Small display on the bucket that tells you which rooms need mopping, when to replace the water, how much soap to add, etc.
That's a bit overkill. I was thinking more along the lines of using a program to calculate how much soap and other consumables should be needed based on the size of the floor. You could also write a program to learn the optimal mopping pattern to help you get the job done better and faster.
Yes, it is possible to use computers, or any technology, to actually decrease efficiency rather than increase it. However, as computers are so generally useful, just about any task can be made more efficient with their proper use. Give me just about any job, and I can come up with a way to make that job more efficient by using computers in some way.
Of course, the fact that it is possible to decrease efficiency with improper computer usage has nothing to do whatsoever with our discussion of computer literacy. If anything, I could argue that the only reason so many uses of computers actually result in less efficiency are because of lack of literacy by the users.
I mostly agree with your points. I suppose the reason I brought up the tool vs. crutch remark was because your discussion of computer literacy mentioned that computer literacy ought to be taught not only because it will be necessary to expand human knowledge in the future (which I agree with completely), but also because it will be necessary to do things that we can now successfully do without it (like cook crappy hamburgers). To me, it would be a step back rather than a step forward if such a shift were to occur.
I mostly agree with your points. I suppose the reason I brought up the tool vs. crutch remark was because your discussion of computer literacy mentioned that computer literacy ought to be taught not only because it will be necessary to expand human knowledge in the future (which I agree with completely), but also because it will be necessary to do things that we can now successfully do without it (like cook crappy hamburgers). To me, it would be a step back rather than a step forward if such a shift were to occur.
I don't see how it's a step backwards. We make advances in technology to make life easier and more comfortable for ourselves. We create new tools to give ourselves new abilities, and increase our power to exert our control over the universe. This can only be good from our perspective.
Sometimes we invent a new technology that has incredible power to change the world. Some of these technologies work automatically, or effectively automatically. Some of these technologies are used by only a few people. And sometimes they are used by every single person.
For example, when the washing machine was invented it significantly increased quality of life for everyone who had one, and for everyone who lived in places where they were commonly used. The problem was that people had to learn how to use washing machines. The same goes for cars. The automobile was a revolution in that it democratized transportation allowing almost anyone to go anywhere at any time they pleased at incredible speed. The result is that everyone needs to learn how to drive.
What we are talking about here is a trade off where we decrease physical labor and increase the power of our species at the cost of requiring education. Computer processing technology has the potential to decrease physical labor and increase efficiency across the board. The only cost, other than making the computers, will be extra education. If you think replacing lots of hard manual labor with a little education is a step backwards, I've got some jobs that need doing.
Technology is a good thing but as time moves on the old "throw money at the problem" is turning into "throw technology at the problem" and neither one works because no thought is going into how to use those two resources to create solutions to problems.
Putting computers in the classroom helps noone unless there is software on those computers for students to use that is relevant to what they are learning. Even a wood shop can benefit from computers if the computers have some sort of drafting software on them. Putting a PC with office software into a wood shop would be a waste.
That is my problem with using technology in an attempt to solve problems. It's like the old (false) tale of NASA spending billions of dollars to develop a pen that works in zero gravity while the Russians just use pencils. If a low/no tech solution already exists why apply technology if the gains do not justify the cost?
That is my problem with using technology in an attempt to solve problems. It's like the old (false) tale of NASA spending billions of dollars to develop a pen that works in zero gravity while the Russians just use pencils. If a low/no tech solution already exists why apply technology if the gains do not justify the cost?
The gains would justify the cost if the people executing the solution weren't complete morons.
Let's say you have people trying to put nails in wood. Right now, they are all using rocks. You know that hammers can make their lives easier. So you buy everyone hammers. They have no clue how to use the hammers, and they end up just doing better if they stick with the rocks. This is true. The problem is that you guys are blaming the hammers and the pro-hammer people for the problem. Everything you say is right, but your blame is misplaced. The hammer is better. It is the solution. More technology in the classroom is better. You need to blame the morons who can't swing a hammer, not the hammer advocates.
I'm not blaming the hammer. I'm blaming the guy handing out the hammers who tells the rock people to use the hammers but does not tell them how to effectively use the hammer.
Because no one is teaching how to use the technology all you end up with is a bunch of bent nails being hammered incorrectly at a faster rate.
My other problem is that the people banging nails into wood may already have a hammer with a 1lb. head that does the job perfectly for them. You create a hammer with a 1.2 lb. head and a more ergonomically designed handle that makes hammering nails 5% more efficient but it costs 10% more to make the hammers and the swinging action of the hammer is slightly different than the kind of hammer currently in use.
The cost to replace hammers and retrain these hammer people is simply not worth the gains in productivity. If the existing technology is "good enough" than you need to change it until you achieve a new technology with a statistically significant gain.
Moving from chalkboards to white boards is great because I always hated chalk dust. Moving from a white board to a computerized projection system is not as good because the software required to run such a system is probably expensive and the gains in class will not be enough to justify the cost. A white board and an overhead projector (slides) is "good enough" to get the job done.
I'm not blaming the hammer. I'm blaming the guy handing out the hammers who tells the rock people to use the hammers but does not tell them how to effectively use the hammer.
Because no one is teaching how to use the technology all you end up with is a bunch of bent nails being hammered incorrectly at a faster rate.
Moving from chalkboards to white boards is great because I always hated chalk dust.
White boards can die in a fire. They can be very hard to erase under the best of circumstances, and they're very easy to permanently deface. Also, they don't necessarily eliminate the dust problem. Those dry erase markers leave a residue that is similar to dust and is very hard to clean. If you get chalk dust on your shirt, you can just brush it off. Dry erase marker residue leaves a stain.
Also, those dry erase markers have about a week's worth of classroom use in them until you have to get another. Then you have to try to find one from supply (and they never have enough), or go prowling to steal one from another classroom. Chalk lasts much longer.
Whiteboards don't really have any advantage over chalk boards. What can you do with a white board that you can't do with a chalk board? Nothing I can think of. They are equal, but different.
Overhead projectors have an advantage over white and chalk boards, but they still aren't that amazing.
What would be amazing is if the teacher just had a tablet PC, that they knew how to use, and there was a digital projector hooked up to it wirelessly. I can't imagine it being much better than that with existing technology.
Whiteboards don't really have any advantage over chalk boards.
No (chalk)dust? I had an English teacher in high school who was allergic to dust and all those things, thus his entire classroom was as dust-free as it could be. He used a whiteboard and it never failed him. Also, Hungryjoe, what the hell are you people doing wrong? As long as you use the proper markers you can remove the text in one sweep, unlike chalkboards where you have to sweep several times to make sure one can read the new text written there again.
What would be amazing is if the teacher just had a tablet PC, that they knew how to use, and there was a digital projector hooked up to it wirelessly. I can't imagine it being much better than that with existing technology.
Also, Hungryjoe, what the hell are you people doing wrong? As long as you use the proper markers you can remove the text in one sweep, unlike chalkboards where you have to sweep several times to make sure one can read the new text written there again.
"Proper markers" is the key. Sometimes someone will, through no fault of their own except ignorance, use an IMproper marker. Sometimes, a student will use an improper marker for intentional vandalization.
No (chalk)dust? I had an English teacher in high school who was allergic to dust and all those things, thus his entire classroom was as dust-free as it could be. He used a whiteboard and it never failed him. Also, Hungryjoe, what the hell are you people doing wrong? As long as you use the proper markers you can remove the text in one sweep, unlike chalkboards where you have to sweep several times to make sure one can read the new text written there again.
That may be true, but it's not an inherent advantage of the technology. Someone could just as easily be allergic to whiteboard markers, but not chalk dust. For a non-allergic person, whiteboards and chalkboards have the same set of features, and are equally effective for the same task.
For a non-allergic person, whiteboards and chalkboards have the same set of features, and are equally effective for the same task.
Thus, seeing as whiteboards benefit people with (dust) allergies, whiteboards have a greater total benefit for the users over chalkboards.
"Proper markers" is the key. Sometimes someone will, through no fault of their own except ignorance, use anIMproper marker. Sometimes, a student will use an improper marker for intentional vandalization.
That's just the problem with the stupidity of the teachers using the whiteboards and them not being able to keep their students under control. And why the hell would you bo-... Wait, the average IQ in my classes was 120+. Nevermind, I can imagine some high school students being pathetic, unruly and stupid enough to bother drawing dicks with a permanent marker on whiteboards. Still comes down to the teacher being stupid and incapable of teaching.
Still comes down to the teacher being stupid and incapable of teaching.
If you want to stay in the classroom all day and all night in order to guard the board, and you think you can physically keep the gangbanger types away from the board when they decide they want to vandalize it, then you're welcome to my old job in the DC Charter School System.
*facepalm* Not you too. I did not mean to impress anyone, that was just to illustrate how I did not consider stupid people. Due to me always having been in smart classes I never experienced any stupid things like that, and the classes were pretty respectful to properties not their own.
I know IQ scores are bullshit. They're just blurbs of that moment.
Document cameras are the way to go. They easily do everything an overhead projector does, and more. Best of all you don't need to buy over head sheets that cost roughly $.50 a sheet.
SMART boards are used in almost every classroom in my area because the Ohio education department hands out technology money like candy. My wife is a teacher and incorporates video, graphs, presentations, etc. into just about every lesson. The kids are also required to work on the board as part of class, and multiple assignments through the year require students to make their own presentations.
The system is far from perfect, though. While many school districts require the implementation of technology into every curriculum, older, tenured teachers have no idea how and resist. They are routinely required to attend tech conferences and inservices to try to fix that problem.
I want to know what dimwit keeps handing tech money to school's and advising them to buy old, busted, broken shit from companies that don't support their product or from companies that no longer exist because the technology being used is from the windows 3.1 days if your lucky.
Seriously...when even the IT guys at the school throw up their hands in disgust and can not help the students figure out how to setup the applications and a google search returns either nothing at all about the application or hundreds of thousands of links on how to jury rig the thing to continue working on windows XP or GOD FORBID VISTA I think it's time to abandon that software or the technology in general.
All that just from trying to get something called "MyMathLab" working for my wife for some Statistics course.
White boards can die in a fire. They can be very hard to erase under the best of circumstances, and they're very easy to permanently deface.
I was in a training at the main office of the OAG in DC this week. We met in a couple of different conference rooms, and I counted no less than ten (10)whiteboards that were permanently defaced. One room had an entire wall that was a white board, which I'll admit was pretty cool, but it was permanently defaced as well.
White boards can die in a fire. They can be very hard to erase under the best of circumstances, and they're very easy to permanently deface.
I was in a training at the main office of the OAG in DC this week. We met in a couple of different conference rooms, and I counted no less than ten (10)whiteboards that were permanently defaced. One room had an entire wall that was a white board, which I'll admit was pretty cool, but it was permanently defaced as well.
You know and accept the fact that that problem isn't due to the white boards. It's the lack of respect the students, and perhaps even teachers, have with someone else's property.
You know and accept the fact that that problem isn't due to the white boards. It's the lack of respect the students, and perhaps even teachers, have with someone else's property.
I don't know and accept that at all. There aren't any students or teachers in this building. There are only government lawyers and staff. They all have a lot of respect for the property of others. It's just the inevitable fate of white boards to have someone mistakenly use a permanent marker on them.
I agree with you about the dire need of competent teachers. I had a teacher in middle school who read us the book verbatim. When someone asked a question, she would read the book again, more slowly. Once she modified problems in the book so that they evaluated to incorrect statements (1=2, etc.), and, when children were confused, eschewed all personal responsibility. A major component of her class was coloring (7th and 8th grade). Also, she told me and my parents that I probably wouldn't get into any schools with admission based on academic merit.
My high school teachers are a sharp contrast to that. My math and science teachers are pretty great. I go to a Jesuit school, so religion is more of the same bullshit, but most teachers are receptive when you make coherent arguments against it. It may be an anomaly, but most everyone at my school has basic Word/PowerPoint skills. I do agree somewhat about the lack of computer science teachers, as a group of friends and I had to petition the school to make a computer science class available, but as of now, it's going pretty well. One of the physics teachers teaches it. He's a extremely smart guy (PhD in Physics), and, for the level of the class (AP Comp Sci AB) his knowledge is sufficient, as it is mainly geared towards the AP test. The main obstacle in the class is the average student. Thinking procedurally seems to come to few easily, and to many not at all. My only objection to the class is the emphasis on GUI/game work. I suppose I have to recognize myself as a minority in the class, but I'd much rather make a command line application that does useful things than spend my time with GUIs.
With regards to implementing computers in other subjects, I don't really see the point. I suppose it depends on the definition of technology, but I don't think that anything further than a graphing calculator and a handout is needed to teach most subjects. Schools would benefit much more from hiring competent teachers than integrating more technology.
My high school has a proposed plan to provide each student with a laptop in their freshman year. This program augments two existing computer labs, and a library full of computers. Imo, this is a horrible idea, with a relatively low cost benefit ratio. Freshmen are careless. They tend to lose and break things. The hidden costs of troubleshooting and repair have the possibility of being annoyingly expensive. To boot, students pay little attention in class as is. Internet connectivity will only compound that.
Sorry if this is nonsensical/bland, I'm a bit tired.
The writer ofthis articlesays his school has too many gizmos.
The problem is not too many gizmos. The problem is having gizmos just for the sake of having them. You need to intelligently and carefully purchase things that are actually useful, that will help achieve the goals of education, that people will be able to learn how to use, and that people will actually use after they learn how.
I wonder though, with my computer skills, if I can convince that crazy school to hire me.
Not to long ago I had a good example shown to me of what an educator is like when they know nothing about technology. I was in my computer app class and we were working in photoshop. We had a substitute teacher that day and were working on a project that our real teacher had told us about the day before. It was basically to find an image and make a certain amounts of edits and such. I picked an image of pac-man. The day before the teacher had tole us that we would get in trouble if anyone was playing a game. The sub saw my image and said that I should put the game away, or I would get in trouble. I clearly stated that it was an image of a game and it was what I was working on for my project. She then got all uppity and said something like "I've worked here for 30 years, so I think I know what a game is" in a snarky tone. I then started getting really mad and showed how it was an image. "See, how it says Photoshop in the corner. See, how I am drawing on it." She just kept saying that I should just close the window and get back to work. All I could say was "Are you kidding!?" The argument went on for a couple of minutes until she said " Fine, I'll just write a note to your teacher about this" in a snarky tone. I didn't care and my real teacher knew it wasn't a game, but it just pisses me off that people like this are allowed to teach a computer class.
Comments
Sometimes we invent a new technology that has incredible power to change the world. Some of these technologies work automatically, or effectively automatically. Some of these technologies are used by only a few people. And sometimes they are used by every single person.
For example, when the washing machine was invented it significantly increased quality of life for everyone who had one, and for everyone who lived in places where they were commonly used. The problem was that people had to learn how to use washing machines. The same goes for cars. The automobile was a revolution in that it democratized transportation allowing almost anyone to go anywhere at any time they pleased at incredible speed. The result is that everyone needs to learn how to drive.
What we are talking about here is a trade off where we decrease physical labor and increase the power of our species at the cost of requiring education. Computer processing technology has the potential to decrease physical labor and increase efficiency across the board. The only cost, other than making the computers, will be extra education. If you think replacing lots of hard manual labor with a little education is a step backwards, I've got some jobs that need doing.
Putting computers in the classroom helps noone unless there is software on those computers for students to use that is relevant to what they are learning. Even a wood shop can benefit from computers if the computers have some sort of drafting software on them. Putting a PC with office software into a wood shop would be a waste.
That is my problem with using technology in an attempt to solve problems. It's like the old (false) tale of NASA spending billions of dollars to develop a pen that works in zero gravity while the Russians just use pencils. If a low/no tech solution already exists why apply technology if the gains do not justify the cost?
Let's say you have people trying to put nails in wood. Right now, they are all using rocks. You know that hammers can make their lives easier. So you buy everyone hammers. They have no clue how to use the hammers, and they end up just doing better if they stick with the rocks. This is true. The problem is that you guys are blaming the hammers and the pro-hammer people for the problem. Everything you say is right, but your blame is misplaced. The hammer is better. It is the solution. More technology in the classroom is better. You need to blame the morons who can't swing a hammer, not the hammer advocates.
Because no one is teaching how to use the technology all you end up with is a bunch of bent nails being hammered incorrectly at a faster rate.
My other problem is that the people banging nails into wood may already have a hammer with a 1lb. head that does the job perfectly for them. You create a hammer with a 1.2 lb. head and a more ergonomically designed handle that makes hammering nails 5% more efficient but it costs 10% more to make the hammers and the swinging action of the hammer is slightly different than the kind of hammer currently in use.
The cost to replace hammers and retrain these hammer people is simply not worth the gains in productivity. If the existing technology is "good enough" than you need to change it until you achieve a new technology with a statistically significant gain.
Moving from chalkboards to white boards is great because I always hated chalk dust. Moving from a white board to a computerized projection system is not as good because the software required to run such a system is probably expensive and the gains in class will not be enough to justify the cost. A white board and an overhead projector (slides) is "good enough" to get the job done.
Also, those dry erase markers have about a week's worth of classroom use in them until you have to get another. Then you have to try to find one from supply (and they never have enough), or go prowling to steal one from another classroom. Chalk lasts much longer.
Overhead projectors have an advantage over white and chalk boards, but they still aren't that amazing.
What would be amazing is if the teacher just had a tablet PC, that they knew how to use, and there was a digital projector hooked up to it wirelessly. I can't imagine it being much better than that with existing technology.
I know IQ scores are bullshit. They're just blurbs of that moment.
The system is far from perfect, though. While many school districts require the implementation of technology into every curriculum, older, tenured teachers have no idea how and resist. They are routinely required to attend tech conferences and inservices to try to fix that problem.
Seriously...when even the IT guys at the school throw up their hands in disgust and can not help the students figure out how to setup the applications and a google search returns either nothing at all about the application or hundreds of thousands of links on how to jury rig the thing to continue working on windows XP or GOD FORBID VISTA I think it's time to abandon that software or the technology in general.
All that just from trying to get something called "MyMathLab" working for my wife for some Statistics course.
My high school teachers are a sharp contrast to that. My math and science teachers are pretty great. I go to a Jesuit school, so religion is more of the same bullshit, but most teachers are receptive when you make coherent arguments against it. It may be an anomaly, but most everyone at my school has basic Word/PowerPoint skills. I do agree somewhat about the lack of computer science teachers, as a group of friends and I had to petition the school to make a computer science class available, but as of now, it's going pretty well. One of the physics teachers teaches it. He's a extremely smart guy (PhD in Physics), and, for the level of the class (AP Comp Sci AB) his knowledge is sufficient, as it is mainly geared towards the AP test. The main obstacle in the class is the average student. Thinking procedurally seems to come to few easily, and to many not at all. My only objection to the class is the emphasis on GUI/game work. I suppose I have to recognize myself as a minority in the class, but I'd much rather make a command line application that does useful things than spend my time with GUIs.
With regards to implementing computers in other subjects, I don't really see the point. I suppose it depends on the definition of technology, but I don't think that anything further than a graphing calculator and a handout is needed to teach most subjects. Schools would benefit much more from hiring competent teachers than integrating more technology.
My high school has a proposed plan to provide each student with a laptop in their freshman year. This program augments two existing computer labs, and a library full of computers. Imo, this is a horrible idea, with a relatively low cost benefit ratio. Freshmen are careless. They tend to lose and break things. The hidden costs of troubleshooting and repair have the possibility of being annoyingly expensive. To boot, students pay little attention in class as is. Internet connectivity will only compound that.
Sorry if this is nonsensical/bland, I'm a bit tired.
I wonder though, with my computer skills, if I can convince that crazy school to hire me.