Life-Long Computer Skills Rather Than PowerPoint or Windows
Schools should teach deep, strategic computer insights that can’t be learned from reading a manual.
I recently saw a textbook used to teach computers in the third grade. One of the chapters (“The Big Calculator”) featured detailed instructions on how to format tables of numbers in Excel. All very good, except that the new Excel version features a complete user interface overhaul, in which the traditional command menus are replaced by a ribbon with a results-oriented UI.
Sadly, I had to tell the proud parents that their daughter’s education would be obsolete before she graduated from the third grade.
The problem, of course, is in tying education too tightly to specific software applications. Even if Microsoft hadn’t turned Excel inside out this year, they would surely have done so eventually. Updating instructional materials to teach Office 2007 isn’t the answer, because there will surely be another UI change before today’s third graders enter the workforce in 10 or 15 years — and even more before they retire in 2065.
It is valuable to hear from an expert in the computing field on this topic. I have wondered for years why we are teaching kids how to draw on the computer and use specific software packages.
I have observed how quickly kids pick up the use of computers and interfaces. Have you ever seen an elementary school child read a manual to figure out a game? Concerns about a digital divide can be addressed in other ways than a dedicated REACH class.
I work in a software company and am involved in recruiting. Many of our applicants and eventual employees, are proficient in music and have solid liberal arts backgrounds. The ability to organize thoughts and creatively problem solve helps them write computer code.
How much of our elementary school budget goes to computers, peripherals, software, electricity consumption, maintenance and of course the space allocation for computer labs? We should not be afraid to challenge and question assumptions about the ‘best’ way to impart technological preparedness.
Hear, hear! Nancy’s comments reflect my own experience. I never used a personal computer once during college. My first experience with one was trying to assemble a resume after graduation. However, my background in liberal arts and mathematics prepared me well for my career in software engineering.
Given the expense involved, and how quickly devices become obsolete, I always cringe when I hear rallying cries like “we need more PC’s in the classroom”.
The skill children really need to develop is the ability to READ. That fact is so simple and so dramatically important. If a computer is being used to teach reading then, Amen; but you probably could use programs written 20 years ago to accomplish that.
Technology budgets are better spent on virtual learning, remote lectures, etc. We need to recognize that the continual desire to get more PC’s in front of kids so that they aren’t left behind is delusional. Reading, Math, History, and Science should be the focus. Technology purchases need to demonstrate they are a value-add to these activities.
With the yearly budget cuts imposed on our school district, I don’t think we will have to worry about our district spending too much money on computers and software. Most elementary children get about 55 minutes of computer time a week. I predict that it will be cut more…
I liked the article enough to forward it to some of my staff. Nielsen’s list of life-long skills seemed mostly on target to me.
However, I think Nielsen, Nancy, and Matt are too dismissive of instruction on applications for two reasons.
While it is not generally useful to learn Excel for its own sake, it’s necessary if Excel needs to be used as part of a more meaningful activity. For example, Nielsen suggests that we introduce elementary students to debugging and cites Excel as a context. The belief that students could do so without having some clear instruction in how to use Excel first should be examined. Likewise for his suggestion that elementary students should write small websites as part of learning about usability testing. It’s clear to me that the students would need some basic understanding of the application they were using to create the websites.
Second, while many children can discover independently how to use many applications with proficiency, that is not the case for all. And in my experience, it is not even the case for most. Nancy and Matt, there is a powerful element of self-selection in the experiences your relate. Individuals that go on to IT careers typically do learn skills related to coding and application development quickly. That is why they are in the field. This ease of learning for a particular group does not necessarily generalize to the whole population. Nielsen himself discusses this in a youth context in his article “Usability of Websites for Teenagers.” http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20050131.html
There is no question that schools can do better at preparing students for our technology-infused world and Nielsen offers some useful suggestions. And so do Nancy and Matt in the sense that we probably do too much instruction in applications for their own sake rather that as a basis for use in meaningful learning activities. But that doesn’t mean that application training doesn’t have its place.
TeacherT is absolutely correct. The technology investment in MMSD is not adequate to meet the needs of the district. This is true even by K-12 standards, and K-12’s are typically lean operations compared to the private sector function for function in IT. The technology function is staffed by quality people, but the under-investment is a very serious challenge to the long term effectiveness of the district as an organization.
Thanks for the useful comments.
Ideally, every MMSD teacher and staff person would have an easy to carry wireless laptop to access the internet as well as an extensive Knowledge Management (KM) portal. That portal would contain a constantly updated library of tools for instruction, training/support as well as links to net resources (free linking would reign to data/curriculum that support and oppose current dogma). Teachers and staffers could also post comments on their experiences. (Virtual Teaching & Learning, 2.0)
Pulling this off requires:
A) Fast networks (there’s talk of a local fiber coop. The MMSD’s real estate footprint is an interesting opportunity all around).
B) Laptop hardware, software and support. This should be completely turn key (ie, failure, call this number and a replacement is sent to the user within __ hours) and is an opportunity to work with the community.
C) Virtual Learning: Fast networks mean video conferencing and therefore distance learning opportunities. It also means that students and staff have a new opportunity to publish their work quickly.
Priorities would be teachers/staff, then students.
This will take time and money. However, it’s something that we need to start putting in place. Successful implementation will require process changes all around.
A few friends are working on the fiber…… If you are interested in helping out, post a comment here.
Tim — thanks for your thoughtful comments! This is a complex issue, but to me the key point is one we all agree on. It is this: putting a child in front of a computer, and putting the money together to do this, needs to be part of a clear-headed, well informed, holistic education plan.
Outside the context of such a plan, it is impossible to say, for example, whether 55 minutes in front of a computer is too much for an elementary student or not enough.
As a practitioner, a few of Mr Nielsen’s comments rang false to me personally. His advocacy of students creating websites in order to have them critiqued for usability, and his unique definition of the term “debugging” were off notes in an otherwise good article. (I can elaborate if anyone wants to hear it.)
However one of his comments rang resoundingly true: “…three key skills that are less likely to be offshored or automated in the future. Those skills are problem solving, understanding the relation between concepts, and interpersonal communication”.
Again, as an IT practitioner, I have to be honest about it. For a child to develop these three skills she needs to do the following: Turn off the computer. Read books. A lot of them. Study math. A lot. Pratice listening to your teacher and your classmates. Look your teacher in the eye when you speak, and learn to balance your growing individuality with appropriate respect for authority figures (whatever their backgrounds) and your peers (whatever their backgrounds). These skills will move you further in your career than anything you’ll get with the PC turned on.
For a young child especially, time spent in front of a PC can actually be a detriment to the three skills Nielsen identified.
But Matt…..
Interesting thread. I once suggested that every 7th/8th/9th grader (whatever grade folks deem appropriate) be given a PC to use for assignments, writing, research, and other school work, much in the same way that UW-Stout provides every single incoming freshman with a PC.
Matt — aren’t you struck by how 19th century much of our school work is? Students perform tasks, oftentimes on paper, which is then assessed by a teacher, sitting at a table, pen in hand? Doesn’t small, portable computing technology hold some promise of accelerating that process, yielding (to suggest just one advancement) much quicker turnaround in student assessments between teacher and student?
True, there are issues — reliability a big one right now (you drop a PC, which most 9th graders will do, and risk having the thing be on the blink for weeks on end…). And I’d wholeheartedly agree with your view that, particularly in the elementary years, reading and math ought to be at the core of instruction.
But I do think reliable computer technology holds much promise for advancing and accelerating learning, even for our youngest students.
I’m certainly not a Luddite, being involved with computing since the 60’s, first helping my dad “program” card sorters to process inventory in the family business, and helping program the business’ new IBM 360/20 computer, and later, having minored in CS in college, and earning an MS in Computer Science.
But the idea of computers/calculator at schools, particularly in the elementary grades, I find both ridiculus and a complete waste of time.
I’m in complete agreement with Nancy Z and Matt.
“Sadly, I had to tell the proud parents that their daughter’s education would be obsolete before she graduated from the third grade.” – Nielsen
It may be stretching the matter, but I would argue that “any” computer skills learned is by definition obsolete. Computers are just a tool — nothing more. Anyone with a good education can learn to use a computer, and, if necessary, program one.
Because a computer is just a tool, a computer is useful only to those who can use them to further their ideas and knowledge.
Learning to use Word is truly useful only for someone who has somthing to say. Using Excel useful only to those who have data that can be analyzed to make useful decisions based on the data incorporated.
There is a science behind Computer Science that requires, like any science, a deep understanding of logical thought, abstraction, mathematical proofs, system’s thinking, and people skills and skills in working in teams, planning, etc.
Larry:
Why is the WKCE such a lousy tool for assessing how students are learning? Among many reasons, it takes forever to get the results back — in part, because it’s a paper-and-pencil test. A better test, to cite one example, is the Measure of Academic Progress, done by computer, in which results are available in a matter of a few weeks, instead of several months. Because of the quick turnaround, teachers can do important things, like, teaching things to students that the test shows they don’t know. Isn’t that a pretty powerful example of how computer technology can improve student learning? And, yes, you can use those assessments at pretty early grades in a student’s academic career.
Phil,
The MAP turnaround is even better than you think.
When the student completes the assessment, their summary score appears on the screen. If the local database is uploaded at the end of the day, the detailed web reports are usually available to teachers within 24 hours. The only reports that take longer are the complete district reports with the main data file and local totals, which are usually available within 72 hours of closing the testing window.
The MAP is also an adaptive assessment, which really can’t be done with a pencil and paper test. This allows the difficulty of the test session to be customized to the performance level of the student vs. one-size-fits-all pencil and paper testing.
Use of computers can be useful (is necessary?) as part of the teacher’s workflow — grading, communication, planning, etc.
Perhaps, using a program that helps with assessment, as one of the assessment tools, but not the only tool, is fine, normal caveats excepting.
I don’t know that the WKCE is a lousy tool for assessing kids; it might be useful IF the results were immediately available to help direct the educational process. It certainly is not now.
But, like any test, the WKCE test only measures what it happens to measure. It is a multiple choice, timed test that can be scored automatically, on the kind of question for which one can invent multiple choice answers. And it measures only a narrow range of mental processes and ideas.
It does not measure deeper mental activities which require contemplation. It does not measure the level of synthesis of ideas, knowledge. It does not measure the whether the knowledge can be used (except in test situations). “Short answer” tests measure something different, as do “essay” exams.
I don’t know what predictive value WKCE has. But, as an example, the ACT multiple choice, timed test, related to college success (measured, I believe, against college GPA) has a correlation of 0.5, which means that the ACT accounts for about 25% of the variability of the GPA, leaving 75% of the variability to factors other than those the ACT measures. The other factors could be motivation, maturity, work ethic, personal experience, cultural effects, opportunity to learn, strengths in particular areas
Tests such are WKCE, MAP or ACT are useful only to the extent that their limitations are understood. But, it is a mistake of the highest order to make these tests the litmus for student or school success, or college entrance.
My comments on use of computers referred to learning computer skills, or using calculators (a small computer) when the kids should be learning how to write, read, and do arithmetic by hand. Learning to build web pages, learning HTML, using a graphing calculator instead of sketching the graph on the board or paper — these are the wastes of time and have no importance in education, and in fact are detrimental.
Another point should be stressed. It is a rare elementary school teacher, or anyone not steeped in the world of computers, who will have even a trivial knowledge of computers and computer concepts as seen from my vantage. And it is unfair to teachers and students alike to “teach” such material when it is the basic intellect that needs to be addressed.