Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: pedagogical versus technological



Our general physics lab has a suite of 16 computers that line the walls
of the room. We make no effort to encourage the students to use the
computers. Our lab write-ups are all aimed at traditional paper and
pencil graphing. In fact, we provide the graph paper as part of the
write-up. Invariably, during the first lab a few students will ask if
they can do the graphing using Excel. We just say 'sure' and leave them
on their own. Eventually the whole class gravitates to the computers.

The thing that is is most satisfying is how the students spontaneously
start discussions amongst lab partner groups as to how to best format
the data and graph. Someone who is familiar with trendlines will place
one on the data - this snowballs into everyone doing trendlines. The
same thing happens in our labs involving error analysis and error bars.

I mention this ins response to the claim that computers are best when
used as discovery tools. That is exactly what we find. Canned learning
programs and CD's provided with textbooks fall flat pedagogically. But
just leaving the computers available as a tool for analysis does more
than we could ever deliberately set up in our lab write-ups.

Bob at PC

John Clement wrote:



So I would say the issue is there, but it really boils down to approp=
riate
uses of technology. You can get superb results with research based
curricula and by using research based pedagogy, but just sticking a c=
omputer
onto every desk will do NOTHING. Computers certainly allow students =
to crib
papers better and make the product much more readable. They are also=
an
absolute necessity for dyslexic students who need the spell checkers.=
They
also allow students who have fine motor control problems to perform a=
s well
as normal students.

Most people's opinions are just that, but there is a body of research=
into
the topic, and OP ED pieces seldom look at the research.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX