Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 55

Thread: Technology Out of Schools

  1. #1

    Default Technology Out of Schools

    As I've mentioned before, I volunteer for my building. One thing I haven't mentioned is I also volunteer on an advisory committee for a school slightly outside of the insidious clutches of unionization.

    In both areas, there is a constant push to, well, push technology into things.

    Vendors approach the building to talk about computerized management systems, followed by extra-cost training for a staff who often haven't completed high school. I am fighting to avoid spending $60,000 for a bevy of computer equipment and pushing to add the money to the staff salaries instead.

    In the school, putting an iPad in front of every student has been the buzz for the past year. And I can't help but feel that these kids have plenty of technology, and that when it comes to education technology becomes less useful. In fact, I have wondered if classrooms should be a screen-free zone.

    Saw this article about a school in Silicon Valley that I thought fit my view. Does anyone agree?

    October 22, 2011
    A Silicon Valley School That Doesn’t Compute
    By MATT RICHTEL

    LOS ALTOS, Calif. — The chief technology officer of eBay sends his children to a nine-classroom school here. So do employees of Silicon Valley giants like Google, Apple, Yahoo and Hewlett-Packard.

    But the school’s chief teaching tools are anything but high-tech: pens and paper, knitting needles and, occasionally, mud. Not a computer to be found. No screens at all. They are not allowed in the classroom, and the school even frowns on their use at home.

    Schools nationwide have rushed to supply their classrooms with computers, and many policy makers say it is foolish to do otherwise. But the contrarian point of view can be found at the epicenter of the tech economy, where some parents and educators have a message: computers and schools don’t mix.

    This is the Waldorf School of the Peninsula, one of around 160 Waldorf schools in the country that subscribe to a teaching philosophy focused on physical activity and learning through creative, hands-on tasks. Those who endorse this approach say computers inhibit creative thinking, movement, human interaction and attention spans.

    The Waldorf method is nearly a century old, but its foothold here among the digerati puts into sharp relief an intensifying debate about the role of computers in education.

    “I fundamentally reject the notion you need technology aids in grammar school,” said Alan Eagle, 50, whose daughter, Andie, is one of the 196 children at the Waldorf elementary school; his son William, 13, is at the nearby middle school. “The idea that an app on an iPad can better teach my kids to read or do arithmetic, that’s ridiculous.”

    Mr. Eagle knows a bit about technology. He holds a computer science degree from Dartmouth and works in executive communications at Google, where he has written speeches for the chairman, Eric E. Schmidt. He uses an iPad and a smartphone. But he says his daughter, a fifth grader, “doesn’t know how to use Google,” and his son is just learning. (Starting in eighth grade, the school endorses the limited use of gadgets.)

    Three-quarters of the students here have parents with a strong high-tech connection. Mr. Eagle, like other parents, sees no contradiction. Technology, he says, has its time and place: “If I worked at Miramax and made good, artsy, rated R movies, I wouldn’t want my kids to see them until they were 17.”

    While other schools in the region brag about their wired classrooms, the Waldorf school embraces a simple, retro look — blackboards with colorful chalk, bookshelves with encyclopedias, wooden desks filled with workbooks and No. 2 pencils.

    On a recent Tuesday, Andie Eagle and her fifth-grade classmates refreshed their knitting skills, crisscrossing wooden needles around balls of yarn, making fabric swatches. It’s an activity the school says helps develop problem-solving, patterning, math skills and coordination. The long-term goal: make socks.

    Down the hall, a teacher drilled third-graders on multiplication by asking them to pretend to turn their bodies into lightning bolts. She asked them a math problem — four times five — and, in unison, they shouted “20” and zapped their fingers at the number on the blackboard. A roomful of human calculators.

    In second grade, students standing in a circle learned language skills by repeating verses after the teacher, while simultaneously playing catch with bean bags. It’s an exercise aimed at synchronizing body and brain. Here, as in other classes, the day can start with a recitation or verse about God that reflects a nondenominational emphasis on the divine.

    Andie’s teacher, Cathy Waheed, who is a former computer engineer, tries to make learning both irresistible and highly tactile. Last year she taught fractions by having the children cut up food — apples, quesadillas, cake — into quarters, halves and sixteenths.

    “For three weeks, we ate our way through fractions,” she said. “When I made enough fractional pieces of cake to feed everyone, do you think I had their attention?”

    Some education experts say that the push to equip classrooms with computers is unwarranted because studies do not clearly show that this leads to better test scores or other measurable gains.

    Is learning through cake fractions and knitting any better? The Waldorf advocates make it tough to compare, partly because as private schools they administer no standardized tests in elementary grades. And they would be the first to admit that their early-grade students may not score well on such tests because, they say, they don’t drill them on a standardized math and reading curriculum.

    When asked for evidence of the schools’ effectiveness, the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America points to research by an affiliated group showing that 94 percent of students graduating from Waldorf high schools in the United States between 1994 and 2004 attended college, with many heading to prestigious institutions like Oberlin, Berkeley and Vassar.

    Of course, that figure may not be surprising, given that these are students from families that value education highly enough to seek out a selective private school, and usually have the means to pay for it. And it is difficult to separate the effects of the low-tech instructional methods from other factors. For example, parents of students at the Los Altos school say it attracts great teachers who go through extensive training in the Waldorf approach, creating a strong sense of mission that can be lacking in other schools.

    Absent clear evidence, the debate comes down to subjectivity, parental choice and a difference of opinion over a single world: engagement. Advocates for equipping schools with technology say computers can hold students’ attention and, in fact, that young people who have been weaned on electronic devices will not tune in without them.

    Ann Flynn, director of education technology for the National School Boards Association, which represents school boards nationwide, said computers were essential. “If schools have access to the tools and can afford them, but are not using the tools, they are cheating our children,” Ms. Flynn said.

    Paul Thomas, a former teacher and an associate professor of education at Furman University, who has written 12 books about public educational methods, disagreed, saying that “a spare approach to technology in the classroom will always benefit learning.”

    “Teaching is a human experience,” he said. “Technology is a distraction when we need literacy, numeracy and critical thinking.”

    And Waldorf parents argue that real engagement comes from great teachers with interesting lesson plans.

    “Engagement is about human contact, the contact with the teacher, the contact with their peers,” said Pierre Laurent, 50, who works at a high-tech start-up and formerly worked at Intel and Microsoft. He has three children in Waldorf schools, which so impressed the family that his wife, Monica, joined one as a teacher in 2006.

    And where advocates for stocking classrooms with technology say children need computer time to compete in the modern world, Waldorf parents counter: what’s the rush, given how easy it is to pick up those skills?

    “It’s supereasy. It’s like learning to use toothpaste,” Mr. Eagle said. “At Google and all these places, we make technology as brain-dead easy to use as possible. There’s no reason why kids can’t figure it out when they get older.”

    There are also plenty of high-tech parents at a Waldorf school in San Francisco and just north of it at the Greenwood School in Mill Valley, which doesn’t have Waldorf accreditation but is inspired by its principles.

    California has some 40 Waldorf schools, giving it a disproportionate share — perhaps because the movement is growing roots here, said Lucy Wurtz, who, along with her husband, Brad, helped found the Waldorf high school in Los Altos in 2007. Mr. Wurtz is chief executive of Power Assure, which helps computer data centers reduce their energy load.

    The Waldorf experience does not come cheap: annual tuition at the Silicon Valley schools is $17,750 for kindergarten through eighth grade and $24,400 for high school, though Ms. Wurtz said financial assistance was available. She says the typical Waldorf parent, who has a range of elite private and public schools to choose from, tends to be liberal and highly educated, with strong views about education; they also have a knowledge that when they are ready to teach their children about technology they have ample access and expertise at home.

    The students, meanwhile, say they don’t pine for technology, nor have they gone completely cold turkey. Andie Eagle and her fifth-grade classmates say they occasionally watch movies. One girl, whose father works as an Apple engineer, says he sometimes asks her to test games he is debugging. One boy plays with flight-simulator programs on weekends.

    The students say they can become frustrated when their parents and relatives get so wrapped up in phones and other devices. Aurad Kamkar, 11, said he recently went to visit cousins and found himself sitting around with five of them playing with their gadgets, not paying attention to him or each other. He started waving his arms at them: “I said: ‘Hello guys, I’m here.’ ”

    Finn Heilig, 10, whose father works at Google, says he liked learning with pen and paper — rather than on a computer — because he could monitor his progress over the years.

    “You can look back and see how sloppy your handwriting was in first grade. You can’t do that with computers ’cause all the letters are the same,” Finn said. “Besides, if you learn to write on paper, you can still write if water spills on the computer or the power goes out.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/te...-can-wait.html

  2. #2
    I think you might like this book Dread:

    http://www.amazon.com/Disrupting-Cla.../dp/0071592067





    Re. the techification of schools, it's often misguided and results in waste. However, there are very legitimate uses, eg. Khan Academy:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Academy

    Many teachers who've managed to integrate KA into their teaching (with the ability to monitor progress, assess difficulties etc) have had great results. Well, actually, the students have


    An iPad is an incredible waste of money. They may as well just invest in any screen connected in some way to the internet.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  3. #3
    Hmm, I will give it a looksie.

    Do you want to win a NYC contract to convert Nooks into Android tablets for several hundred students?

  4. #4
    You don't even need to do that, you could just buy a nook colour and use it as is. They can borrow books on it. There's so much great educational material on the web, all you need is the ability to display text, images and youtube videos. Finding them is the hard part. You can pay teachers to do that with the money you save from not buying iPads. Seriously, explain to them that they don't need apps but they might need to learn how to use the web effectively.

    They might want to lease a few chromebooks, but even that's overkill.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  5. #5
    Of course, one nice thing about the iPad is the Kno app. Then again, you can use that in a browser as well, so...
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  6. #6
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Meh. Technology can indeed be implemented needlessly, and in ways that are not useful but a waste of money, but if used properly it can add to the teaching. There is simply so much information on the web, if a teacher spends time figuring out good sources, it can add a lot of value. Think of, say, educational videos, things like that, that can offer help. Of course you have to realise they are tools, and not magic teaching machines.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  7. #7
    Different people learn things easier/better in different ways. I made very little use of the computer until high school, but I always did poorly when my teachers shifted to a hands-on and creative lesson or project, the approach Waldorf emphasizes. And I expect most of us know that those approaches arose because plenty of other kids did poorly with the "purer" book-learning approach that I did quite well with. I expect there are students and studies which see quite a bit of benefit from a technological approach. But everyone wants to treat pedagogy like there's One True Way rather than a demand for diverse approaches.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  8. #8
    I think statements like this are the problem:
    “I fundamentally reject the notion you need technology aids in grammar school,” said Alan Eagle, 50 ...
    The question isn't about need or not. I don't doubt that just like technology has improved life in nearly every field, it has done so in grammar school as well. And we shouldn't even say it hasn't done so already - a huge number of the items used by teachers in grammar school are relatively new technology (e.g. post-its or whatever), just not seen as 'high tech' because they're not necessarily a computer or connected to the internet.

    The question of whether a specific bit of technology will provide enough benefit to offset the costs - as well as being used effectively by a teacher who may not know how best to incorporate it - is a very valid one. There's a new private school opening up in my own neighborhood that is filling a gap left by an old one that went bankrupt last year; most of the students are the same. Yet this time, one of the parents has finagled a deal to provide every kid with an iPad loaded with educational apps. I'm very skeptical it will be worth the debt/investment, but that's just me.

    But that doesn't address the broader question of whether appropriately chosen and deployed technology should be used. Clearly it should be; to make a blanket statement about fundamentally rejecting technological aids in school is obviously silly.

  9. #9
    I think a major problem with this is that people automatically jump to defining technology as anything that is the latest or most popular cutting edge technology, for instance, desktop computers, slate tablets like the iPad, internet access, software like Photoshop, etc. where-as technology encompasses any tool or system invented or created. For instance, a ballpoint pen, paper, books, tape, televisions, etc. are all technology. Wiggin alluded to this when he mentioned things like post-it notes. The answer then becomes much simpler; it is practical and useful to integrate new technologies that benefit students, by either helping them to understand existing skills, ideas or information, or that help them to understand new skills, ideas and information. As an example, a useful skill is how to do research, gather data, and compile information. Before the internet, internet search engines, and wikis, you'd be taught how to use a library, books, and people to gather this information. Now that the internet exists, along with search engines and wikis, we can teach them how to use these additional resources. Or to put it more simply, if you want to include an iPad as a tool for students to use, it should be because the iPad either adds or enhances a persons' ability to learn, rather than the fact that the iPad is new and is "technology". Therefore I would have no problem with computers and learning how to use the internet (in a useful manner) into current school curriculum, as this is useful technology for learning. Not teaching it simply because its is new technology would be as ill thought out as not teaching people how to use books or a library back when they were new technology.
    . . .

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I am fighting to avoid spending $60,000 for a bevy of computer equipment and pushing to add the money to the staff salaries instead.

    In the school, putting an iPad in front of every student has been the buzz for the past year. And I can't help but feel that these kids have plenty of technology, and that when it comes to education technology becomes less useful. In fact, I have wondered if classrooms should be a screen-free zone.
    I think your over generalizations for the uselessness of technology in the classroom could be very damaging to the real world skills and knowledge of students.

    Personally I'd love to see a bigger push for open source type tech in the classroom. The scenerios that kind of stuff can open up because of the skills taught and involved, from quality interactive apps to pure blooded programming would do students a great deal of good. Especially since research is showing college students are lacking when it comes to critical thinking, communication, and complex reasoning.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 10-23-2011 at 07:10 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  11. #11
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    What kind of technology are you thinking of that would improve critical thinking etc by itself?

    It's only a tool, albeit a useful tool. You still need a good teacher, and there is a danger of leaving the technology to be the teacher instead of the teacher himself. Technology is useful, but I do great somewhat overrated in education. It's a tool, not a teacher.

    Of course, the vast amount of often wrong information on the internet is both an excellent reason and an excellent case to teach the importance of critical thinking, for example.

  12. #12
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    I'm highly critical of extremist views - this would be one of them. I also wonder why Dread accused Germans to be luddites when he himself now endorses such a view.

    I'm also highly critical of Waldorf-Steiner-schools - in particular due to the absolutely hare-brained notion Steiner propagated but also due to the fact that they're riddled with people teaching anti-science and anti-vaccination views. For clarification: Steiner was a pretty big racist and our BPjM stated that quite officially.

    One pretty big example for good use of computers in school would be Crocodile Clips.
    Last edited by Khendraja'aro; 10-23-2011 at 07:52 PM.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    I'm highly critical of extremist views - this would be one of them. I also wonder why Dread accused Germans to be luddites when he himself now endorses such a view.


    I'm also highly critical of Waldorf-Steiner-schools - in particular due to the absolutely hare-brained notion Steiner propagated but also due to the fact that they're riddled with people teaching anti-science and anti-vaccination views.
    Maybe Waldorf schools in the US are different than in Germany? I know a few people who swear by Waldorf methods, and they're not anti-science or anti-vaccination by any means. They found a group of parents and teachers who wanted something "different" in early education, as Montessori schools saw a decline.

    (I went to Montessori pre-school for two years before attending full-day Kindergarten, back in the ancient times (!) and could have started public grammar school as a 1st or 2nd grader by age five, but was instead put into "experimental pods" with older students, while still having basic classes with kids my own age group. First, because Kansas had strict ideas about age-readiness vs grade-readiness, and second, because my parents knew I was socially immature, small for my age, and didn't want me to be in classes dominated by kids that weren't in my "Play Group".)

    <<I didn't really remember all that until going through my mom's mementos, that had all my old report cards and letters written to her parents, where I used cursive writing to describe being in combined classes with third and fourth graders, when I was two years younger than most of the class. It was called an "experimental progressive track", in the ancient times. >>

  14. #14
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldorf..._immunizations



    I suppose that sort of education has a greater chance of drawing a certain type of parent
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  15. #15
    I dont think techonology is the answer to schooling problem. I do think technology can enhance learning; however, 90+% of increased effectiveness will come from approriate teaching styles (format for teaching ideas/interactiveness), and approriate content. If we can perfect these things with our teachers. Chalk and a blackboard will be just fine.

    That's not to say computers/tech doesn't have it's place. Definitely the option of time saving by having text pre-written on a computer and then projected. There's definitely pluses to showing videos over just sketches and oratory explanation. many many things... I have actually written about this topic, I stopped writing I'd like to resume it . The most fundamental distinction I make in teaching is the need to teach twice, what I mean is the need to break up problems into Mechanical understanding, and conceptual understanding. That all problems have both properties, and we are inherantly learning both to some degree and they need to be pressed upon seperately.

  16. #16
    USA
    As of 2011 there are forty-four publicly-funded Waldorf schools in the United States,[106] some of which operate within the public sector and some of which are charter schools. The first US public Waldorf school, the Milwaukee Urban Waldorf School, began using Waldorf methods in 1991; since switching to Waldorf methods, the school showed an increase in parental involvement, a reduction in suspensions, improvements in standardized test scores for both reading and writing (counter to the district trend), while expenditures per pupil were below many regular district programs.[107]
    California


    We only have a couple of Waldorf options in my region (that I'm aware of) and they're not charter schools or publicly funded in any way. Waldorf education ends around or before 8th grade, and students have to either transfer to parochial or public education, or home school, to get a state-recognized High School diploma. Our parochial/religious/private/public schools all mandate basic immunizations. But that's PA, not the whole US. I have no idea what other states are "doing".

  17. #17
    DREADNT


    I HAVE IDEA


    Oppose the iPads, take the money and use it to help parents spend more quality education time with their kids.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  18. #18
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Maybe Waldorf schools in the US are different than in Germany? I know a few people who swear by Waldorf methods, and they're not anti-science or anti-vaccination by any means. They found a group of parents and teachers who wanted something "different" in early education, as Montessori schools saw a decline.
    Waldorf is actually a misnomer. Waldorf was an industrialist who funded the schools - and Steiner was the one who created the theories behind the paedagogic theories. If it is a Waldorf school, the teachers are required to go through a 4 year training course to become certified Waldorf teachers.

    You cannot compare Montessori to Waldorf-Steiner - the former has rational ideas whereas the latter is based on anthroposophie which is a quack science. I'm sorry, but they're mixing ideology with paedagogics there and that is inherently dangerous.

    Additionally, I'm highly dubious of the Wikipedia article as it paints Waldorf in a too positive light. For instance, it makes no mention at all of Steiner's blatant racism.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  19. #19
    Then I don't know much about Waldorf schools, as you portray them, other than what I've gleaned from "locals" who sent their kids to Waldorf schools and been quite pleased. Granted, that's not very many people. Most people around here would know a Waldorf Salad before they'd know a Waldorf School.

    Oh yeah, and in case that didn't register, most people around here would ask what a Waldorf Salad is....but they know what German Potato Salad means. I'm in one of those odd German-American enclaves in the US, where speaking Pennsylvania Dutch is fairly common, but most people don't know it's a bastardization of English-Deutsch.
    Last edited by GGT; 10-23-2011 at 10:38 PM.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Additionally, I'm highly dubious of the Wikipedia article as it paints Waldorf in a too positive light. For instance, it makes no mention at all of Steiner's blatant racism.
    Do the schools teach racism? Because as far as I can tell the article is about the schools, and if they don't teach that, then what the hell does it matter if Steiner was racist?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    What kind of technology are you thinking of that would improve critical thinking etc by itself?

    It's only a tool, albeit a useful tool. You still need a good teacher, and there is a danger of leaving the technology to be the teacher instead of the teacher himself. Technology is useful, but I do great somewhat overrated in education. It's a tool, not a teacher.

    Of course, the vast amount of often wrong information on the internet is both an excellent reason and an excellent case to teach the importance of critical thinking, for example.
    I don't think anyone is trying to advertise any method as working completely on its own. All the tools, procedures, methods, they are all tools to be used by a teacher. I've gone over this bit with Dread a dozen times before, but the meaning of "teaching" has changed over here. Over here its usually dumbed down to heavy hand holding. I'm more in the camp that teachers are facilitators for learning. You will also notice around here "teacher" is a dying term, being replaced with educator (edit: even wikipedia mentions this).

    Now technology isn't the only way to encourage the skills our students are lacking, but if its used correctly, it can make it all a hell of a lot cheaper and more open ended. At the risk of oversimplifying everything, take a look at what a student could do with solving a problem in something like The Incredible Machine (who remembers playing this?), now how close do you think physical materials and safety is going to go with creating this in an AFK physical environment?
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  22. #22
    I like the idea of Teacher moving to Facilitator. My nursing school education took that approach, and it was great for getting students into an active form of learning, instead of the older passive approach. I think my HS years would have been much more productive, if all my Teachers had been Learning Facilitators. I had a couple of those kinds of teachers, and they were great, but there wasn't a district-wide goal for getting students to be active learners.

    Mostly, teachers have to care about their evaluations as Teachers, instead of what their students are Learning. Because of NCLB and/or performance evaluations using weird metrics.

  23. #23
    My son is taking photography as an elective his sophomore year. They gave everyone a Minolta camera to fiddle with, changing f-stop and ASA speeds. They also give each student a cell phone camera if they don't have their own. Their classroom is filled with Apple computers, to learn how to 'process' digital photos. They also have access to a professional dark room, to learn how to develop film and process photos using "old fashioned" techniques.

    The manual cameras, Kodak film, dark room chemicals and apparatus, and paper products cost more than the digital cameras, lab computers, printers and paper. My son was asking about these costs vs their utility, because he's a digital camera baby. His first manual camera full of shots that he couldn't instantly see and edit seemed to change his mind. He couldn't wait to get into the dark room, develop the film, and play around with aperture scopes to create a decent product.

    I think that's much better than teaching photography in instant digital form.

    Any modern kid can take a digital picture, remove the red eye, photoshop it, and upload it to web sites, right? But it takes a hands-on education to learn how to take photographs, using light and motion and space, to appreciate photography as an Art form.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    I'm highly critical of extremist views - this would be one of them. I also wonder why Dread accused Germans to be luddites when he himself now endorses such a view.

    I'm also highly critical of Waldorf-Steiner-schools - in particular due to the absolutely hare-brained notion Steiner propagated but also due to the fact that they're riddled with people teaching anti-science and anti-vaccination views. For clarification: Steiner was a pretty big racist and our BPjM stated that quite officially.

    One pretty big example for good use of computers in school would be Crocodile Clips.
    The difference is this isn't our government banning technology, but local schools exploring educational options.

    I honestly hadn't heard of Waldorf schools before, I'll read this in the morning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    DREADNT


    I HAVE IDEA


    Oppose the iPads, take the money and use it to help parents spend more quality education time with their kids.
    It's probably too late, but that's my idea too. Problem is I can't think of an alternative idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    My son is taking photography as an elective his sophomore year. They gave everyone a Minolta camera to fiddle with, changing f-stop and ASA speeds. They also give each student a cell phone camera if they don't have their own. Their classroom is filled with Apple computers, to learn how to 'process' digital photos. They also have access to a professional dark room, to learn how to develop film and process photos using "old fashioned" techniques.

    The manual cameras, Kodak film, dark room chemicals and apparatus, and paper products cost more than the digital cameras, lab computers, printers and paper. My son was asking about these costs vs their utility, because he's a digital camera baby. His first manual camera full of shots that he couldn't instantly see and edit seemed to change his mind. He couldn't wait to get into the dark room, develop the film, and play around with aperture scopes to create a decent product.

    I think that's much better than teaching photography in instant digital form.

    Any modern kid can take a digital picture, remove the red eye, photoshop it, and upload it to web sites, right? But it takes a hands-on education to learn how to take photographs, using light and motion and space, to appreciate photography as an Art form.
    Traditional photography holds a particular place in my heart. I was extensively trained in traditional film photography when I was younger and just today was using my old 35mm SLR, which I hadn't used in years until my digital point-and-shoot broke this summer. I agree it's a great experience for kids.

    Then again, I know how fracking expensive this stuff can be. When schools are cash-strapped, it's a bit hard to justify.

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    I'm highly critical of extremist views - this would be one of them. I also wonder why Dread accused Germans to be luddites when he himself now endorses such a view.

    I'm also highly critical of Waldorf-Steiner-schools - in particular due to the absolutely hare-brained notion Steiner propagated but also due to the fact that they're riddled with people teaching anti-science and anti-vaccination views. For clarification: Steiner was a pretty big racist and our BPjM stated that quite officially.

    One pretty big example for good use of computers in school would be Crocodile Clips.
    The difference is this isn't our government banning technology, but local schools exploring educational options.

    I honestly hadn't heard of Waldorf schools before, I'll read this in the morning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    DREADNT


    I HAVE IDEA


    Oppose the iPads, take the money and use it to help parents spend more quality education time with their kids.
    It's probably too late, but that's my idea too. Problem is I can't think of an alternative idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    My son is taking photography as an elective his sophomore year. They gave everyone a Minolta camera to fiddle with, changing f-stop and ASA speeds. They also give each student a cell phone camera if they don't have their own. Their classroom is filled with Apple computers, to learn how to 'process' digital photos. They also have access to a professional dark room, to learn how to develop film and process photos using "old fashioned" techniques.

    The manual cameras, Kodak film, dark room chemicals and apparatus, and paper products cost more than the digital cameras, lab computers, printers and paper. My son was asking about these costs vs their utility, because he's a digital camera baby. His first manual camera full of shots that he couldn't instantly see and edit seemed to change his mind. He couldn't wait to get into the dark room, develop the film, and play around with aperture scopes to create a decent product.

    I think that's much better than teaching photography in instant digital form.

    Any modern kid can take a digital picture, remove the red eye, photoshop it, and upload it to web sites, right? But it takes a hands-on education to learn how to take photographs, using light and motion and space, to appreciate photography as an Art form.
    Traditional photography holds a particular place in my heart. I was extensively trained in traditional film photography when I was younger and just today was using my old 35mm SLR, which I hadn't used in years until my digital point-and-shoot broke this summer. I agree it's a great experience for kids.

    Then again, I know how fracking expensive this stuff can be. When schools are cash-strapped, it's a bit hard to justify.

  26. #26
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    My son is taking photography as an elective his sophomore year. They gave everyone a Minolta camera to fiddle with, changing f-stop and ASA speeds. They also give each student a cell phone camera if they don't have their own. Their classroom is filled with Apple computers, to learn how to 'process' digital photos. They also have access to a professional dark room, to learn how to develop film and process photos using "old fashioned" techniques.

    The manual cameras, Kodak film, dark room chemicals and apparatus, and paper products cost more than the digital cameras, lab computers, printers and paper. My son was asking about these costs vs their utility, because he's a digital camera baby. His first manual camera full of shots that he couldn't instantly see and edit seemed to change his mind. He couldn't wait to get into the dark room, develop the film, and play around with aperture scopes to create a decent product.

    I think that's much better than teaching photography in instant digital form.

    Any modern kid can take a digital picture, remove the red eye, photoshop it, and upload it to web sites, right? But it takes a hands-on education to learn how to take photographs, using light and motion and space, to appreciate photography as an Art form.
    Meh, not true.

    While I agree there's a certain charm about film photography, and it definitely has different qualities as digital, but digital photography is just as much an art form. If you take snapshots with a camera phone, no. But composition, shutter times, lighting, etc., that's all still there. You can do different things with digital photography, not necessarily better or worse than film. Definitely still qualifies as an Art form.

    BTW, professional quality digital camera's, software and printers are hideously expensive too. Don't know too much about film photography to be honest, but I have some experience with digital cinematography, and while the processing is a lot cheaper (and easier), the camera's, colour grading, etc., is still incredibly expensive. But the big advantage is that, well, with film... Think of it this way, you know how much a 24 frame 35 mm photography film costs... In cinema you use one roll of that per second. And then you need negatives for shooting, for editing, and for your final print.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  27. #27
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Dread, it's not a ban of technology - it's a limitation to the application of a certain technology. It's a very narrow limitation.

    Whereas you support a wholesale ban of any and all technology in schools.

    Now, which position exactly is the closer to being luddite? Huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Meh, not true.

    While I agree there's a certain charm about film photography, and it definitely has different qualities as digital, but digital photography is just as much an art form. If you take snapshots with a camera phone, no. But composition, shutter times, lighting, etc., that's all still there. You can do different things with digital photography, not necessarily better or worse than film. Definitely still qualifies as an Art form.
    Yepp, all digital photgraphy actually does is getting rid of the annoying developing process. And yes, I've done black-and-white development long enough to know what I'm talking about.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Dread, it's not a ban of technology - it's a limitation to the application of a certain technology. It's a very narrow limitation.

    Whereas you support a wholesale ban of any and all technology in schools.

    Now, which position exactly is the closer to being luddite? Huh?
    You're making an overly-literal interpretation of my attempt to make an eye-catching thread title.

  29. #29
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    You're making an overly-literal interpretation of my attempt to make an eye-catching thread title.
    Oh, yes, of course, it's only the thread title... how silly of me to interpret the following passages as luddite-in-hiding:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    [...]In fact, I have wondered if classrooms should be a screen-free zone.

    Saw this article about a school in Silicon Valley that I thought fit my view. Does anyone agree?
    And the "fits my views" article is also highly technophobic. Happenstance? Certainly not.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  30. #30
    Can we please just facepalm this out of the broader discussion?
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •