Re: computers do more harm than good

["Dewey Dykstra, Jr." <dykstrad@EMAIL.BOISESTATE.EDU>]

> Dewey Dykstra said, "Hence, I'd say that there is enough "data" to tell us
> a lot about what to and what not to attempt using computers with children."
>
> Dewey, please tell us:
> 1) what we should attempt using computers with elementary school kids,
> 2) what we shouldn't attempt for this age group.
>
> Cheers,
> Jane
>
> Jane Jackson, Co-Director, Modeling Instruction Program
> Box 871504, Dept.of Physics & Astronomy,ASU,Tempe,AZ 85287
> 480-965-8438/fax:965-7331. http://modeling.la.asu.edu

It is clear from Clark's major work that one important feature which can be
demonstrated to have at least a one-sigma effect is a mastery approach.
Often computer aided instruction can assist us in implimenting the busy
work associated with assessing and looping of students back through things
they have not done well at.  ...this in a conventional instruction mode.

It is also clear that whenever you can do the same thing with "paper and
pencil" level technologies, then it is usually more cost effective to avoid
the computers unless economies of scale are available.  From the DoD
studies I know of the scale needs to be at least of the order of 5000
"students" on the same "lessons."  School systems rarely come close to this.

On the other hand computer systems which the students can use to get
somewhere they do not go with conventional instruction and tools can
automatically be cost worthy given that getting the students there is
deemed worthy.  After some delay I am back to working on a paper about a
study we did with 4th, 6th and 8th graders using Tools for Scientific
Thinking type activities.  On the measure we used students from each of the
grades made desirable changes.

Another example we have is in the work of Papert with LOGO.  There was a
big flare-up of LOGO use in the 80's.  Because a lot of it merely attempted
do the same superficial things done with computers, the vast majority of
the work never went very far.  OTOH the sorts of things Papert did and
others (the name Thornburgh sticks in my mind) were successful at getting
kids places they had not been before.  Papert was always asking: How do you
know what kids can and cannot do until you try with a new tool?  Few people
seemed to be attempting to push the envelope.  Those who did were "going
somewhere" with their students, in my view.

To borrow Papert's idea, kids should be allowed to come to see computers as
tools to think with.  This comes I think when we give students
appropriately challenging tasks which computers can aid in the doing.

Clearly we should not attempt to use computers drill and practice them at
unchallenging (intellectually) tasks that can be as easily drilled and
practiced without computers.  It is demeaning to the students and a
horrible waste of money.

Your request is a tall order, so my response is merely a response.

Dewey


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr.                 Phone: (208)426-3105
Professor of Physics                  Dept:  (208)426-3775
Department of Physics/MCF421/418      Fax: (208)426-4330
Boise State University            dykstrad@email.boisestate.edu
1910 University Drive                 Boise Highlanders
Boise, ID 83725-1570                  novice piper: GHB, Uilleann

"As a result of modern research in physics, the ambition and hope,
still cherished by most authorities of the last century, that physical
science could offer a photographic picture and true image of reality
had to be abandoned."  --M. Jammer in Concepts of Force, 1957.

"If what we regard as real depends on our theory, how can we make
reality the basis of our philosophy? ...But we cannot distinguish
what is real about the universe without a theory...it makes no sense
to ask if it corresponds to reality, because we do not know what
reality is independent of a theory."--S. Hawking in Black Holes
and Baby Universes, 1993.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++