The computer is not a good educator

Flosse-Posse writes, based on a scientific survey, that:

“using computers efficiently for educational purposes children needs adults. Actually, children can not constructively achieve any higher-level cognitive skills just on their own, or with peer-support.”

Such a conclusion is based on the following study, The Effect of Computer Use on Child Outcomes, which was earlier reported in Slate.

Here are some excerpts from the conclusions of that report:

We find that children who won a voucher spent significantly less time watching television and doing homework. Moreover, the effect on homework appears to have had real consequences for school performance. We find evidence indicating that children who won a voucher had lower school grades. Parents reported that these children had a significantly lower expectation of going to college. Finally, we also find suggestive evidence that winning a voucher is associated with negative behavioral outcomes.”

“These findings indicate that providing home computers to low-income children in Romania led them to experience worse outcomes.”

“…our analysis brings out the important role of parents in shaping the impact of home computer use on child and adolescent outcomes. We find that in families where mothers stay at home and where parents have rules regarding computer use, the negative effects of winning a voucher are greatly reduced. Thus, our findings suggest caution regarding the broader impact of home computers on child outcomes. They also raise questions about the usefulness of recent large-scale efforts to increase computer access for disadvantaged children around the world without paying sufficient attention to how parental oversight affects a child’s computer use.”

1 Comment The computer is not a good educator

  1. Avatarken thompson

    Hi Michael

    This is a wake up call for all of us who make assumptions about the positive power of technology.

    It makes me think of an excellent but contraversial book “On The Internet” by Hubert Dreyfus, a UC-Berkeley philosophy professor, which I reviewed here a couple of years back – http://www.bioteams.com/2006/03/07/the_internet_and.html#more.

    He says this On “Virtual Engagement”

    “The development of language, personality, and community are long, complex, and embodied social processes. By “embodied” Dreyfus means inhabiting a body and culturally interacting with other embodied persons through language. Dreyfus suggests that the sense of community evident on the Internet is only a kind of residue left from embodied, linguistic, social processes”.

    Keep up the good work – very impressive – I owe you an article on P2P and Bioteams!

    Best Regards

    KEN

    http://www.bioteams.com

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.