Interactive Learning Fails Reading Test 299
motivator_bob writes to tell us the Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that the latest craze of interactive computer software is actually hurting the education level rather than helping it. From the article: "Parents have also bought into the enthusiasm for technology, spending millions on educational computer games for their young. However, research published in the journal Education 3 to 13 has found that pupils who use interactive programs cannot remember stories they have just read because they are distracted by cartoons and sound effects."
"enthusiams for technology" (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Education is not Entertainment (Score:3, Insightful)
Entertainment amuses and distracts.
Education is not and cannot be entertainment.
It's a dangerous fad, I think ultimately brought on by the entertainment power of TV; children can be so involved in TV it's hard to get them to focus on education, so the idea arrives that if the TV can be used for education...
However, entertainment is fundamentally antagonistic to education.
Everything education is, entertainment is not.
Neil Postman wrote about this in "Amusing Ourselves to Death", a book which inspired Roger Waters epochial album, "Amused to Death"; a recommended read and a recommended listen.
Computers should supplement learning (Score:2, Insightful)
Classical education theory suggests that people can be categorized by visual, aural, touch, smell, etc learning capacities. I found that a careful combination of each of the senses works for me.
Irrespective, I think that interactive learning is better than no learning
And finally, "studies" are oftentimes slanted in favor of those who are funding the research. That is, if the sponsors don't like the result they simply choose not to publish. Matt Wong
Creative Juices (Score:2, Insightful)
A couple of points (Score:5, Insightful)
The other half used an interactive program which, in addition to telling the story, encourages pupils to click the computer mouse on page illustrations, triggering almost 300 animations and sound effects.
Only two-thirds of the pop-up cartoons were relevant to the storyline.
-----
Firstly and seriously, of course children will be distracted by animations and sound effects. Knowing this, and if they are irrelevent, why did the writers of the software put them there? Why not add some animations that explained part of the story? Fair enough no kid's book should read like a tech manual (and vice versa), but putting in distractions will distract the reader - child or otherwise.Secondly and less seriously... they're surprised 'only' two thirds of the popups are relevent? Put the kids on the net instead of using that software and we'll see how many 'relevent' popups they get.
Actually, that might not be such a good idea...
Re:It'll work itself out (Score:2, Insightful)
Will it work itself out? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no time for evolution to help the human mind adapt, we're basically stuck at this point in evolution. There's a limit to what our hunter/gatherer/tinkerer primate brains can handle and still work efficiently, and that we can't pass our progress on to our children genetically to help them get past that limit.
I'd be inclined to argue that we, doing more at one time with our minds than people a century ago, are very likely functioning less efficiently in many ways, though the progress of technological tools to aid us has more than made up the difference, so far.
Of course, paper books are just as bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Computers should supplement learning (Score:5, Insightful)
Not "book learning". Literacy.
In summary, learn to fucking read.
The Rise of MS English (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no speeling or grammar fiend but even I am horrified by the basic language errors that now appear in supposedly edited works (e.g., the New York Times and in books). Some people claim the trend is due to e-mail/IM, but I'd argue that a well trained person doesn't make such basic mistakes even on a fast first draft.
Lab rats (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you sure about that? (Score:2, Insightful)
What will be so different about our children and ourselves? I mean, are we going to genetically engineer them to be geniuses from day one or something? Because as far as I can tell, children receive genes from their parents and are pretty similar in intelligence (there is a correlation, although not 100%). So, what you're saying is that we're going to make an evolutionary jump in the next generation that will allow our children to learn what less than 20% of the world learns today, but in even more difficult conditions (playing video games)?
I'm just wondering, because I can't seem to understand what will be so different from now and then that will allow what you say to come true.
Does Zork count? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ugh, I knew it. (Score:3, Insightful)
A day after the exercise, children were asked to recall the story and the characters in it. The findings showed that 90 per cent of the group that used the first program had good or excellent recall of the story.
This figure dropped to 30 per cent with the children who had used the interactive program.
Hmm, one program had 2/3 superfluous material and their story retention dropped by 2/3. What a coincidence.
Re:Education is not Entertainment (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's just all IMAGINE then... (Score:2, Insightful)
We can just imagine up computer manuals. Or better yet, let's just pretend we are computer experts who know how to write software to fly airplanes! Then we can imagine that the software passes the FAA certification process. And we can imagine that that plane just didn't fall out of the sky, killing hundreds of the passengers on board because the pilots were imagining they were really pilots when that was the first time they stepped inside a cockpit!
Isn't imagination wonderful? We'll just imagine all of life's problems away because we can, and because, you know, Disney said it works!
Blaming the medium for the message (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, given that people often judge video games, comics, genre fiction, etc. only by their worst examples, why should anyone be surprised by this conclusion?
Re:Education is not Entertainment (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah. I read Amusing Ourselves To Death for summer reading this past summer. It was indeed a good look at what newer, more "glitzy" forms of media have done to the basic ways we communicate information. One example was television news: In "olden times," you would get your news from a local newspaper, and it tended to be things relevant to you personally, or to people you knew around the neighborhood. But now that we have satellite links and the ability to basically broadcast video to everyone's houses from anywhere in the world, news has become much less personal. It sounds ironic, but Postman said that, basically, habitually seeing news from other places that doesn't affect us, makes us want our news in little "packages" that have no relation to the real world. We want to hear what's going on in the world, not just the much smaller set of things that is actually important to us.
I've gotta say, I find most educational games ridiculous as education. I see no problem with educational games as a type of entertainment, but to replace "real" classroom education with crap like that is just asking for trouble. I have no trouble with people bringing lots of technology in the classroom, as long as its use is warranted and based in reality, not marketing. I can see a type of application that, instead of replacing a teacher's teaching, simply assists with small things. Something that spots and tells students about little careless mistakes in math problems (but requires them to fix them), something that functions as a dictionary for foreign language classes, and possibly something of a grammar reference... basically an electronic reference and person-hovering-over-your-shoulder-helping, not an electronic textbook and teacher.
Phony test (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, do I hate those studies. What the hell were they measuring? Two groups of six years old listening to a story while the text ist displayed on a computer screen.
When asked about the story, 90% of group A will remember it correctly, but only 30% of group B. So what is the conclusion? Maybe that distractions, especially those that are not related to what you are currently doing will harm your concentration and therefore you will remember not as well as if you were left alone? No, the conclusion is:
Interactive learning fails reading test
WTF?
I don't claim that it is impossible that interactive learning is the wrong educational tool for six years old. I don't believe it, but I just can't prove it. But I'm annoyed by all these stupid studies making statements based on unprecise conditions, which will not allow to deduce verifyable conclusions, but will be picked up by the press (and slashdot) nonetheless.
They're just like those studies that claim over and over again that playing counterstrike will turn kids into brutal killers. Proven wrong again and again, but nobody cares.
Chriss
--
memomo.net - free online language training [memomo.net]
Re:I'll say (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the fundamental point of the article, which is OOH SHINY!
Sorry, the point of the article is "We've got to sell papers by scaring you, and this is going to get your attention for the thirty seconds we've conditioned you to spend on a newspaper article that can't possibly do justice to the topic at hand."
On a serious note, ration access to the things. "Interactive" is not necessarily a good thing. You thought TV was bad for attention spans? You thought old-style video games were bad? Heh... use the right things at the right time, and in the right proportions. The problem is, many parents who wouldn't dream of letting their kids veg out in front of the television simply substitute one electronic babysitter for another.
Read to your kids, encourage them to read, let them play interactive titles like the Broderbund stuff assessed, and let them watch TV and DVDs. They all complement each other.
Reading to kids exposes them to material they wouldn't be able to access themselves because of the reading level required, but which they may well be able to understand - kids can generally listen and speak several years ahead of their reading level, and if they gain knowledge that there's all this interesting stuff in books and see adults reading they'll get interested in gaining the skills needed to read it themselves.
Interactive stuff makes for good reading-drills - it gets their attention and gets them practicing the skill, and they don't even know that they're doing it. Just don't expect them to be able to absorb a whole story in a single sitting. They're just not designed that way. They're frequently either non-linear, or have an overall linear progression that allows diversions along the way - that's deliberate, and is meant to enhance the long-term playability and make it easier to get the kids to repeat the practice reading exercises hidden as sets of directions or comments on objects or people. They're good for picking up related facts, but picking a narrative out of them could be difficult because the reader/player partially directs how things unfold rather than passively following a narrative that already exists. If they're related to other dead-tree materials, like the Little Monster title is, it could be a good way to get an interest in the related books too.
TV, videos and DVDs also allow some complex ideas to be presented if done right, and can encourage imagination and thought. I'm not talking about reruns of Magilla Gorilla... I think we all know what kind of crap has been on television... but there is a lot of stuff out there that can stretch the imagination, get kids thinking about moral and behavioural issues at an early age etc. Care Bears, good targetted kids sci-fi of the kind that our national broadcaster seems to show from time to time, kiddy documentary-style series and the like can help provide an interest in what's right and wrong and an interest in people and the world. We don't sit around reading the bible and Pears Cyclopedia to the family by gaslight any more, so the old "do unto others" and "things are interesting out there" messages aren't quite so common in everyday family activities these days - education is in some ways all about programming your kids to be the best people they can be, and their flexible and absorbent little minds will be shaped by what you expose them to, so look at this as an opportunity to expose them to new, interesting and challenging material rather than a way to keep them out of your hair while you watch the news.
As for purely entertaining interactive titles, like video games, they're not necessarily bad either. Reasoning, imagination, memory skills, attention to detail, cause-and-effect and the like are all things that their gameplay can rely on. They're all important life skills too.
Just because kids couldn't remember what they saw in the program the previous day is no reason to assume the technology is evil
Re:Education is not Entertainment (Score:1, Insightful)
Not really true, but there does have to be some existing level of interest. Then it ceases to be education and becomes a "hobby". Everybody here has at least one thing they're knowledgeable of the trivial minutiae pertaining to it, but they still find it fun: Computer programming, model rocketry, Fantasy Football Leagues, Monty Python movies... whatever.
The problem is that we never thought these things were fun in the way that what you're calling "entertainment" is fun. People take the backwards approach of taking something that's educational and trying to make it fun, rather than vice versa. And that doesn't work for beans.
Re:Does Zork count? (Score:4, Insightful)
When I was a kid, educational software like Zork really helped, typing and spelling especially.
Yes, it does. And it is a good example for how educational software should be:
For me it was "Wishbringer" and "Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy". Since my first language is German, it was even more usefull, since I usually had no opportunity to really try my English communication skills in my natural habitat. SimTalk is way more efficient than NoTalk.
Chriss
--
memomo.net - free online language training [memomo.net]
Insightful by Accident? (Score:4, Insightful)
Finally (Score:5, Insightful)
Parents are willing to spend an arm and a leg "for their child's education", but would be appalled at buying that child an equally-priced "toy".
It seems that all any company has to do anymore is design something that has more than a few words and numbers in it, call it a "learning device" or "educational system" and it sells like you wouldn't believe.
The newest leapfrog toy, "the fly", seems like a really useful invention again passed of as an educational device without any real educational content.
It can mimic a $5 pocket calculator, a $3 pocket dictionary, and a $0.50 pen all while taking up way too much space and being much to loud/obnoxious/distracting.
The potential of this technology is immensely great, but of course, what does that matter if it won't sell and make the company lots and lots of money? Best to strip it down, paint it bright colors, have it make noise, and say it helps kids learn.
Re:accelerated typing-Mavis Beacon (Score:3, Insightful)
1. The fact that the computer really isn't neccessary for reading.
2. The way my school was using it (and spending TONS of money on it).
Although, I do have to say that typing programs are not as effective as instant messengers and things like that (as long as the kids aren't saying stuff like "LoL" constantly).
Re:accelerated reader (Score:4, Insightful)
I recall it fondly, ever since they started requiring it in 6th grade, I've hated reading. I'm now a junior in high school.
The system was so broken. 11th grade level nonfiction books were virtually worthless, and since that's what I liked to read, I was not allowed to read them anymore. I had to read a bunch of crappy fiction books instead. And even then they'd ask stupid questions that were way too specific that nobody in their right mind could remember. And of course, reading a book that didn't have the AR sticker on it was FORBIDDEN! How DARE you read a non-AR book!
AR is an example of technology that's NOT right. I was taught to read stuff that was of value and to enjoy those things. Fiction was not one of those things. So then they made sure to break non-fiction for me too. Thank goodness we have Accelerated Reader!
Re:accelerated reader (Score:3, Insightful)
Another thing that I hate is the fact that other kids are forbidden to read books that are ABOVE their level. I can understand not letting them read ones that are below, but ABOVE?
And even after we reached our required 5 books, we STILL weren't allowed to read non-AR books. I feel your pain, brother.
Fortunately, I still love to read.
Re:I'll say (Score:4, Insightful)
> and this study proves that the "entertainment" portion just distracts kids away
> from the education part of the activity.
The problem I think is parents dont dismiss those ones as inferior because they hold the attention of kids more and the kids sit there agog at the pretty lights and the pictures and the animations and it distracts them and acts just like the television as a babysitter. And so the kids end up dumb and can't read and the parents end up getting time to themselves and a way out of having to actually 'parent' the kids.
people like that should have their kids forcibly removed and the parents sent to prison. its unethical.
Re:I'll say (Score:5, Insightful)
What's missing in all of these educational products is a human being. This is why I don't believe that video games have any more than a marginal effect on behaviour; they simply don't have the emotional influence of another human being, especially of a parent. In order for any of these things to have a deeply significant impact, the child would have to be starved of human contact, and the damage caused by this would probably outweigh all other influences combined.
Computers Considered Harmful (Score:3, Insightful)
A computer can alleviate some of the drudgery in education, but it cannot replace or even significantly augment the teacher. We are impovershing our children if we think otherwise.
Hear, Hear! (Score:1, Insightful)
Good educational software has three important parts. First, the content, which should be clear, concise, grade/age appropriate and interesting, not entertaining. Second, a method of assessing the students progress in the lesson plan. Third and most important, a real live person attending to the students as they use this tool.
Educational software is a tool that leverages the educator, not replaces them.
Re:I'll say (Score:2, Insightful)
But seriously, i strongly agree with the parent poster, for the better part of modern history we have been reading, and part of that is to do with our love for the activity. Part of that love comes from shareing our experience with others and more often then not escaping into world where we can be enlightened, held in suspence, or gain knowlege. The other part of reading, which has been removed by this volly of educational software is our own ability to interpret the story.
I remeber reading the Lord of the Rings the first time many many years ago, to find myself imagining rich landscapes and environments when my mind could play out the story. When a computer program does the interpretation for, of all people, a child there is a loss of that connection.
Re:accelerated reader (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm having serious trouble trying to figure whether your comment is funny or sad. And the fact that the value of a book can be reduced to a mere number does not help.
Re:Computers Considered Harmful (Score:5, Insightful)
I would have to mostly disagree. Even though I think computers in education are the most wasteful, overhyped thing in decades, I think a properly made computer program probably could teach you to read. And I know you can learn math from a computer: in college, I took M311 (Linear Algebra and Matrix Theory) by correspondence, and I did just fine in it and got an "A", despite not being that great at math (for example, I failed second-semester calculus the first 4 times I took it).
In fact, that Linear Algebra experience taught me just how superfluous the teacher can be. I just had a book and a guide that told me what to read and what problems to work, and I did fine. I had the same experience with the other correspondence course I took, which was US History. All I did was read the book and mail in an essay for each chapter to be graded. I got an A in that too, and I still remember what the prof wrote on one of my essays: "I have rarely seen this kind of insight from an undergraduate."
Now, this might all have more to do with my learning style than anything. But the point is that I was able to learn just fine without ever even meeting the teacher and just reading a book. Obviously, any content you can put in a book, you can put on a computer, so you should be able to learn anything from a computer that you can learn from a book. Of course, that does require that the software isn't so brain-damaged that it detracts from learning.
Re:I'm not buying it.... (Score:4, Insightful)
While the rest of your comments are well-taken, this one is a bit erroneous. Reading and watching TV exercise very different parts of the brain. Reading is an exercise in symbolic cognition, a faculty of the brain that underlies logical thought. The ability to reason symbolically is one of the fundamental aspects of higher human thought, and it is something that watching TV does not help develop.
never trust anyone over 30 (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't agree, read about the furors over dime store novels, talking movies, or, greatest horror of horrors, the dramas that Plato complained of.
I don't do instant messaging, but at least I have the wisdom to know that it is because I am old and not because I am wise.
Hmm. Ok, I will go login to gaim, out of shame at being so old, it just doesn't excite me though....
Hans
Re:Hear, Hear! (Score:3, Insightful)
Genuinely educational software is only accidentally so. Microsoft Word probably exposes more educational possibilities than anything in the reader rabbit series. Your friendly GCC compiler (or even javascript) is far better at teaching math and logic than that stupid frog. And Photoshop / Maya 3D will give kids a far deeper understanding of images than any "art appreciation" flash tripe.
If you want really educational software, check out how well Gran Turismo players understand what the parts of a car are and how they interact with eachother. Or Sim City players understand budgeting issues and compromises. Or the abstraction skills of people who create their own web pages.
Educational software is a failure. It takes a superficial view of education, opting instead for flashy lights and animations. However, that doesn't mean that all software is a failure at educating people.
The problem is Look-Say, not animations (Score:2, Insightful)
Animating the pictures may increase distraction, but that's to be expected when the basic method is fundamentally hostile to human cognition.
The "X makes learning FUN" myth. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'll say (Score:3, Insightful)
And another way of looking at it:
Parents have been told for years, nearly decades, that computers make their kids smarter. Open the newspaper and see the local school district asking to raise taxes to buy new computers. Read about teachers unions demanding budget increases because there aren't enough computers in the classroom. Find out about Negroponte's push to send cheap computers to poor countries so their kids can learn. The issues may be more complex than that, but the overwhelming message is that kids have to have computers if they want to keep up.
So, Joe Sixpack goes out and buys Writer Raccoon for little Johnny because, hey, he needs to learn with the computer, right? Fortunately, he knows he made the right choice, because Johnny can click-and-drool for hours at a time. What exactly did Joe do wrong? He did what the school boards, the teachers unions, and MIT Media Labs told him he needed to do, and he found educational software that his kid is really into.
I'm not saying it's OK to park your kids in front of the family Dell for days on end, but I can certainly see why a lot of people think that's what they're supposed to be doing.