Replies

I would suggest reading Susan Wise and Jessie Bauer's "Well Trained Mind". It is a great homeschooling book regarding teaching a classical education.

They point out that the majority of, "computer learning" is passive as it provides cute colorful images to go along with the text, while reading a book is an active skill. It requires the full engagement of the brain in order to imagine what is written in the book.

Where I work we utilize a lot of computer based training. Except for the classes that are pass or fail it's possible to simply go back and click another answer until you select the right one. This method, while it gets you through the CBT, (computer based training) does not give you any mastery of the subject matter.

I do agree about the hours of worthless videos and films in school. It's a waste of time and prime example of passive learning.

Computers in a learning environment should be used as any other tool. They should not substitute for the actual teaching.

Semper Fi

I work in simulation and a bit in training. I've seen a lot of bad CBT. You're right, in many of them, you can hit random buttons and get through the course with a pass. Programs that just throw up multiple-choice Q&A are a waste; you might as well do that the low-tech way with pencil and paper (ah, yes, Scantron, the other crutch-of-choice for teachers everywhere).

Also, I agree about the cute and colorful, but meaningless, images in a lot of educational software. These may be good for showing a young kid how to use a computer, but maybe not much beyond that.

I prefer educational games that actively engage the players--if you're passive, nothing happens, or you just "die." SimCity is a good example, and was used with no or minor changes in some classrooms. Sessions with a game like this could be combined with classical book learning about budgeting etc.

My point is that I think computers are wonderful tools for self-teaching and discovery. Ideally this would take place at home, and so maybe computers in the classroom would be distracting--but for some kids, that's their only exposure to them. As for using computers to substitute for teachers, probably not, but I can think of some of my past teachers who could have easily been replaced with tree stumps.

I'm biased because I always hated sitting through classes. It was not the case that I was so smart that I already knew the stuff (especially once I hit college-prep courses), but I found that I never learned anything just from listening to a lecture. I just wanted to get the assignment and go work things out on my own. These problems may be more attributable to huge class sizes rather than to teaching quality, but either way, I can honestly say I rarely learned anything in the class period itself. I excelled on my own, often using the aid of a computer, and that's why I'm open to the use of computers in school--as long as decent software and policies are used. But like I said, maybe I'm just biased based on my own experiences.