disagree:
Analytical thought helps programming. What I mean is: Analytical and abstract thinking are required qualities to be a good programmer. Some people have it some people don't, As is the case with Politics or arts or strength. It does not matter how much I play basket ball, I will never be as big and strong or agile as a professional player, because I'm not built that way. It does not matter how much I paint, chancess are that my sensibility will improve just marginally.keenerd wrote: Programming improves analytical thought
Agree
Yes, the big assumption of the article is that children are able to browse the Net in an unlimited fashion. It is not the fault of computer usage - it is the fault of how the children's interface with the computer is designed.
And BTW, one shouldn't have too much of anything (except love, perhaps).
And BTW, one shouldn't have too much of anything (except love, perhaps).