Posted on 09/16/2002 7:15:16 PM PDT by Sweet_Sunflower29
Nearly one in three children aged between four and eight cannot tell the time on traditional clock faces.
A study has found that the prevalence of digital clocks on computers, video timers, radio alarms and mobile phones means that children learn to tell the time this way - such as "10:45" rather than "a quarter to eleven".
The survey of 2,950 parents found that the number of children who recognised the "big hand, little hand" method had decreased from 75 per cent to 66 per cent in a year.
Government guidelines state that all children in reception classes - those aged four to five - should be able to read traditional clocks. But 59 per cent cannot.
By year one, aged five to six, they are supposed to understand half and quarter hours, but 52 per cent cannot.
A year later they are meant to have a sense of hours, minutes and seconds, but more than one in four are still struggling. Nearly two thirds of this group cannot tell the time on a digital clock.
Nick Seaton, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, said: "Children are continually being confronted by digital displays and so it is essential that they also learn to tell the time on analogue clocks and watches."
The research was carried out by BMRB International for the watch-makers Flik Flak.
They do it that way because that's the way they've always done it, at least as far back as 1550, and probably earlier. Many clock historians claim that IIII is supposed to provide artistic balance, since you mentally pair it off with VIII on the other side of the dial. (Presumably you see how the otherwise economical IV would have trouble holding its own in this respect.) The only problem with this theory is that the Romans apparently never used IV--it's a relatively modern invention. It's possible, in other words, that old-time clock makers used IIII because it was considered perfectly proper usage for all purposes, horological or otherwise, at the time. My friend David Feldman, in his book "Why Do Clocks Run Clockwise," cites an expert who says medieval clockmakers used IIII so as not to confuse the illiterate. You could count, "One, two, three, four! Hey, it's four o'clock!" Whereas having to subtract I from V to arrive at the same result was beyond your mental capabilities. Well, maybe. But let's think about this. The peasants couldn't handle IV, but somehow the IX for 9 posed no problems? Did only literate people go out after eight o'clock? Actually, as I read Dave more closely, he seems to be saying that at one time clockmakers used VIIII for 9. OK, but why are we using IIII and IX NOW? Tragically, we may never know the truth. History can be like that.
It goes on even more.... found at http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_153.html
For example when one has only so much time to do something before stopping to do something else, it's much easier to visualize exactly where you are at at any given moment and how much time is left before the dead line looking at an anologue watch.
Looking at a digital readout doesn't show a point in relation to other points in time..it just shows you a number.
I also do precision inspection work and find an analogue dial is better for calculating tolerances than a digital readout.
Sweet mother of god- if I ever have a son I pray for a totally immersive virtual reality gaming system. Otherwise he'll probably do the sorts of things I did.
I am an inspector for Northrop Grumman and those responsible for calibrating the instruments used to measure extremely tight tolerances say that analogue instruments are more accurate than digital.
In fact, as a rule...we do not trust digital tools for measuring anything more than a three place decimal. When it comes to 10 thousand place decimals, we only will use anologue measuring tools.
Digitals are too unstable.
That's BS!
A watch with hands can be read with a quick glance where you have to actually look at a digital and read 4 numbers plus the numbers in a digital watch are awful small, I wouldn't have one.
You're right. An anologue watch is much easier to read than digital.
Righty-tighty-lefty-loosey is more so.
I gave her a watch, and she loves it...and it is analog. For some reason I wanted her to have analog time on her wrist. My first watch was digital (I won it in an art contest). And sheesh...*I* still have to think for a moment before I can tell time on an analog clock.
Right now our biggest challenge is money. DD is having a lot of trouble concieving of pennies/nickels/dimes/quarters being less than a piece of green paper...sigh. Good thing school lunches can be pre-paid on account.
But I think I'll throw her for a loop tomorrow and introduce her to roman numerals, just for fun. ;-)
When I was a kid we had a clock with Roman Numerals and the rest were digital. I never learned to tell time in school and I was probably 10 or 11 before my mom figured that out. I can tell time, but heaven forbid a stranger ask me what time it is! I get totally flustered.
There are only digital clocks at my son's school. But he was taught to read a real clock.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.