I hope you appreciate that I'm exploring these ideas and not just
gainsaying; but if I get a question from someone via my web site, or from
this list or similar, of a numerical/accounting nature, I often resort to
building a spreadsheet solution to it and I find that a very effective way
of explaining what can often be complex relationships, on a one to one
basis. Hence, we might conclude that directed self study, small group
tutorial work and training could benefit enormously from computer based
learning.
On the other hand, I remember learning all about the process model when
doing my teacher training and that suggests that using computers effectively
(even though the highest form of computing generally available at that time
was a commodore PET!) could be a winner. Maybe we haven't moved far enough
in terms of knowing what to do with the technology. The electronic
whiteboard isn't much of an advance in some ways from the blackboard and
chalk; and I have seen these whiteboards used exactly as if they were
traditional board and chalk!
Duncan Williamson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Rodda" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 5:50 AM
Subject: Re: IT in schools
> I admit to a bit of naughtiness - it's impossible to summarise a whole
paper
> in a few lines. However I think most of us could predict that if every
> classroom in your school received a computer tomorrow - most of them would
> sit their gathering dust.
>
> The paper was about using computers for instruction in subjects - not in
> teaching students how to use computers. The findings that there were no
> improvements in learning by using computers to help instruction does not
> surprise me.
>
> My own supposition is that the photocopier has been the biggest single
> technological advance in the classroom. What do you think?
>
> That is not to denigrate using computers as an instruction method. The
paper
> does however point out the opportunity costs involved. And for me,
suggests
> that its still the teacher that counts and its how they use materials not
> what materials are left lying around.
>
>
|