Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-03-21 Thread BGAndersen
That's a no-brainer. Children should not be allowed to use computers until they master the basic skills of the three R's on their own. Age 10 at the earliest. On page 48 of last week's Newsweek their was an interesting note about the new SAT. The hardest part for many of the students - penmanship

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-03-22 Thread Daniel Flaumenhaft
On Mar 22, 2005, at 12:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When i was a senior in high school, we were using an electron microscope and a mass spectrometer to conduct some qualitative analysis on a piece of molybdenum steel. The reason we had these machines to use was because they had been donated t

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-03-22 Thread Dan Widyono
> time?" The teacher responded, "Any fool, can be taught to operate a machine. > You're being taught how to solve the problem yourself." > Children should not be allowed to use computers until > they master the basic skills of the three R's on their own. Age 10 at the > earliest. Bah humbug, B

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-03-22 Thread Gerardo Razumney
Daniel Flaumenhaft wrote: [SNIP] was actually .9997 grams. This was why we still used them -- the lab director was a Buddhist and thought (and had convinced the faculty) that we needed to really understand what it meant to weigh something. daniel The issue is much broader than weighing, or measu

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-03-22 Thread Wilma de Soto
As a classroom teacher of ESL in a K-5 school, I love having computers in my classroom. The problem is that people use them often as a baby-sitter and not often enough as a learning tool. I would usually do something like this: I would have students research a topic we are working on and then wr

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-03-22 Thread Seth Kulick
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:56:31PM -0500, Stephen Fisher wrote: > Here's an interesting twist on the new push for more computers in the > classroom. > > Here is another one along the same lines >http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1206/p11s01-legn.html > >Headline: Contrarian finding: Computers are a

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-03-22 Thread Brian Siano
Dan Widyono wrote: time?" The teacher responded, "Any fool, can be taught to operate a machine. You're being taught how to solve the problem yourself." Children should not be allowed to use computers until they master the basic skills of the three R's on their own. Age 10 at the earliest

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-03-22 Thread Dan Widyono
> I don't have the references handy, but there's better evidence to > suggest that _music_ education helps students far more than computers do. Amen. And yes, I mistook Bruce's comments to be general, forgetting that the topic at hand was computing in _schools_. I'm still ambivalent about compu

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-03-23 Thread Brian Siano
Dan Widyono wrote: I don't have the references handy, but there's better evidence to suggest that _music_ education helps students far more than computers do. Amen. And yes, I mistook Bruce's comments to be general, forgetting that the topic at hand was computing in _schools_. I'm still amb

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-03-23 Thread bgandersen
ning tool and has made an amazing difference in my child's school performance. I wish I had one in the dark ages when I was in school.  > From: Brian Siano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: March 22, 2005 5:31:16 PM EST > Cc: UnivCity@list.purple.com > Subject: Re: [UC] computers b

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-03-23 Thread Peter Coyle
First film was going to revolutionize teaching. Then Television was going to revolutionize teaching. 25 years ago computers were going to revolutionize teaching. I imagine the next thing will be robots, or HDTV. :P On Mar 21, 2005, at 11:56 PM, Stephen Fisher wrote: Here's an interesting twist on t

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-03-23 Thread BGAndersen
them > out. This is a great learning tool and has made an amazing difference > in my child's school performance. I wish I had one in the dark ages > when I was in school.  >   > > From: Brian Siano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  > > Date: March 22, 2005 5:31:16 PM EST  &

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-03-23 Thread Peter Coyle
n amazing difference in my child's school performance. I wish I had one in the dark ages when I was in school. From: Brian Siano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: March 22, 2005 5:31:16 PM EST Cc: UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] computers bad for learning? Reply-To: Brian Siano &

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-03-24 Thread Theresa Tsai
added to the note to flesh them > > > out. This is a great learning tool and has made an amazing > difference > > in my child's school performance. I wish I had one in the dark > ages > > when I was in school. > > > >> From: Brian Siano <[EMA

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-03-31 Thread William H. Magill
On 23 Mar, 2005, at 23:38, Peter Coyle wrote: First film was going to revolutionize teaching. Then Television was going to revolutionize teaching. 25 years ago computers were going to revolutionize teaching. I imagine the next thing will be robots, or HDTV. No... read Ray Kurzwhile ... VR is the ne

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-03-31 Thread Craigsolve
In a message dated 3/31/2005 3:55:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: VR is the next big deal... the "wire-heads" .. They'll be commonplace in 10 and ubiquitous in 15! As a result, we will have the best damned fighter pilots and tank commanders in the world

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-03-31 Thread Susan Jacobson
or stupid mindless games that are supposed to teach something. (Oregon Trail fans, I am sorry I offend you.) sj Original message >Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:13:07 EST >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [UC] computers bad for learning? >To: [EMAIL PROTEC

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-03-31 Thread Samuel Nicolary
pression, not for "math drills" or stupid mindless > games that are supposed to teach something. (Oregon Trail fans, I am sorry I > offend you.) > > sj > > ---- Original message > >Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:13:07 EST > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > &

RE: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-04-01 Thread Jonathan Cass
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 5:48 PM To: Susan Jacobson Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity@list.purple.com Subject: Re: [UC] computers bad for learning? I hear at some point the humans will cease to have pinky toes and an appendix as well. What a world we live in. -- Sam Nicolary O

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-04-01 Thread Brian Siano
Samuel Nicolary wrote: I hear at some point the humans will cease to have pinky toes and an appendix as well. What a world we live in. As if we don't have few enough erogenous zones. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for arch

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning?

2005-04-01 Thread William H. Magill
On 31 Mar, 2005, at 16:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/31/2005 3:55:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: VR is the next big deal. .. the "wire-heads" .. They'll be commonplace in 10 and ubiquitous in 15! As a result, we will have the best damned fight

Re: [UC] computers bad for learning? How did *I* get involved

2005-03-31 Thread Craigsolve
In a message dated 3/31/2005 5:28:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How did *I* get involved in this conversation??Actually, digital broadcasting is the next big thing, broadly defined .. The line between your TV and your computer will disappear. (Between you