Parallel issues in secondary ed

Hmm. Look at that. I go hunting for examples of SMART Board lessons for use with my 10th grade American lit students, and I bump into someone I know. Imagine that. The world wide web is a small place.

Oh well. Hey Ira. Sorry I’m late to the party.

Three thoughts, and a conclusion, here:

1) I used to teach in a school that had one computer in the classroom, and only one internet connection in the building. That was in 2006. I teach literature and composition: our students read. Novels. Without the help of SparkNotes or Cliffs Notes, because they could not afford computers in their homes. They closely analyzed passages, pored over metaphors and similes, discussed micro and macroscopic themes, symbolism, images, character issues. We taught them to spell, to use morphemes to decipher word meanings, and to diagram sentences. They created research papers using the online databases at the public library to find source material (because I refused to work with the antiquated red _Readers Guide_ books), but then they learned to cite those sources with a copy of the MLA handbook, and their teacher, in front of them. This is in an impoverished, inner city school, mind you; 92% of those kids went on to college. I receive emails from many of them still, saying that the education they received FROM US (with our pathetic technology) prepared them better for the rigor of academia they have met in university than anything they could imagine.

Possibly, they say this because they were not exposed to, and can therefore not imagine, anything else. Or because they were my pets then, hence the emails now. But the fact that 92% of them went on with their educations, and 75% of them stayed in higher ed (as opposed to those who flunk out after failing to make it out of their Bridge program), I think, says something.

2) I now teach in a district with a generous complement of technology and a strong commitment to training our kids to work in a world whose technology does not even exist yet. Fortunate me: I have access to anything I could possibly want, and training in how to use it. And I do use it, and I’m learning how to use it more.

Our students engage the research process in every academic subject, including health and PE. There are more online sources for information, for writing and composition, and for citation/publication, than we can possibly teach the kids to use. They have been self-directing their own academic projects for several years when they get to us in the 9th grade. Some of the quality of their work is exciting, inspiring. It is an engaging, lively place to teach.

And yet...

I have students who cannot function without their tools. They cannot perform basic calculations (addition, subtraction, short division) without a calculator. They cannot compose an essay without aggregious spelling errors, to the point that some phrases are incomprehensible, and are so far off the mark that spell check only makes things worse. Nor can they construct a cogent sentence, because Word assumes what they mean and parses their poor prose with the error of a computer (rather than the eye of a teacher, who could coach and remediate). They can do research, but their results are sometimes a series of cut-and-pastes where their own thoughts are inseparable from source material which has come from all over the place. And they are unable to cite those sources because, even though Noodle Tools is available for them at home or at school, they don’t understand the principles of research and citation well enough to use what is available to them without errors that are embarassing, and products that are incomprehensible.

And, when I give them books, they cannot read them.

3) I understand well what Socol is telling us: let go of the old way. Embrace the future. Trust your feelings. Use the force, Luke.

To an extent, absolutely. The future is not the future any longer; it is here. We aren’t. It’s time to move. It is time to teach Digital Natives in their own language. I am with you.

However, I’m scared. Are we training up an army of engineers whose lack of foundational knowledge will cause our bridges to collapse? Environmental scientists who cannot counteract the harmful effects of polluting substances because of a surface-only knowledge of the periodic table? Doctors who don’t know anatomy? Editors that can’t even spell New York Times? Technology can only take us so far.

Conclusion) Today’s learners can dialogue, in depth, an amazing bredth of topics. Their ability to conceive and manipulate information is uncanny. But I’m not certain that to embrace the age in which we live means to let go of the elementary facts that brought us there.

I realize that today’s technology allows those who cannot access the foundations to comfortably get up to the roof. I realize that it allows the roof to be higher, cooler, prettier. I realize that I cannot even get my brain around tomorrow’s roof, and if I’m training someone else to be able to build beyond me, I had better get hammering.

But any contractor worth his salt will tell you that if a foundation is not completely square, the house won’t even make sense by the time you get up to the roof. And that scares me. A lot.

KJ, at 10:15 pm EST on January 31, 2008

What about power failures?

Dropped laptops? S/W virus? H/W failure? Query string written incorrectly? Voltage spike? Incompatible H/W? Equipment gets stolen? Poorly-written software? Mediocre delivery systems? Water/fire damage? Harsh-weather environments? Global worm virus?

Technology can do some things. It can’t do everything.

And often, it can really screw things up. Just ask any of the 26.5 million VA clients who, thanks to a stolen VA laptop, now have to watch their credit records for life.

Art D., at 7:20 am EDT on May 25, 2006

This is a very interesting issue brought up here—and pertinent to the current grading season. But I think the real issue strikes at the heart of how we as teachers should evaluate our students.

Check out today’s blog at http://ndsmith.wordpress.com/

Here’s the bottom line: I wonder if the moral outrage against “cheating” funnels a deeper frustration about how to approach the very difficult task that is education.

Nathan, at 8:05 am EDT on May 25, 2006

Hear, hear

Larry misses the point. The point is not to accept Google-found information as valid. The point is to accept that Google is one way (that students mostly know how to use) to find information. The professors teach them how to determine if it is valid. Google can be one resource of many and it can be a stepping stone to using library databases and more scholarly information. I’ve been doing a lot of research lately and I’ve been continually frustrated by the arcane way the library databases are set up for searching. I’ve often turned to Google or Google scholar to find articles I need.

The quality of the information on the web definitely varies, but that doesn’t mean you can dismiss it all out of hand. More and more faculty are putting their articles online and more and more journals are providing open access to their issues. If you simply say “don’t use Google,” instead of teaching appropriate use of search technology, you’re denying your students a real learning opportunity.

Paper can get lost, ripped, burned, wet. Does that mean we shouldn’t use it?

Laura, at 8:05 am EDT on May 25, 2006

Don’t use paper

” .. Paper can get lost, ripped, burned, wet. Does that mean we shouldn’t use it?”

Sure — don’t. Use oral exams — prove you know a topic.

But if you’re a techie, and your presentation develops a glitch, you’re on your own. Fix it yourself with your resources, and good luck.

Art D., at 8:50 am EDT on May 25, 2006

Quick Thoughts

Art: Pens run out of ink and, as Laura said, papers get lost, notebooks get stolen, pencils break. These are just strange excuses. Walk through any business in the world today where you would want our graduates to find jobs, and computers are on every desk, and often, in every hand. Fighting against a society’s technology seems like a waste of time. As I wrote on my blog once, “Bemoan the destruction of the scribes’ art at the hands of Gutenberg all you want, but that is not an educationally valid reason to refuse to let your students read printed books.”

Larry: I’d have hoped you’d read beyond the “teaser,” but when you mention inaccurate information via Google, I surely hope that you teach your students to analyse the information from ANY source. Not all books contain valid information either — not at the local Barnes & Noble and not at the university library either. But obviously students need to learn a wide range of search skills — Google is just the most obvious starting point.

Ezra: You’re slippery slope is mighty steep. We still need to know how to drive cars and fly airplanes, but neither drivers nor pilots training today involves a great deal of “how to crank the engine” technique. You may teach handwriting but I doubt you teach your students to chase the duck, pluck the feather, and sharpen the quill. You might teach math but it has been quite a while since I have seen a slide-rule in the classroom. The world changes. I understand that this is uncomfortable, but human societies are defined by their technologies as much as anything ("The Iron Age,” “The Information Age"). We either take advantage of those technologies, teach appropriate, effective, and ethical uses of them, or we abdicate our real role as educators.

Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 9:00 am EDT on May 25, 2006

Confessions of a job interviewer

I interview about a dozen people a month, for referral to senior hiring managers. Let me frank: the educational quality of graduates is highly uneven, no matter what their friggin’ transcripts claim.

Given this high level of unreliability, I have, unfortunately, had to resort to oral exams. That is, real, live, firing-line type questions about how to handle issues and problems. Such as, “if, at a sales convention, you have the choice between a 5% discount or extended terms over three months, what are the calculated advantages and disadvantages?”

No paper. No calculators. Just thinking, with paper and pencil only on request. Some winners — and some really awful performances.

Of course (Larry) — I’m not the only interviewer who does this (e.g., MSFT, Bain).

Art D., at 9:35 am EDT on May 25, 2006

Nice Article

Let me see if I can summarize Ira’s thesis in a couple of sentences. (Ira, please correct me if I’m wrong). The point is that ubiquitous information technology makes rote memory less important than it used to be. Mainly because we have so much access to so much information that trying to commit it all to memory is an absurdly impossible act. What is really important now is knowing how to find and critically analyze information. Pulling the needle out of the haystack rather than commiting the haystack to memory.

Also, searching for information online does not automatically make one a plagiarist (as long as you cite your sources). Again, it goes back to the question of how you interpret, analyze and use that information. And “search” and “memory” aren’t mutually exclusive cognitive activities. I spend lots of time each day searching for information online. And I’m always amazed at how much of it I actually retain. You usually remember what’s important when it’s part of a meaningful (not rote) activity.

As for the gentleman who said that “the job interview isn’t an open book” doesn’t he realize that preparing for a job interview by doing research online is a very common practice these days? I don’t think I would hire an employee who didn’t prepare himself in this manner.

Phil, at 9:50 am EDT on May 25, 2006

It seems to me the real issue is what do you want students to know? And, as an instructor or professor do you really know how to get them there. To teach kindergarten, one has to go to college for at least four years and be certified to teach. To walk into a college classroom, no expertise in teaching is required. It is the only teaching job I know where you can teach what you have never done, and teach what you have never done even though you have no idea how to teach what it is you have never done. I am tired of some of my peers and their attitudes about students. Most of those in my classes are there because they want to learn something. Paula is absolutely right when she says we have to promote critical thinking. But how many of us have any idea at all how to go about it? How many college professors or instructors have any teaching courses in their backgrounds?

One other thing, I read Art D’s comments about job interviewing with a certain amount of concern. People generally bring four things to the job market…Knowledge, attitude, skills, and habits. We hire for knowledge and skills and fire for attitudes and habits…maybe we ought to be rethinking that process also. Richard Baker, Associate Professor of Communications, Kansas State University

Richard Baker, Associate Professor at Kansas State University, at 10:20 am EDT on May 25, 2006

Isn’t This A Situational Issue

If the issue is allowing students to access information needed to develop test responses so that the test is about having the ability to analyze and critically think through an answer — as well as being able to effective communicate in writing — couldn’t we just as easily be discussing the virtues of open note tests and the possibilities that students might include in their notes complete answers. In some courses, having access to information isn’t going to allow for cheating — if the questions are appropriately developed. In other disciplines a multiple choice test in which a student’s knowledge of the subject is tested — some memorization is going to be necessary and connectivity to electronic information may encourage those who will cheat to do so. I agree with those who have commented that good teaching and thoughtful test development are the best methods for preventing cheating — no matter what testing environment is in use. As far as providing access to electronic information, there may be test situations where it makes complete sense but I would hope that the instructor has worked collaboratively with the librarians to educate students about all of their information options — what they need might be in Google or another search engine — or in a deep web resource that Google doesn’t even index — or it might be a reference book in the library’s e-book collection (e.g., Xrefer). Let’s even take it a step further. How about making the diversity of e-resources consulted during the test part of the grade. The more resources used and the higher the quality of those resources — the better the grade. For those who are lazy and just use Google — I say deduct points!

StevenB, at 10:50 am EDT on May 25, 2006

Ira, I just don’t see what is so revolutionary about having students that do research on the internet or elsewhere. By the time someone is in the 2d year of college, they should know they way around a library or the internet. They should know how to use all the major subject-matter specific databases, and they should have some knowledge of the journals in any field that they wish to study. This goes for everything. Unfortunately, today’s students often just have poor research skills because they rely too much on the internet.

Art, I interview people, too. Granted, most of the people I interview are 5-8 years out of graduate school and some are even have more education than me. Asking people substantive questions is not unheard of, and the norm. But, on the other hand, I don’t care to make smalltalk with people because it my culture it is considered a sign of disrespect. I don’t have much experience with people just out of college, nor do I want to.

Phil, In a serious job interview, it is assumed that both parties know something about each other. It isn’t a test of how much research can be done on the internet. Obviously, if someone has no idea what the firm does they were not interested in the first place. But, since most interviews require at least some financial outlay on both sides, people put the effort in. However, for real jobs Google isn’t enough, one needs to be immersed in the field, so they really know what they are talking about.

Larry, at 11:05 am EDT on May 25, 2006

Interesting article...I allow my pre-nursing students some time to “look things up” at the end of their exams, mostly because I know that nurses do use references when they chart. But, on the job they need time management as well; they can’t look up everything. All occupations require a knowledge base. It seems to me that everyone has to memorize a little bit.Oh, and by the way Ira, in your response to Ezra at 9:00 on May 25, I believe you meant to say “Your slippery slope...", not “You’re slippery slope...". Too bad your spell checker didn’t catch that.

Rebecca, Cochise College, at 12:50 pm EDT on May 25, 2006

By my second year in college, I did indeed know my way around the library and available data bases. But when I went to graduate school, thirty years later, I had to re-learn because next to none of what I knew worked anymore. Fortunately, I was somewhat familiar with using the internet, and also had instructors who realized that students could use some pointers in things like which data bases would be most useful.

Mine is an unusual case, I’ll grant, yet it is different primarily in degree. Every student will study areas where the search techniques are different than those used elsewhere. And knowing how to evaluate information is critical. This is true not only in college, but in the rest of our lives. With the rate at which knowledge is growing and changing it is impossible for any of us to know what we will need twenty years hence. But we do know that we will need to be able to learn, to aquire and evaluate new information.

Another thing I’ve noticed as a 50 something student — the more I read (mostly on the internet) the more I remember. My reading comprehension has developed drastically since I have started reading on line journals like Inside Higher Education.

Tricia, at 1:05 pm EDT on May 25, 2006

What is being tested...

Ingolf — I concur absolutely, which is why I said, “that anything you can instantly Google, or store in your calculator, or retrieve via quick text-message or phone call need not be remembered, nor tested, because, obviously, you will always be able to instantly Google it, or store it in your cellphone, or get someone to text it to you.” There are many, many things in the world that don’t lend themselves to this, and a core body of understanding is essential to any search for information — or you won’t be searching for the right needle in the haystack, but for the needle in the universe.

So, I can Google (or otherwise search) for specific things about my field and find what I need, but it has taken a long time and a great deal of effort to get to understand how to categorize and analyze that information.

This is why it is important not to test things like memorization of formulas, but an understanding of which formula to use. Not dates, but what events mean. Not data collected in tables but how to find the tables you need. Not the simple ability to state a “fact” but the ability to explain why you understand that fact to be true — and how to test it out. Not how to look something up but how to know if what you looked up is good information.

As a number of commenters have pointed out, there are time limits. If I ask my students to memorize the periodic table of elements and test them on that, I am sacrificing essential instructional and study time that I believe is better spent other ways.

And for Rebecca at Cochise, thanks. That is what editors are for — though not spell-checkers. I would need a properly set grammar-checker for that task.

Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 2:00 pm EDT on May 25, 2006

Tech Check

How far do we go to allow students tech support? Consider the following problems from this past semester in Illinois colleges.

*Students purchased instructor materials on line including quizzes, tests, and practice exercises on which grades were based.

*Learners copied and pasted research papers and provided false citations.

*Test answers were texted to a cell phone during an exit examination.

*Spouses or friends completed online course work rather THAN the student.Balance is the key to all life experience. Use the technology, but learn integrity. It is difficult for professors to teach students when the news is full of stories of disreputable business practices, poor personal choices, and unethical abuse of information. If we can’t instill honor in students 18-24, they are lost forever to live the life of cheaters. We must reach them before their brain is hard-wired. I will continue to banish the cell phone from the classroom and teach students how to check the validity of online information.

Dee Marie, Professor, at 2:20 pm EDT on May 25, 2006

Technology is neither dangerous nor irrelevant. It is merely a tool and like all tools has limitations. Books and paper periodicals quickly become obsolete, libraries flood, power fails, wireless network connections crash when overloaded, and human memory erodes with the passage of time. Proficiency with multiple knowledge bases provides a more reasonable assurance of accessing needed facts in minimum time.

Pat, at 2:55 pm EDT on May 25, 2006

If knowledge of a meaningless list of facts is being assessed....

I get this all the time, teaching World History. We spend, as a department, a fair bit of time figuring out what the important components of the course are, what information and skills we’d like students to master, and we structure our courses accordingly. That there are alternative ways of getting to similar ANSWERS does not mean that the students build the same SKILLS nor does it mean that they will ABSORB any of the information which we think is, in fact, worth absorbing.

Students will cheat, sure, and it’s worthwhile to reconsider our teaching and testing methods as technology and its uses change. But that has to be consonant with our actual teaching goals, and our students are not the best judges of what is or is not meaningless.

Jonathan Dresner, at 3:00 pm EDT on May 25, 2006

Yes, Pat

“Technology is neither dangerous nor irrelevant .. networks can crash ..”

Pat’s comment, in the high-tech world, is usually referred to as “redundancy.” That is, you have redundant systems, like tandem computers, in case the main unit fails.

Most likely, this issue will always remain under debate for a long time. Neither side has enough empirical evidence to eliminate the other (the survivor of which, of course, would be bought by Microsoft).

That then begs the question: if productivity superiority cannot be overwhelmingly established — why spend big bucks on new, expensive, and high-maintenance systems? Is this just a new “fad of the moment?”

Doing Excel is a technical skill. Providing an acceptable answer in the time available can be an art. Fixating on technology without covering the basics can leave students with enormous gaps in understanding — I’ve seen this, first-hand.

Art D., at 6:10 pm EDT on May 25, 2006

A student once told me “why do I need to learn this stuff. When I get out into the real world I’ll just pay someone for the answers.”

Max Jerrell, at 6:15 pm EDT on May 25, 2006

Fairness

One issue which would need to be addressed would be fairness: not all of my students have access to laptops, or internet-ready cell phones (many don’t have computers at home), and fully computerized classrooms are in short supply. If we’re going to allow them to “cheat” we need to actually address the differential in some way.

Jonathan Dresner, at 6:15 pm EDT on May 25, 2006

(perhaps) Final Thoughts

I want to thank “California Librarian” for reminding all of us of this critical resource that we do not make enough use of (and to give a big public thumbs up to Kate Corby, the MSU College of Education’s research librarian who does this very well). Long ago (I think 1997) I teamed with a high school Library/Media Specialist to develop a research curriculum for all students in a 1,600 student school. All freshmen and sophomores took a week from their English courses and spent it with us in the library lab where we discussed search engines vs. web directories, how to phrase search questions, how to use library resources (both digital and print), how to cite sources, how to research who had written a web page (and perhaps why). We started by having them hunt for cars on-line (always of interest to 15 and 16-year-olds) and moved them up and up. At some point we’d always stage races proving that sometimes print was faster, sometimes on-line was. And since the English teachers (usually) sat in, they were learning as well. It worked very well, and is still in place in that school, but I rarely find anything like it.

Thanks also to CJ for great research questions. I think we all can probably agree on the need to investigate — and keep investigating — these kinds of questions as the world, and educational needs, keep changing.

And to Jonathan Dresner — jump to his web site, read his final exams — excellent examples of assessment that puts a premium on learning and perhaps makes the “cheating issue” irrelevant.

But really, thanks to all of you. The power of Inside Higher Ed is the ability to let us speak to one another, to bring in ideas and to argue with passion and to learn from one another. I’m glad to have been a small part of this today, and I have enjoyed all the contributions.

- Ira Socol

Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 6:35 pm EDT on May 25, 2006

Yes — follow the money

” .. why spend big bucks on new, expensive, and high-maintenance systems? Is this just a new “fad of the moment?”

Remember that, the next time, the sales rep from WebCT, Thomson, BlackBoard, Pearson, Angel, et al., drops by your office. Remember what Harry Truman said — when someone says they’re here to help, padlock the meat freezer.

Art D., at 10:15 pm EDT on May 25, 2006

Grammar (and Morality) Check

(OK Glenn, you drew the response you wanted)

Other than the fact that neither Rebecca nor Glenn seems to know the difference between spell-check and grammar-check ("You’re” is certainly spelled correctly), they are missing a key point. As Glenn says, “Everyone makes this kind of mistake from time to time,” even the most rehearsed among us. So, in the past, those with resources (parents, tutors, knowledgable room-mates, paid editorial help) used editors, and those without resources got marked down. Now, we can, if we work on it, extend the benefits of that kind of support to all students, even students who live with non-college educated parents.

But maybe both Glenn and Rebecca reveal something deeper. Perhaps they both rely on “gotcha” grading (sounds like it). Perhaps they believe in a single standard that desires that all students be as similar to themselves as possible — at least in terms of academic culture. Perhaps they believe in higher education, in education in general, as a way of separating the haves and have nots — “Oh, you uneducated fool, you made a grammatical mistake.” If that is their intent, conscious or unconscious, they are doing the United States a vast disservice. And if that is not their intent, I would hope they might adopt a different tone.

Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 4:40 am EDT on May 26, 2006

Special Needs

One most important aspect that seems to have got lost, is the greater access to higher education that this would provide for people with Learning Difficulties. For someone with Dyslexia, why should they be denied use of Spell Checker in exams? Afterall, it can be used in the workplace, so why not in exams? Equally for someone with the maths disorder of Dyscalculia, what is so wrong with allowing use of a calculator in exams? Given that nearly everyone will use a calculator if they have to do even slightly complex maths calculations. Does anyone actually still do it with pencil and paper?The issue is not ‘how you do it’, but ‘can you do it’?

Geoff Dobson, at 4:45 am EDT on May 26, 2006

I agree entirely with Ira Socol’s original article and subsequent comments. I learned almost nothing in school which has had any impact or bearing on my life today — not even the much-vaunted self-serving “how to learn” over-generalization — and I am a successful computer programmer and business owner with a great love of art and literature. I learned about art by going to museums, reading catalogs and making friends in the art world. I learned about literature by going to bookstores and engaging in discussion. I learned about programming by using the Internet when it was in its infancy. I learned about management by actually managing people.

School, up to and including undergraduate college, is nothing more than a social exercise designed to determine which class of society the student will enter into upon graduation. It is a selection process, and if lucky, a guide for individual maturation.

A related topic which concerns me greatly is the abyssmal reporting which passes for journalism today. Journalists know how to craft an article to make a point, and most journalists are perhaps necessarily crusaders of one sort or another, but seldom do they know the underlying tenets of their subject matter. (Which, hopefully, blogs seem to be changing, since blogs tend to be written by people who have a specific interest first, and a journalistic ability second).

It’s amazing the number of tricks which journalists use in order to make their point. A session reading the New York Times is an intellectual exercise in logical word puzzles which require being parsed, deconstructed and reassembled in order to learn the truth. If they like the person they’re writing about, they will use the word “declined” to describe a contrary position, but if not, they will use the word “refused.” A person they favor will be a “maverick,” but one they suspect becomes an “outlier.” A minority position will be ostensibly supported by quotes from carefuly-selected vox-populi, or the words of one or two hand-picked “experts,” but never will a larger context be provided. And so it goes.

The blame is two-fold: First on the journalists for not knowing how to present information, or perhaps for knowing how to present it all too well, but mainly for not having a deep understanding of the way information works in reality; and second on the public for not realizing the types of tricks being used to shift context.

These are the types of things which must be taught: The ability to discriminate among competing sources of information; the ability to understand diverse topics and relate them to empirical reality; and the ability to know whom to trust, and under what conditions.

I heard it said that in England, cell phones are interfering with the existence of ghosts. Paranormal hobbyists say the matter is technical. We all know, of course, that the matter is social. The world has changed. Good information is at everyone’s fingertips. We no longer believe in ghosts. Let’s keep going along this path and take advantage of the higher intellectual plateau we’ve reached, but seeking a better method for attaining the next one.

John H, at 9:20 am EDT on May 26, 2006

I agree that students should know basic research skills and how to use the Internet. But there is no substitute for knowing how to spell — or memorizing basic information. You can’t learn science, history or a language without doing so.

gary panetta, at 11:55 am EDT on May 26, 2006

Why can’t the prof test spelling?

A huge part of journalism is the ability to write clearly with proper grammar and spelling. It’s a communication profession as much as an observational/investigational one. As much as technology enthusiasts might want us to think otherwise, some amount of innate ability and/or hard work is necessary regardless of what the computer can add to the equation. The computer cannot write your articles for you.

I recall being on my college paper, in the same “department", with a particular reporter. Her grammar and spelling were atrocious, and when you are slapping together a paper at a last minute, you can’t catch everything. Some pretty bad work by this particular reporter snuck through to the published issues, and it was pretty embarrassing. Dependence on spell check and other crutches sets one up for similar potential embarrassment.

“Spell check” does not catch everything, and it will not fix basic (or even higher-level) issues with grammar, spelling, and writing quality. It might help, but it won’t fix it.

I can appreciate the argument that technology can leverage your abilities and knowledge. But the argument fails when you have basic skills issues. College profs are right to make sure you are basically competent, and spelling is basic competence.

Plus, I have a feeling this was not a spelling test alone, and that grading spelling was merely one factor, along with others, were being tested here.

Lastly, if the prof says “no spell check", that’s the rule. We can debate about the need for the rule all we want, but one aspect of this is whether we should follow directions, and, while rebellion and “doing what we want” is always a choice, the House will always win on that one. You still get the “F", whatever you feel about your integrity.

I say this because one aspect of the pro-technology argument can be seen to be this quasi-libertarian notion that we can transgress all, that intellectual property and other rules need not apply to you or I. Suffice to say that this is a political debate as much as one about what technology can do.

John, at 12:50 pm EDT on May 26, 2006

Ira No, one should not be prevented from having good life, but there has to be some barrier to entry to skilled trades. Mastery of Google and wearing out the cut and paste keys on your computer do not qualify you as a player in the sciences or arts, unless your goal is really not to get a good education or any education for that matter, but merely just to get through college. I think everyone should aim higher. My first physics degree involved a lot of learning classical theories that have been that have been supplanted by more advanced and accurate theories. Did I waste my time? No. One has to understand more basic and intuitive excercises before going on to more advanced theories. Also, I use the classical stuff everyday because it is there in my head and I don’t have to race to a computer to find it. Finally, any attempt to base an education upon what you find on the internet is doomed to failure. There is so much noise and purposefully inaccurate information out there that even when you know what you are looking for and know it is out there, sometimes you can’t find it. For instance, even though no credible evidence existed for the presence of WMD in Iraq and all of the evidence on the ground kept coming back with negative results, I’m sure most of what you find on the states how this was an obvious mistake that everyone was making or suggests that he just hid them well. Not likely.Basically, finding information is a useful skill. But interpreting and understanding information is far more critical and it’s only when you can access it and explain it that you can demonstrate these skills. Sometimes memorization are involved, sometimes mental calculations, but reading or copying something you don’t understand from Wikipedia is a waste of time

Rick W, at 2:20 pm EDT on May 26, 2006

RickW,Internet research is not always brainless cut-and-paste. Before there was a net the complaint was that people just copied nice-sounding phrases from books, not understanding that material, either. While printing and its results are themselves a form of technology, one sees that the “mere copyist” argument is more or less timeless, in as much as the argument stays around while technologies come and go.

Yes, people need to “pay their dues” and actually learn their material. But, the net can be a useful tool for doing so. If my prof stinks, or I just need some help, I can supplement my experience with the net. Ditto in the “real world.” Given the fact that the net is even more user-friendly and usefully hyper-text than its predecessors, it’s a great way to leverage what you know with more stuff.

BTW, we will never truly get past cut and paste. In a society heavily based on “consensus knowledge", logic, and authority, we are not usually allowed to just write a block of our own prose and call it a paper. One is expected to dutifully present and source the building blocks for their thoughts, that is, to footnote. The footnote’s brother is the rote phrase.

By demanding authorities in papers and such, we emphasize the source along with the information. This is valuable in as much as it allows us to “consider the source", but what it creates, even for the best of us, is a climate where some degree of roteness creeps in.

Thus, while people who merely cut-and-paste may be a problem, we will not escape the footnote, and its buddy, the rote phrase. The notion that there is little truly new in the world comes to mind. We are usually pursuing the inspirations that would build upon the “classical” understandings you mention, and, frankly, what matters to me is the novelty and accuracy of thought in the end result. If you have to mercilessly cut and paste to establish the logical blocks, but the end result is innovative, the cut and paste might even be heralded as a time-saving tool.

So, yeah, we’ve got to learn stuff, but in an increasingly hyper-text society with a tool full of useful information, dismissing it all as mere cut and paste and blooming buzzing confusion is going too far.

John, at 4:20 pm EDT on May 26, 2006

There are serious problems with Ira Socol’s article. I will illustrate my concerns by way of a few examples.

(1) I was trying to explain to a student in my office why the graph of y=1/x looks the way it does. I asked him, “What is one over one half?” He went for his calculator. Indeed, he could not compute 1/(1/2) on his own. Because he was allowed free use of his calculator all through high school he lost not merely a computation skill, but he lost the concept of what a fraction is and what a reciprocal is. He may memorize the graph of y=1/x for my test, but he will never understand the concept of a singularity. The damage done to this young man’s education is, practically speaking, permanent. Careers in science, medicine and engineering are closed to him.

I am not against the effective use of calculators and have developed a worksheet for my students to practice their calculator skills. I tell my classes that a chainsaw is a powerful tool, but you cannot use it to pick flowers. My colleagues refuse to use my calculator worksheet – it is beneath them. They err in one extreme, while Ira’s errs in the other.(2) I will teach trigonometry next fall. I will make my students memorize facts like sin(2x) = 2sin(x)cos(x). Why? So, that years from now, if they stay within a high tech field, they will remember that there is a formula for sin(2x), and then go and look it up. In teaching calculus I have often had students get stuck on a homework problem because they didn’t recognize an opportunity to simplify an expression by using a trig identity. This is because they did not have to memorize these before and so now don’t even member that they exist. I have worked in industry and had to use trigonometry often. I even made a formula sheet for myself. But, you have to remember at least enough to know what to look up. “Over training” is critical.

(3) Many of my calculus students never had to memorize basic volume and area formulas. Because of this they do not understand the concepts of area and volume. I had a student who thought the volume of a cube was Pi times the radius squared. A cube does not have a radius. People don’t Google facts they have wrong, because they do not know they are wrong. Many students do remember that Pi times the radius squared gives the area of a circle. But then they cannot remember the formula for the volume of a cylinder. If they had once memorized it, not merely by rote but in terms of this formula being a natural extension of the formula for the area of a circle, they would now be able to reconstruct it. Few can. Memorization does not have to be exclusively a rote experience, but rather can help students see larger patterns: at first these patterns seem to just be mnemonic devices, but later in the students’ education they will see that they really learned more than they were aware of.

(4) I was talking to a student about politics – he brought it up. He was against affirmative action programs. He has a right to his views of course. But, one of his reasons was that “the Civil War was hundreds of years ago”! Knowledge of basic facts does matter. They provide the bases for more abstract thinking, and indeed the boundary between the two is not as sharp as Ira imagines.

(5) My spelling sticks. Yes, spell checkers help, but they can only do so much. (Mine did not change “sticks” to “stinks”.) I have to spend a great deal of time checking over my writing. I agree with Ira that having spelling tests in college is a bit extreme. However, I wish some teacher had gotten me into a program to help overcome this problem. Would we block a child with dyslexia from getting help with reading because soon all books will be available in verbal form on the internet? (Kudos to the education researchers who discovered dyslexia and developed ways for children to cope with it.)

Why do Ira and many other sincere researchers in education get the technology issue so wrong? I think it is because they lack specific discipline based knowledge and teaching experience. It is likely true that we in the disciplines would benefit from some of the new findings in education if we were aware of them – I have found Sheila Tobias’s work to be helpful. But the research in college education is done in almost complete isolation from the potential users of that information. Ira, did you send drafts of your article to colleagues in specific disciplines? Do you or could you know so much about mathematics, history, chemistry, journalism, etc., that this step was not necessary?

Mike, Math Prof, at 5:40 am EDT on May 27, 2006

Reply to Ira

Notation: x^a means x to the power a. Thus,10^3 = 1000. sqrt(x) means the square root of x. Thus, sqrt(100) = 10.

Ira,

Thank you for your response. My views are admittedly based on anecdotal evidence.

Calculators do not retard or promote learning, teachers do. I am reading the Hasselbring, et al, article. I does not seem to address college level learning. It does however say:

The research on computational fluency suggests that the ability to fluently recall the answers to basic math facts is a necessary condition for attaining higher-order math skills.

The misuse of calculators does do damage. Many education research articles study highly controlled situations. Yes, a good teacher can use calculators to enhance student learning. However, many students do not have good teachers. This, of course, is the real problem. A student should be taught not to use a calculator for problems like 1/(1/2). They should be taught to do problems like this one from my Calculator Practice Sheet for my College Algebra classes:

Compute each of the following and express your answer in scientific notation, rounded to five significant digits. One or two problems of this sort will be on a future quiz or test. (5) Let x = 1.2343 × 10^20. Compute: (x^2+3x)/sqrt(x). Answer: 1.3713 × 10^30.

Yet, many of my students who are over dependent on calculators cannot do such computations. One reason many high school teachers allow indiscriminate use of calculators and do not make students memorize basic facts is that state mandated tests allow free use of any calculator and provide a formula sheet. The formula sheets I have seen give students formulas for the areas of rectangles, triangles, circles and much more. This was likely done to forestall cheating. The unintended consequence is that my niece’s eighth grade algebra teacher told the class they did not need to remember the formula for the area of a circle because they would always be given this! But conceptual learning requires that students see that the area of a circle must be somewhat less than 4*R^2 and that pi*R^2 is a way of defining pi. (Really the circumference formula is used to define pi, but never mind that for now.)

What works in the lab may not work in the real world.

You asked, “Why are math instructors (in particular) often so resistant to technology.” It is a fare question. I can only answer for college faculty and my views are of course based on anecdotal evidence. (1) Many of us do. I doubt that we are particularly resistant, though I could be wrong. Mathematicians have been using the internet since the mid 80’s, well before most people heard of it. In fact, most computer science departments emerged from math departments. (2) Many educational fads have come and gone over the years. That’s why many of us are skeptical of educational research. (Fool me once, shame on you. ...) (3) There are practical obstacles. In my department we have a common final for all sections of calculus. I pointed out that many of the questions we asked were trivial with the newer calculators and suggested we have a two part final. The first part would be sans calculators, but the second would require the nontrivial use a graphing calculator. My colleagues felt that this would be too difficult to administer as we only have two hours allotted for the final exam. We ended up deciding to allow only non-graphing calculators during the full course of the exam. But, now it seems some faculty do not feel they should play policeman and so in some sections students can easily sneak in high powered calculators. We are debating eliminating all calculator use. I hope we find a better solution. (I take my section into the computer lab and show them how to use Maple, a CAS. However, I cannot spend much time doing this since I am busy reteaching basic algebra, geometry and trigonometry as well as calculus.)

As to your McDonald’s anecdote, a costumer is well advised to do a quick mental check that the total price is at least reasonable. This is a skill that can be deadened by the misuse of calculators, or developed with their sound use. Indeed, when using a calculator it is easy to make mistakes by entering a wrong digit, recalling data from the wrong memory register or by mixing up the order of operations. So, learning to do quick mental estimates is an important complement to the sound use of calculators.

In general I think you are right that many academics have their heads in the sand regarding technology. But, I feel that many education specialists have their heads in the clouds. The structure of the academy does not easily lend itself to meeting in the middle.

Enjoy your weekend!

Mike, at 3:40 pm EDT on May 27, 2006

From a student’s point of view

As a student, I’ll fill you all in on the real reason why most students cheat: grade pressures. Unfortunately in today’s world, students are more worried about the grades they receive than comprehending the material in the class.

In most cases, students learn through trial and error in classes (especially in journalism classes where one learns techniques that take practice to make perfect); however, we unfortunately are graded as we make the errors in our trials. Despite the fact that in the end we may have finally figured it all out and comprehended the material, poor grades from the beginning bring down the final grade. With scholarship requirements and an overwhelming competition to be the best of the best, this is a big deal, and students become bogged down with worries of making the grade instead of learning.

We learn best by doing, but we are penalized for the errors that are necessary for learning. And in my experience, I’ve learned best from teachers who continually incorporate material throughout the semester, whether that be by applying methods to many different cases or by including things from the beginning of the semester on tests throughout.

Students would be far less likely to cheat if they felt they had some room for error, but we don’t. Granted in the real world there isn’t much room for error, but school is not the real world. It is a place for learning and is supposed to be a safehaven where we are allowed to make those necessary mistakes before we reach the real world, where the stakes are higher. We learn from our mistakes , we shouldn’t be penalized for them (and I’m talking about legal ones here so don’t start debating on justice and punishment, please).

Jessie, Student at Villa Julie College, at 11:55 am EDT on May 30, 2006

IRS using only calculators?

I had to learn accounting, for my family’s business. Not my favorite subject.

But I ‘ran’ the numbers, and got comfortable with numbers — without a calculator. It was by actually working with numbers that I got comfortable with numbers. Like writing — you get better, by writing frequently and working with competent teachers.

Working with learning-disabled students and calculators is one thing.

But most students are in areas that require math. Would anyone want their IRS auditor to rely ONLY on a calculator? I sure as heck would NOT.

(BTW — most IRS auditors are pretty good with numbers — without calculators).

A.D., at 4:35 am EDT on June 1, 2006

middle ground

I believe it is all about teaching as pointed out by Paula and I do think this article provide a chance for people to re-exam what or how things should be taught. The result could very well be that the old way of teaching is appropriet. Persionally, I don’t like to memorize things but I also observe the benifit of memorizing things as pointed out by irv.

Personally, I believe the most important thing in teaching is build up students’ sense of responsibilities/attitude/work ethic. Of cause, this include learning and memorize things to fulfill their responsibilities. So. yes, there are times people need to memorize things. But that is not the same question as what teacher should ask student to memorize. This is, of cause, depend on what’s the mission of that teaching. As point out earlier, people should fulfill their responsibilities and, therefore, should remember appropriate things related to their fields. What this mean is that Higher Ed. is out of our discussion. We also need to note that the goal of education is always to help students to reach their potential. So. Our discussion is limited to: What is the reasonable minimum requirement on K12 students? For K12, what we need is building the basic skills needed for general citizen, eventhough, the need can change as time changes. This should include relative efficiency in dealing with their daily life. The question of how important is spelling, grammar or the math skill should be answered in the content of their daily need. With this in mind, we can then talk about some cases:

* Should should be asked to do spelling? Definitly yes — for the reason of efficiency. But do they need to memorize hardly used words? No, unless they have the potential. * For math and physics, understanding is way more important than memor