#Is cell phone do bad to child in classroom?!11?
But if we allow children to have cell phones, they might communicate with each other. Texting is as bad as passing notes!
Is cell phone do bad to child in classroom?!11?
I’m go’n with WTF?
I stand up in front of a room full of students every day, and try to explain very complex and unfamiliar ideas to them, and to get them engaged in talking about those ideas with each other. I don’t see any benefit to having them do it while texting. I’ve caught students looking at porn on their phones, watching movies, and chatting about getting drunk – so yeah, someone is wasting someone’s time. That’s for damned sure.
I like the picture behind the guy. When I was a kid, I would have given anything for the safety of those bars during gym class. [dodge ball (shudder)]
A better headline would be:
The fact I can get it right away with the new version is better to be the first half of the day before I get a follow back on my way home from work to be the first half of the day
Is beer do bad to man in bar?!11?
I say we apply for a grant and go to the nearest pub/bar for research!
I have to imagine that the ‘interpret this question in cave-man speech’ was inspired by this:
Cell phones are so positively antediluvian! I should hope that contemporary students would have a digital convergence device, at least!
Cellphones have made us all incapable of deciding anything. “Omg should I get a small bag or little bag? Organic or regular? I think I’ll go with a big bag of organic… Wait. I better text her.”
Tech has certainly changed things. When I was in school things that the olds got their panties in a wad about were low-tech things like:
- Reading (especially reading college-level textbooks during high school classes that spent two weeks on a day’s worth of material - they seemed to think you would learn more by falling asleep listening to the same things you’d listened to the day before and the day before that…)
- Spending time to do actual research from multiple sources instead of just copying from the encyclopedia (because rote memorization and repetition is how people learn, of course!)
- Finding a way to solve multiple problems with one solution (because you weren’t doing the same work three times, that must be cheating!)
- Trying to learn another language (cuz howz they gonna larn there english right if they gettin’ all confuzed by foreign talk?)
- Questioning whether the simplified cause-and-effects in history were really so simple or if other factors might have been involved (because that’s what it says in the book, so it must be right!)
- Attempting to learn how to validate user input. That wasn’t part of the introductory computer course! That was advanced material! We were just supposed to assume that all user input would always be valid and well-formed. (Ever wonder where so many software bugs and security vulnerabilities come from? Now you know.)
On a side note about edutainment, (which can be more boring than textbooks), I picked up Hiragana Battle in the recent Steam sale and it’s kind of a fun way to learn the Japanese Hiragana alphabet if you happened to like the old console RPGs. It’s a bit of nostalgia and you’re learning something new. (Of course, if you didn’t grow up with old console RPGs, there’s a chance you’d find it boring. They were pretty simple and repetitive by today’s standards.)
Different people learn different ways.
Your post suggests that the distinction between ‘things that are distracting’ and ‘things that are bad’ would be useful:
If you are working on the implicit assumption that what you have planned for the class is good for them it is easy to treat ‘distracting’ as identical with ‘bad’; but they are really distinct things.
In the cases of reading, research, problem-solving, and input validation the upset old people were correct in that those things were indeed distracting you; but wrong in that what they were doing was sufficiently lousy that the distraction was also the better option.
In the case of language acquisition; the error was in their judgement of how distracting an additional language would be.
Concerning cellphones, it’s pretty hard to argue with the notion that they are anything but distracting. They could hardly be better at it if they were specifically engineered for the job(and, given how much of modern ‘cellphone’ is actually ‘software connected with companies that live or die by “user engagement”’ they probably are engineered for the job). If you want to argue that that makes them bad, though, it’d be in good taste to be doing something worthwhile with the time and attention you are demanding from students. Some people fail to do that, which does undercut their assertion that distractions are bad; but doesn’t make distractions non-distracting.
In fairness to them, if you encounter that level of sex-ed knowledge in the wild it is probably very sensible to start studying how best to deal with children; because you’ll be doing so in the relatively near future.
See, you’re missing something very important here.
The science fiction author knows better than an educator, how to educate.
I mean, didn’t you see the snarky headline?
thank you, Cory, for running with that headline!
Yeah, teaching is definitely not easy, and I (ohai, the puppeteer/director/writer here) need to have more respect for what they face. What do you teach? Where?
you are correct, sir!
I’ve had math teachers get pissed off at me for solving the same thing 3 different ways! Lunacy. Typically the teacher would show the class the least applicable method, I’d see how it works, then develop a much more comfortable method for solving that’s mathematically identical anyway. Then I’d teach the more intuitive comfy method to my classmates who didn’t get it on the teacher’s first pass.
I never let anyone copy, but I was happy to teach them whatever they needed to know.