Computers have a good history in special education. That is one area where the statistics support the investment in computers. Many children with physical disabilities excel with computers because they can take their time and the computer is infinitely patient, unlike even the most dedicated teacher. Many of the non-verbal students at Widener Memorial are able to get federally funded communicators, which are basically computers.
The main issue is that schools simply can't afford computers. In certain cases computers really do help children, and that is wonderful. When it comes to making policy decisions, I think looking at more than 25 years of research isn't putting your head in the sand. There are unique scenarios, but the big picture for computers in the classroom is lot's of wasted money.
:P
On Mar 23, 2005, at 11:21 AM, Christine Hibbard wrote:
I've got to chime in here. Obviously the computer bashers are operating with their head in the sand. Join the 21st century already. I have a dislexic child who labored with blackboard notes all through school- labored is an understatement. last year our child got a laptop, this young adult types fast and can copy notes form the board much faster than her peers laborously hand write them. They are on the computer to review, rearrange, sort and highlight. In addition, research note and new clips can be added to the note to flesh them out. This is a great learning tool and has made an amazing difference in my child's school performance. I wish I had one in the dark ages when I was in school.
From: Brian Siano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: March 22, 2005 5:31:16 PM EST
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?
Reply-To: Brian Siano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dan Widyono wrote:
Actually, Bruce's comments are perfectly reasonable. Consider the fact that I'd never laid fingers on a computer keyboard until I was maybe twelve or thirteen, maybe older, when our school got Apple IIs set up. (I was born in 1963. You do the math.)time?" The teacher responded, "Any fool, can be taught to operate a machine. You're being taught how to solve the problem yourself."
Children should not be allowed to use computers until they master the basic skills of the three R's on their own. Age 10 at the earliest.
Bah humbug, Bruce. It's up to the parents to make sure that *if* they use a
computer, they are _also_ taught problem solving and other essential skills
at the same level expected as if they hadn't a computer. That's the whole
point of implying there are other effects like economic status and parental
involvement, in households with computers (in the article).
Your blanket statement "don't use computers until 10" is not only
impractical, it's also as misleading as "computers definitely help kids
learn". If you extended your statement, you'd have to add "no TV until 10",
"no video games until 10", etc. Computers don't halt learning, uncontrolled
usage and inappropriate limits halt learning.
As for this "up to the parents" stuff, that's misleading. We're talking about what _schools_ can do. It's understood that parents have a responsibility here.
And my skills with computers are, if not spectacular, much better than most. I'd say I was the last generation to be raised _without_ computers, and I have noticed a distinct demarcation; younger users are more comfortable with computers, but they don't seem to understand what the computer's actually _doing_ behind the interface.
I don't have the references handy, but there's better evidence to suggest that _music_ education helps students far more than computers do.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
