Vince's Blog

There is no question in my mind that children are beginning learning on computers too early. Today's parents, in their never-ending quest to protect their children would rather have their child sitting on the computer in the corner of the living room then running around and playing outside. After all, it doesn't matter if my child is obese because he doesn't exercise, a lot of kids are. And, it doesn't matter if my kid doesn't develop any social relations with other kids, he can talk to people online. Or, my personal favorite, my kid has to get a head start on all the other kids so he can get a better job when he grows up.

What we really need to improve education is a diverse course offering. When I read that art and music programs were cut for a computer program, I got sick to my stomach. In study after study, it has been proven that increased art and music education lead to better scores on math standardized tests. I am quite sure that the ability to use a computer program has very little to do with the development of the brain. As the author said, "we [kids in a classroom] were happy [on computer days] because we had an hour that we didn't have to think..."

It may sound as if I am completely against technology in education. That is not true at all. What I advocate is that schools and teachers use technology the way it was meant to be used - as a tool. What many of the mentioned programs are trying to do is to use it as a curriculum, or even worse, as a substitute teacher. We also need to teach children how to use these tools in a meaningful way. Would you teach a child what a hammer does by telling him to hit his knee with it? Of course not, but this is what we are, in effect, doing when we set a first grader in front of a computer. The child must learn the limits of the physical world before simulating the limits on a computer.

One additional point: the most disconcerting aspect of computer use in an educational setting is the associated demise of the development of interpersonal skills. If a child does not grow up learning to respect adults and peers, what kind of an adult will he be? Surely not one that I would want to be associated with.

Posted by John Wagner at 1:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I agree completely with the author's supposition that reading hypertext is a completely different experience than reading print literature. I would even go so far as to say that the author has failed to note the various types of hypertext she describes are different in and of themselves.

Reading (and writing) in a chatroom is different from reading and writing on an electronic bulletin board is different from reading information on a web page. All three of these types of media (along with print media, of course) have different levels of reader involvement. In a chatroom, the reader is reading and responding in the here and now. On a bulletin board, the reader reads, writes, and contemplates while awaiting a response. Reading a webpage is closer to reading a novel - a one-way discourse, however, as the author stated, the reader does have more control over what aspects of the literature are read.

A final comment: I am not convinced this is something we need to spend a lot of time teaching students. Rather, our students should spend a lot of time teaching us! Students are already reading hypertext at a high level! Certainly higher than those of us who "snuck away to read while avoiding chores."

Posted by John Wagner at 4:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I was very fascinated with the concept of experiential thinking vs. reflective thinking. Until I read this paper, I had never even contemplated the difference. I did (and knew how to do) each automatically. The idea that reflective thinking required thought and outside references and other people was, for lack of a better description, "pre-programmed" in me.

Since reading the article, I have been observant of the type of thinking my students engage in. Even my highest level students are universally "experiential thinkers." Not only must we as educators show our students the difference between the two, we must also require them to engage in both types of thinking regularly. In one of my classes, I have a student that always blurts out an answer nearly before I have completed asking the question. This student is clearly using his experiences as the basis for his response. How else would he be able to answer (incorrectly or correctly) so quickly, in fact, reflexively?

I am going to do an experiment in my Pre-Calculus Honors classes. I will spend some time teaching and explaining the difference between the two types of thinking, and whenever I ask a question, I will preface with the words, "experiential" or "reflective" and then require that the appropriate type of thinking be used. I foresee students asking the question, "How long do I have to think for?" My preplanned response is that reflective thinking is not measured by time, but by resources. We'll see how that goes over. :)

Results from experiment to follow...keep your eye peeled!

Posted by John Wagner at 4:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While reading the article PowerPoint is Evil, by Edward Tufte, I laughed out loud several times! Tufte is so right on that he couldn’t possibly have hit the nail any more on the head than he did.

I reflected upon recent presentations and training sessions I have been to that involved PowerPoint® presentations. I can honestly say that I remember very little of the presentations, but could accurately judge the quality of the slides that were presented! It is a sad state of public speaking today that the audience need not hear the speech, only witness the “great slides.�

From now forward, I will always refer to this article before using a PowerPoint® presentation! You can’t call me Stalin!

PowerPoint® is a registered trademark of the Microsoft Corporation and I have used it without any authorization from Bill Gates or any representative of Microsoft.

Posted by John Wagner at 8:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For the most part, the authors of the paper, Computers as Mindtools for Engaging Learners in Critical Thinking, seemed intent on stating facts as they see them rather than drawing conclusions or accepting alternative hypotheses. The one salient point the authors had was that all too often in education, we as educators are asking students to perform tasks that are much better suited to computers. We should encourage our students to make decisions, judgements and provide direction to their learning rather than memorize topics, ideas and formulas. If the use of some of these MindTools can facilitate that, I am all for it! Bring 'em on!!!!!!!!

Posted by John Wagner at 7:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)