pc dummies

[ARTelevision]

This does not surprise me.
I work with computers all day and I am on them at night.
I didn't grow up with them.
........................................

(quote)

Study: PCs make kids dumber
By Robin Lettice (robin.lettice at theregister.co.uk)
Published Tuesday 7th December 2004 18:42 GMT
Students who use computers frequently at school perform worse than their peers at maths and reading.

Those using computers several times a week performed "sizeably and statistically significantly worse" than those who used them less often.

Thomas Fuchs and Ludger Woessmann of the CESifo economic research organisation in Munich base their conclusions on an analysis of test performance and background data from the 2000 PISA study. This study involved tens of thousands of students in 31 countries, including the UK, organised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

The OECD pointed to a positive link between students' interest in computers and their literacy, and Fuchs and Woessmann found that the more computers there were in students' homes, the better their test performance.

However, they realised that more computers in a household generally means a more affluent family. Children from affluent homes tend to perform better academically, so Fuchs and Woessmann factored this in their analysis.

Having done this they found that the more computers there were in a student's home, the worse the student's maths performance.

Fuchs and Woessmann found that students performed more badly in schools with a significant lack of computers. However, they then took into account that schools with better computer availability also have better resources in general. They found that computer ability was not related to student performance.

They also studied the effects of computer use on test scores, and found that greater use of computers in the home impacted positively on test scores.

In schools the effect was different. Students who hardly ever used computers did a little worse than those who used them between a few times a year and several times a month. But those who used school computers several times a week performed "sizeably and statistically significantly worse" in both maths and reading.

The researchers suggest two theories to explain their findings. One is 'ability bias' - that it might be that teachers do not want lower-ability students to use computers.

The other is that high intensities of computerised learning come at the expense of more effective teaching methods and hinders students' creativity.

Dr Tim Rudd, from Becta, the UK government's computer agency, told BBC News "There is evidence to suggest that ICT can be a very powerful tool for developing literacy skills but that this may vary across ages and in relation to different aspects of literacy.

"In maths however, the evidence appears stronger. In a recent Becta paper analysing available research about primary and secondary teachers' use of ICT in maths, key findings suggest that ICT has changed the nature of teaching and learning.

"A wide range of tools is now available that enables learning to take place in a way that is more dynamic and powerful."

(end quote)

..................

I haven't seen a technology that doesn't replace direct experience with a simpler simulacrum. Simulacra make us dumber than direct experience.

[VitaminH]

Interesting. I would have thought computers would only enhance learning. You are correct in that experience is the best way to learn something, so I guess it makes sense now. Plus those darn kids are probably playing video games and not learning anyway.

[jaco]

I see this as an extremely pointless study (yet again) that is taking into account so many variables that the numbers would seem diluted from any possible fact. They also state that "high intensities of computerised learning come at the expense of more effective teaching methods and hinders students' creativity." well... duh? the definition of "more effective" is usually that it's better for you.

[billege]

I'm sure if you give me the funding I can do a study that accounts for variables in such a way to prove whatever point I want to make.

This article is so vague in detailing how they decided to remove, account for, etc. variable to show what ever exactly this is showing, it's almost completely useless. The use I'm seeing is as a starter for a discussion on use of computers in learning pro/con.

I mean this, "However, they then took into account that schools with better computer availability also have better resources in general" seems self contradictory to me. Wouldn't computers BE part of the better resources?

I mean, what's being said here?

If the ability to access the volume of information available though computer use is bad, I can only accept that if the reason is the substution of search results for a thought process.

I don't even see the point in discussing a claim like this, so I'm not typing any more.

[rat]

this is no surprise to me, and something that i've believed for years now. even a simple four-function calculator hinders the performance of mathematics, as people become more dependent upon the calculator to do the work their brain would normally.

take for example, my Intermediate Accounting class, a junior-level Accounting course in the Business School here at Texas A&M. Our professor would constantly tell the class to get out their calculators to do simple long division (generally with three zeros on the end to simplify things)...within seconds she'd receive an answer--from me, desk clean, pencil scribbling doodles, and a slightly bored expression on my face. I'd either do the math with a pencil in the time it took others to get out their TI-83i calculators, or I'd do it in my head and be answering her question before her question was finished. What really struck me was one day when she asked for the quotient of 25000 divided by 6 years. I promptly went through the simple schemas established by my 2nd to 4th grade teachers and subconsciously did "6 x 4 is 24. 6 times 4000 is 24000. that leaves 1000. 100 divided by 6 is 16.6666666666. That times ten is 166.66666666666. That rounded is 167 plus 4000 which equals 4167." I had answered, to the stunned amazement of UNIVERSITY juniors and seniors with generally above-average GPAs, "4167" before a single one of them had even got the cover off their calculator. After several "How'd you get that so fast?", the prof let me explain the above mental-mapping my mind learned by the time I was 8 years old. To my amazement, the rest of the class thought it was too hard for any of them to learn, and wouldn't bother believing that I'd done something I considered simple. Then I thought about the kind of math my father does in his head--four to five digit multiplication followed by standard to metric conversions. My dad never got past his second year of junior college, but he uses his mind every day, working as an ops manager for a cargo airline werehouse. Keeping my mind sharp was something he taught me long ago.

Dependence upon machines for calculation, searching, and grammatical correction has led to a less literate, less capable generation, of which I consider myself. This sort of dependence upon simplification and convenience at the expense of effort and learning can be applied universally over our eating habits, our conversation patterns, our social interactions. Kind of disheartening in and of itself.

[Suave]

I'd like to see the exact research design of this study. There are numerous variables that I did not see addressed in that article, and taking only a pair of hypotheses out of such a complex matter is a fallacy, in my opinion.

[DelayedReaction]

Fuchs and Woessmann found that students performed more badly in schools with a significant lack of computers.

Apparently Robin Lettice didn't grow up with computers either.

[ObieX]

One would think that constantly reading and typing on a computer would increase your literacy level. I guess not.

I can understand the math side. Why bother to scribble and strain. Me mash button!

[flamingdog]

Originally Posted by rat

this is no surprise to me, and something that i've believed for years now. even a simple four-function calculator hinders the performance of mathematics, as people become more dependent upon the calculator to do the work their brain would normally.

To be fair though, you shouldn't assume everyone around you is stupid just because they aren't adept with numbers. Mathematical reasoning has never, ever come naturally to me, and I consider myself (and am considered by others) to be extremely intelligent. I couldn't even comprehend the formula you outlined in your post, nor can I do long division, on paper or in my head. I can reason my way to an answer if I have to, but when it comes to numbers, I just stumble.

Words, on the other hand, I have a bit of an affinity with. But, you can't base a person's intelligence on their ability to write. Some fantastically intelligent and capable people can barely string a sentence together on paper.

[ngdawg]

There could be some (emphasize 'some') validity to these studies, if one takes into account the time in a child's lifespan spent in front of a computer. One may equate that with time spent in front of a tv.
My children were not exposed to computers very much before they were 8 years old. Now that we have one and they are on it more than they are in front of the tv, their skills in the classroom have not suffered-they are both honor students in honors math and english.
On the other hand, having worked in the middle school in basic skills english and math, many of the kids I worked with did NOT have access to technology at home. They could not put a simple paragraph together without constant guidance. Are the two related? Maybe not, but neither are they exclusive of each other.
As in many other areas of child development, environment is everything. We can expose our kids to a vast world of technology, but we also need to guide them through the choices of how to use it to their own advantage.
I do agree with the point that, in especially math, there is too much dependency on calculators and other technologies to solve equations. While math is a definitive science, it should stimulate the creativeness to arrive at the conclusion instead of depending on some box. This dependency is leading to lazy thinking.

[vox_rox]

Originally Posted by Suave

I'd like to see the exact research design of this study. There are numerous variables that I did not see addressed in that article, and taking only a pair of hypotheses out of such a complex matter is a fallacy, in my opinion.

This is, in my opinion, the crux of this whole thing. The "study" or "survey," depending on what methodology was used, has more to do with design than interpretation, and when you factor in both, you can really make any survey say anything you want.

Where is the confidence raitng for this survey? Is it quantative only anbd, if so, exactly how were respondents instructed to rate items, and what items?

Nope, the article is both pointless and meaningless and, even if they have actually stumbled across something that is interesting and should be followed-up on, this report should never be the basis of anything in terms of consensus or decision-making.

Peace

Pierre

[Rodney]

Originally Posted by rat

this is no surprise to me, and something that i've believed for years now. even a simple four-function calculator hinders the performance of mathematics, as people become more dependent upon the calculator to do the work their brain would normally.

I've been working with some elementary school kids on math; they're not calculator users, and their math skills are still lower than I expected.

I took a not-very-good math education course recently, but one good point that it made was that what kids really need to develop is a "number sense:" the almost instinctive knowledge of how to break numbers down into other numbers, so that you can "slice and dice" the numbers in any problem in your head to make the problem solvable. For example, if asked to multiple 4 times 95, you might:

*Note that 95 is 5 less than 100; so, multiple 4 x100 (a number fact that everyone is taught), then multiple 5 x 4 (the different between 4 95s and 4 100s, and subtract).

*Know from your multiplication tables that 9 x4 is 36, so that 9 x 40 must be 360; then multiple the extra 5 x 4, then add both products.

How do you get a number sense like this? Some kids develop it themselves (I did), but you also get it from working on problems without the teacher providing a set technique; what a teacher might do is divide a class into pairs and small groups and say, "solve this" and let them all go at it. This is not the only component in a good math education, but it's a necessary supplement to teaching them the standard algorithms for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. If they just learn them by rote, without understanding why the numbers move as they do, they're still math illiterates. Some kids can add three digit numbers just fine and _still_ not be able to tell you why they're "carrying the one." That's just what they've been taught to do.

Anyway, the course went on to say that in other countries, such as Japan and England, math is taught at least partly with the problem-solving approach, and it leads to better mental math skills. So I went over to talk to my then-neighbor down the block, a Brit who works as a graphics artist. He never took math past age 12 or 13. But he did have the kind of problem-based math training that I was asking about -- said it was fairly common in England -- and said that he and most of his Brit friends could do problems in their head that his American buddies had to drag out the calculator for.

Of course, the fact that they can't even do it with paper and pencil anymore is another shame. But the math course did say that if _all_ you learn about math is the algorithms, and not the number sense, that forgetting the details of the algorithms means that you can't do the math anymore, even with paper and pencil. You don't have enough background knowledge to fill in the gaps in your memory and remember how the algorithm _must_ work. I've probably retaught myself long division on paper two or three times, because although I might have forgotten the details, I remember how it's supposed to work and thus can infer those lost details.

[Stiltzkin]

My first computer usage involved solitaire, meaning that I initially hated computers with a vengeance. Then a friend showed me Wolfenstein, and I quite frankly didn't give a poop about the game itself, but I was instead extremely fascinated how something like that could be made. When I turned 11 I taught myself to program in Visual Basic (ah, the old days of VB3...) I spent years teaching myself to program in C and VB and ASP thereafter. Only recently have I gotten into the habit of wasting time on the computer for hours upon hours. What's my point? The computer kept my mind sharp as hell, you better believe it.

My English professor this semester says I've been writing some of the best papers this semester.
My calculus professor last semester openly told the whole class that I was the best student in the class (I don't know why he did that, because that's kind of discouraging for other students... I guess)
The one thing I do suck at horribly is being in social situations. I always feel like if what I want to say would be far too geeky for the situation, so I just shut up.
What's my point with saying this? Just give something your honest best effort and you ought not do bad in it; doesn't matter if you grew up with computers or not, it just totally depends on your character.

"But Stiltzkin, why don't you take your own advice and give social situations your honest best effort?"
Well I have, and I've gotten away with not coming off as a total geek sometimes.

[johnsimon885]

There might be the factor that schools that encourage extensive use of computers are only doing so because it makes them flashy, and they might not have a program well geared to actually teach effectively through them. I've used computer extensively since I was in 4th grade at home, but in school only during computer related classes really.

It just be that students who use computers at school aren't being taught as well, and the administrators are pushing the computers on the school to boost the image rather than results. I know this overuse of computers has happened at a few schools near me.

(Sorry, that was a little redundant. I'm tired!)

[Suave]

Originally Posted by vox_rox

This is, in my opinion, the crux of this whole thing. The "study" or "survey," depending on what methodology was used, has more to do with design than interpretation, and when you factor in both, you can really make any survey say anything you want.

Where is the confidence raitng for this survey? Is it quantative only anbd, if so, exactly how were respondents instructed to rate items, and what items?

Nope, the article is both pointless and meaningless and, even if they have actually stumbled across something that is interesting and should be followed-up on, this report should never be the basis of anything in terms of consensus or decision-making.

Peace

Pierre

Of course, I myself have a bias, being a high-frequency computer user. I believe my GPA speaks for itself in contrast to this study though.

[mo42]

OEH MIE GODD EYE HAEV NO IDEAAAA Y COPMUTERES WOOD HAEV A NAGATEVE AFFECT OEN CHILDRAENS LITTERASEE

[Coppertop]

Originally Posted by DelayedReaction

Apparently Robin Lettice didn't grow up with computers either.

I'm sure glad someone else caught this too.

If kids are learning to read, how to spell and use grammar by using the internet, they're pretty much fucked. Too much goes online without being edited (by the writer, let alone a second person) for it to be an effective teaching tool regarding language skills.

As far as the long division in your head goes, I couldn't do that. Never was good with numbers. But that alone of course does not indicate intelligence.

[ironman]

Originally Posted by billege

I'm sure if you give me the funding I can do a study that accounts for variables in such a way to prove whatever point I want to make.

My thoughts exactly. Given the chance, one could even argue that people who doesn't know how to use a computer could be more succesfull than those who can, because in the time one used to learn how to operate them, others were starting a lumber empire!!!

[rat]

Originally Posted by flamingdog

To be fair though, you shouldn't assume everyone around you is stupid just because they aren't adept with numbers. Mathematical reasoning has never, ever come naturally to me, and I consider myself (and am considered by others) to be extremely intelligent. I couldn't even comprehend the formula you outlined in your post, nor can I do long division, on paper or in my head. I can reason my way to an answer if I have to, but when it comes to numbers, I just stumble.

Words, on the other hand, I have a bit of an affinity with. But, you can't base a person's intelligence on their ability to write. Some fantastically intelligent and capable people can barely string a sentence together on paper.

Flamingdog, I apologize if my little rant came across as me attacking non-mathematics-adept people as unintelligent. What I meant to get across is that the younger we start people upon machine-dependence (be it mathematics and calculators or writing papers and microsoft word grammar-check), the more likely we are to create a human being unable of utilizing their most valuable tool adequately--their mind. The importance lies in the mental-mapping (henceforth, schemas) that we teach children to develop through forcing them to learn things for themselves, from beginning to finish. The problems lie in the education system we have--both in the schools and in the homes. We begin children along the path to shortcuts in life early, without teaching them the long way of anything, be it cooking on a stove or oven, or writing complete words out online. Honestly, I take many a shortcut in my typing when it comes to instant messages, but I abhor the use of jargon/abbreviations on message boards such as these. Posts on forums are theoretically supposed to be thought-out, not slapdash (unless, of course, we're in Tilted Nonsense). The more reliant we are upon technology to correct our foibles, the more handicapped we become as human beings. When our major form of communication negates 95% of all human interaction (non-verbal methods of emphasis and communication), we hamstring our ability to function in a real intrapersonal social environment that doesn't consist of keyboards, monitors and electrons.

This is not to say that I don't believe technology plays a key role in the development of our contemporary society, quite the opposite in fact. However, if we teach young people methods of technology dependence rather than technology enhancement in learning, then we've defeated ourselves. Junior- and senior-level college students, people who have striven for a higher degree of learning and understanding voluntarily, should have the basic skills to do simple math with a pencil and paper (multiplication in excess of one digit by one digit, long division, fractions, etc.) without having to resort to a calculator. There are people in my accounting classes that couldn't wrap their minds around the fact that 2 divided by 12 is exactly the same as 1 divided by 6 or 3 divided by 18. Simple fractions thwarting upper-level businesspeople. Simply because they were raised to utilize those things around them that reduced their own need for knowledge. This isn't multi-variable calculus we're discussing, this is fundamental four-function mathematics, the ability to string two sentences together aloud without saying "ummmmm," the ability to coherently deliver a thought in a paragraph without the need for spell-check.

The sad fact is that beginning with my generation (I'm 21), we were raised in most cases to work as little as possible to achieve the maximum result, be it at work or in the classroom. And it's an insult to those people who use their minds as the tools they are, sharpening them daily and sharing their knowledge in a learnable fashion with others. Rather than relying on technology to do our work for us, we should use it to improve upon the effort we put forth, forming something superior to the singular work of one or the other.

[flamingdog]

Originally Posted by rat

The problems lie in the education system we have--both in the schools and in the homes. We begin children along the path to shortcuts in life early, without teaching them the long way of anything, be it cooking on a stove or oven, or writing complete words out online.

Agreed, I also apologise, I didn't mean to read something into your post that wasn't there.

So is it the education system that is to blame for my numeracy problems? Could be. By the time I finished secondary education, my mental arithmetic abilities had faded to nothing. I was reliant on a scientific calculator. Armed with that, I could do the problems. Without it, I was lost.

I was taught how to do it all longhand (and I'm the same generation as you Rat), but by the age of 11, it was just gone. And you know what? I've barely missed it.

[billege]

These people are saying to me, with this study they've done, that they understand the learning process well enough that they've reliabley been able to point out computers as a negative in the process.

Well, in my not so humble opinion, that's a load of horse manure.

If society understood the learning process well enough to pick out bits and pieces of it as effective or not, I might buy in to this load of manure more. But, kids all learn in different ways. What worked for me, may not for you. We all know this.

But these people say they've got it figured out, they can remove and account for all the other factors in a learning process, and point to a computer as being responsible for a score. Yeah. My ass.

That's the reason I'm not buying this. I don't have a particular stake in computers as good learning tools or not. Maybe they are, maybe they have a niche they can fill successfully. Are they a magic learning bullet? I doubt it. Are they bad enough they have this broad negative effect? I really doubt it.