Date of publication: 2017-09-05 11:01
Every educator needs to fully understand what they 8767 re 8775 for 8776 and 8775 against. 8776 If we can summarize our thinking by being 8775 pro 8776 this or 8775 anti 8776 that, we 8767 ve likely under-thought things.
7 Public transport and bicycles. This reduces commuting time and allows all children to visit a fitting school in our German style differentiated high school system.
Many people would take this example and say, here s Juan with teaching capacity X. Add technology, and capacity increases to X + Y = Z. So, let s take technology, spread it, and assume that we ll see benefit Y everywhere.
Within the ICT development community it seems we work in an area that assumes a need (education) and assumes a solution (computers) and go right ahead and throw a poorly defined solution at the need and we are then surprised that it doesn&rsquo t work. Do that anywhere in the world and the chances are it won&rsquo t work, but unfortunately many talented professionals enter this community and leave basic business practice aside.
I just completed my doctorate research using a grounded theory approach on teacher decision-making in regard to technology use and my main conclusion was that teachers simply do what works to balance their intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Like Kentaro s thrust here, I found that teachers lacked the training both theoretically and practically to use technology but managed some pretty amazing results nonetheless. But this was only part of the picture which unfolded.
I m glad you mentioned Peru s APAFA. Local APAFAs inputs are being taken in the evaluation of OLPC in that country, and I was pleased to see that the initial results indicate that teachers in treatment schools reported improved relations with the APAFAs (see the preliminary IDB report).
In short, all the attacks on TV as the epitaph of technological failure are unwarranted. In many communities of the world, the television has proven the revolution that was promised. And if there would be one, evidenced based, advice we could give to a developing country that tries to get its children to learn a new language (be it English, Spanish, Hindi, or Mandarin), then it would be to start broadcasting soaps in these languages, with subtitles.
I wrote programming for a number of learning activities, but I want to comment on just one. It was a routine to enable students to check the paper-pencil exercises that they were writing from the adopted math text. The computer would present the student with just three questions: 6) What page? , 7) What problem? , 8) What is your answer? Page and problem number would come from the textbook, of course. The answer would come from the computation that the student just did on his paper. The machine would tell him if his answer was right or wrong. That s all. Too simple to be useful? Not at all. It turned out to be the most useful application I ever used. To see why, let s look at a typical instructional situation.
( cont d) But, where you and I disagree is whether it makes sense to call computer literacy a human right. The problem with rights is that they are black and white. Once you decide something is a right, there can be no more discussion about whether provision of it makes sense *relative* to something else that competes for the same resources. A right is non-negotiable, which is exactly why you seem unwilling to engage in the nitty-gritty of what you re calling micro-economics.