This does not contradict what anyone else wrote, but just adds to
what Peter and Christine alluded to. I work with students with
disabilities on the college level and as a result I have visited Widener
Memorial HS, Overbrook School for the Blind, and PA School for the Deaf.
Computers have vastly increased access for students with disabilities.
I watched a child with no vision "listen" to a book. The speech was so
fast, it was indecipherable to me. Kids with visual disabilities start
out by listening to materials at a normal rate of speech. But with
practice and experience, they can increase the speed of output and
obviously "read faster." Digital scanning and digital reproduction of
sound makes the print world available to people with visual disabilities.
It is certainly an improvement over the old "recordings for the blind"
as the "library" is now unlimited. Does this replace Braille? My blind
adult students say it does not. Reading with your fingers allows you to
imagine and "visualize" whereas listening sometimes limits
interpretation.
I work with many students with Cerebral Palsy. (from Widener
Memorial HS) Their motor control and sometimes speech production can be
poor. Adaptive keyboards, as Peter alluded to, help them with writing
skills. "Sound boards" which use microchip technology allow students to
verbalize through their equipment using a keyboard (with hot keys and
shortcuts).
The merger of cell phones and instant messaging has totally
changed life for students who are deaf. The old telephone relay and TTY
equipment still in use, are quite cumbersome by comparison. The
Blackberry allows students who are deaf to text message all the time.
And while you might think this is frivolous for a teenager, it is
indispensable for these students.
The bottom line, as others have pointed out, is that it is what
it is you do with computers and other technology. BUT... in a
time-limited world, it is also what it replaces that needs to be weighed
and evaluated.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:19:29 -0500 Peter Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> That is wonderful.
>
> 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:
> >>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >> 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.)
> >>
> >> 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>.
> >>
>
----
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>.
