Re: Common Sense Prevails In Georgia

In article <she5f1t03p7hcok7k38r4op9u499mujh9i@xxxxxxx>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:16:27 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to
> bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >In article <7hk0f117i60271g5ql2r4t74r9ebo2qa6f@xxxxxxx>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:44:37 -0400, TheLetterK
> >> <theletterk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> chose to bless us with the following
> >> wisdom:
> >>
> >> >Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >> >> http://www.betanews.com/article/Massive_School_iBook_Program_Scrapped/11
> >> >> 230
> >> >> 04331
> >> >>
> >> >> Cuss and discuss.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >Alright, where's the common sense? If we're going to waste money on a
> >> >public school system, it had damn well better be equipped properly. We
> >> >live in the 21st century, not the 19th.
> >>
> >> Of course in thise case 'being equipped properly' means having the
> >> tools shown to be most effective in educating. There's zero evidence
> >> that computers do that any better than books and books are a helluva
> >> lot cheaper. Newer doesn't always mean better.
> >
> >My take is that computers could be enormously effective in education,
> >but only with much higher average technical literacy, among the people
> >who design curriculum, among administrators, among teachers, and among
> >students. The current situation is a bit like trying to use books in
> >education when a lot of the people involved in the process can barely
> >read.
> >
> >This is probably not a problem you can solve in the short-term.
>
> While that makes more sense than Jim's rantings on the subject, I
> remain skeptical.
> I'm old enough to recall when pocket calculators first showed up on
> the scene. At first teachers wouldn't allow them in their classrooms.
> They said that kids needed to learn the basics by rote just like kids
> had for generations. Then along came the Outcome Based Education
> Movement which preached that kids feeling good about the answer was
> more important that getting the right answer. Soon memorizing
> arithemtic tables was a thing of the past and first graders were
> carrying calculators.
> Ask anyone under thirty what 6X8 equals. They'll pull out a calculator
> because they have no clue otherwise.
> With the access to almost all information you can get with computers
> there soon won't be seen to be a need to know anything. Think of how
> much stupider your average high school kid today is that they were in
> his grandparent's day. Imagine the several orders of magnitude dumber
> tomorrow's grad will be once the need to teach him anything is
> officially dispensed with.
> I don't know about you but I dread going across any bridge or going in
> any building that isn't at least fourty years old as it is. I can't
> imagine the horrors that will be produced by the 'I don't need to know
> anything. I can look it up on the computer' generation.

Vernor Vinge, in the context of discussing super-human intelligence,
makes some comments about what he calls "intelligence amplification". He
points out that for operationalized definitions of intelligence (that is
methods of actually measuring intelligence, such as intelligence tests),
having access to a computer that you know how to use well -- and
particularly to a massive global network -- literally makes you smarter.

As technology becomes more pervasive, as search systems become more
accurate, and as technical literacy increases, does it make more sense
to train people so that they can do as much as possible, as well as
possible, with nothing beyond their biological faculties and maybe a
pencil? Maybe it makes more sense to just treat access to computers and
networks as a given, and work from there.

For an example of how this could work in education, imagine a history
class where, on the first day, every student gets a database covering
all the information that would otherwise be in a textbook, except that
it's extensively hyperlinked (both internally and externally), very well
indexed, and instantly searchable.

Now, consider how a student with such a database, who knew how to use it
really well (since he'd been using similar systems since he learned to
read) would do a typical high school test designed for a student who
didn't have such a database. Odds are, he'd hand the thing in in 15
minutes with every answer right, even if he hadn't looked at the
database previously or attended any classes. Most of the questions are
going to be factual. He just types in keywords and gets answers
instantly.

Now, imagine, in contrast, the test you'd design for the class that used
the database. Imagine the the whole *class* you'd design for those
students. You barely need to teach facts anymore. You can focus almost
entirely on concepts -- on actual thinking, rather than rote
memorization. The test you give at the end of the class is going to be
all about applying concepts.

If you ask someone from the database-enabled class and the
database-deprived class some trivial question -- what year a war
started, or whatever, odds are the guy from the database-deprived class
will be more likely to know the answer, away from his computer. Now, ask
him to take some concept that he's never even heard of, because he was
too busy memorizing dates, and apply it to some situation that wasn't
even covered in the class. Ask the guy from the database-enabled class,
who spent all year studying and applying concepts the same question.
Watch what happens.

Which of these is more important? Unless you expect information
technology to vanish in a puff of smoke at some point, I'd say the
latter.

--
"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get
them out of harm's way."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
.