When my daughter briefly entered graduate school in science and math education, she did a short stint in an affluent suburban high school physics class. Besides being disappointed in the interest and knowledge base of the students, she was surprised by the software being used. Instead of actually building small "contraptions" to test various energy sources (springs, levers, weights, etc) the students manipulated models on a computer program.
"If the spring didn't work, 'click,' they replaced it with something else. If that didn't work, 'click.' No one was invested in the project. They didn't have to be. They just clicked their way to the correct answer, not having to give much thought let alone time to the process."
I thought of this conversation while reading an article in the Oct 8 edition of the New York Times, "Inflating the Software Report Card," by Trip Gavriel and Matt Richtel. Basically, the article reviewed rating systems for the success of computer based curricula and found them misleading.
My experience as a teacher and programming director as well as being the mom of three children tells me that acting on concrete materials is indispensable in the process of learning. Read More