Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 14, No. 285.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 07:43:52 +0100
From: Arun-Kumar Tripathi <tripathi@statistik.uni-dortmund.de>
Subject: [pn] Computers for children?
dear humanists,
[Hi, here is a feedback --thought might interest you --a counter-response
written by Ferdi Serim --to the latest report of "Alliance for Childhood"
Initiative and concerns raised by _Alliance for Childhood_ on the use of
computers by children --a hot ongoing debate in USA amongst educators,
technologists, psychologists, cognitive scientists and philosophers --is
forwarded via Papyrusnews. Thanks.-Arun]
*********************************************************************
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 03:22:41 -1000
From: Mark Warschauer <markw@hawaii.edu>
To: papyrus-news@hawaii.edu
*********************************************************************
This message was distributed by Papyrus News, a free e-mail
distribution list on the global impact of information technology on
language, literacy, and education. Feel free to forward this message
to others, preferably with this introduction. For information on
Papyrus News, including how to (un)subscribe or access archives, see
<http://www.lll.hawaii.edu/web/faculty/markw/papyrus-news.html>.
*********************************************************************
An issue being debated in the US is to what extent young children should
use computers in school. Ferdi Serim, drawing on the work of Hank Becker
and Margaret Riel, has written this response to an earlier call for a
moratorium on use of computers by young children....mark
---------------
From: Ferdi Serim [mailto:ferdi@LEARNING.CENTRINITY.COM]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 12:38 PM
Subject: Spinning Gold into Straw: Alliance for Childhood Misses the Point
Hi folks,
Last week's report by the Alliance for Childhood caused quite a stir in
the media and inside the Beltway...I drafted this response on behalf of
the Consortium for School Networking, which I'd like to share with you.
Please feel free to forward to anyone who may benefit from balance in
considering the place of technology in the development of
children....thanks!
Ferdi
-----------------
Spinning Gold into Straw: Alliance for Childhood Misses the Point
By Ferdi Serim
The adage "the older I get, the better I was" now extends from personal
recollection to collective judgement of earlier eras, if one accepts the
Alliance for Childhood's recent report "Fools Gold: A Critical Look At
Computers and Childhood."
Once again, the public is served up conclusions based on research and
quotations from laudable, notable people, all of whom share two important
characteristics: they are neither children, nor educators who actually use
technology as a tool to improve learning. The underlying assumption seems
to be that once an educator embraces technology, the love of children is
replaced by the love for machines. All we have to do to improve education
is change our attitude about the sanctity of childhood, banish elementary
school computers and all will be well. I believe that rather than focusing
on Good Old Days that never were, we can build bright new days that
incorporate the Alliance's goals, without ignoring what the past decade
has taught us about how technology can improve student learning.
Fool's Gold is the perfect snooze alarm for people who are yet to wake up
to the idea that educational improvement requires change. And change is
about more than velocity, it is also about direction. The debate today is
about more than technology, choice or vouchers: it centers on whether your
model for learning is based on transmission or construction of knowledge.
Instead, the report implies that corporate strategies are leading
educators like lemmings to the abyss, and that we're willing to sacrifice
our children at the altar of the new economy. These concerns mask a more
fundamental struggle about which model of learning will guide our
classrooms and homes, and who will teach.
Common sense is replaced by attacks on strawmen built from misconceptions
and distortions that no experienced technology using educator would
endorse or repeat. For example:
"Either/Or" Strawman
"What's wrong with education cannot be fixed with technology. No amount of
technology will make a dent." - Steve Jobs
Since both technology friends and foes agree that the most important
person in education is the teacher, isn't the most critical goal to
provide the most effective, best prepared teachers possible? Data from the
1998 Teaching, Learning and Computing (TLC) Survey
(http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc), involving more than 4,000 teachers in over
1,100 schools across the US, provides substantive insights about what is
required to do so.
One of their dramatic findings is that that teachers who have been
identified as teacher leaders in their schools, in their district and in
their fields were 10 times more likely to be teachers who used computers
themselves and have integrated the use of computers with their classroom
instruction. These teacher leaders, teachers with a high degree of
professional engagement and respect, contrasted with a group of teachers
that Riel and Becker refer to as private practice teachers. This group of
teachers had much lower investment in their own learning in pre-service
education and in later years. When the private practice teachers did use
computers, they did so in ways that supported drill and practice games.
The evidence shows that teachers who invest highly in their own learning
are discovering how to teach effectively with computers, using them for
problem solving, analysis and presentation.
Becker finds that computers are more likely to be a valuable and
effective instructional tool when certain conditions are met. Teachers
need to be personally comfortable and at least moderately skilled in using
computers themselves. There needs to be regular and easy student access
to computers "to permit computer activities to flow seamlessly alongside
other learning tasks." And, perhaps most importantly, a teachers' personal
philosophy needs to be consistent with student-centered, constructivist
pedagogy that incorporates collaborative projects defined partly by
student interest.
"Technology is Dehumanizing" Strawman
The power of the Internet is people, not machines. I've personally
witnessed a group of 5th graders in NJ take on the US Immigration Service,
to prevent a classmate (who was 2 years old in the Ukraine when Chernobyl
exploded) from being deported. (see http://oii.org/html/chernobyl.html)
They used the Internet to conduct a public information campaign that
resulted in the state legislature passing a unanimous resolution to allow
him to say. Being sent back would have represented a death sentence for
this child, who is in remission from leukemia and who would be unable to
find proper medical care should his illness return.
Dizzy Gillespie once told me "it will take you ten years to learn to play
your instrument, and it will take you twenty to learn what *not* to play!"
The arguments being made about technology's role in learning might have
held water a decade ago, but we who've been working in this field have
moved beyond infatuation. We know how and when to use technology, but more
importantly, we know when not to use it. We have experienced in our own
lives that technology and rich human relationships need not be mutually
exclusive. Used in a healthy way, technologies can enrich what happens in
real life. That's why we use them in the first place.
"They're Too Young to Play" Strawman
While concerns about physical injury to young children are legitimate, the
risk is a defined domain, similar to sports injuries or the realizations
that led very young children to use quarter-size violins in the Suzuki
method. The research shows that students are lucky if they get to a school
computer once a week, and that the average number of computers in
classrooms lucky enough to have them is 2. If children are using computers
4-5 hours a day, they're doing so at home, which argues for better
school/home communication on how to partner in shaping appropriate
computer use.
Perhaps we're not arguing about technology, but common sense. Young
children can benefit when caring, competent teachers use these machines to
enhance their learning landscape. For example, by using the computer to
track information over time, 1st grade students who were studying a small
pond discovered that there were fewer ducks each year. This graphing of
observational data inspired them to action and 6 classes of first graders,
the population of one small school, got the attention of city planners and
now the pond has been restored and preserved by the actions of
computer-using first graders.
Every Child Deserves a Qualified Teacher
In The Beliefs, Practices, and Computer Use of Teacher Leaders, Margaret
Riel and Hank Becker (University of California, Irvine) describe Teacher
Leaders "who place a high value on sharing their knowledge with their
teaching colleagues. At the opposite end of the continuum are Private
Practice Teachers who report little or no engagement in professional
dialog or activities beyond those mandated...(who) engage in a form of
"private practice" behind closed doors. Closed classroom doors open
concerns about maintaining high standards for both teaching and learning."
They continue, "The findings are consistent and strong--Teacher Leaders
are better educated teachers, continuous learners, computer users, and
promote constructive problem-based learning over direct instruction. They
use computers to help their students achieve the same level of respect and
voice that these teachers have achieved within their professional
educational community."
That's the good news. Although the students of the best educated, most
professionally involved, most skilled educators are ten times more likely
to use computers in powerful ways, the bad news is the distribution:
Teacher Leaders are 2%, Teacher Professionals are 10%, Interactive
Teachers are 29%, and Private Practice Teachers are 58% of the teaching
population. Literacy has expanded beyond Ozzie and Harriet days, yet we
have allowed acquisition of these new skills remain optional for our
teaching force.
Rather than perpetuate drama, we could choose to dialogue. Those of us
using technology to improve learning have more in common with the Alliance
for Childhood than either group suspects. How will the next version of
this report look once we engage each other in purposeful, action oriented
discourse?
(This essay will be published as a column in the November issue of
eSchoolNews. see http://www.eschoolnews.com/ )
______________________________________________________
Ferdi Serim phone/fax: 505 466-1901; cell: 505 577-1580
email: ferdi@oii.org
Online Internet Institute, Director http://oii.org
Santa Fe, NM 87505
http://oii.org/ferdi/Ferdi.html
ECP Ring Leader <http://www.Edu-CyberPG.com>
co-author: NetLearning: Why Teachers Use the Internet
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/netlearn/
"We are more than the sum of our knowledge,
we are the products of our imagination." - Ferdi
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/03/00 EDT