Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Most parents in my circle feel exactly the same way as you. My kids are in middle school but if I could go back in time I would have chosen another route. It's a big regret of mine.
I’m the teacher above and if I could go back in time I would have homeschooled my own kids.
Anonymous wrote:If I could find a no or very low tech school in my area, I would send my kid there in a heartbeat. But even the Catholic schools in my non-DC area use more technology than I would like. It's so frustrating. We're a minimal tech household. School is giving my pushback because apparently we're the only family in second grade who checked the "do not assign my child a a personal device to use at school or home, they will use a community device at school." My second grader does not need his own Chromebook!
School wants all technology all the time, yet so many summer camps advertise "SCREEN FREE!" because parents want kids off devices.
Can you grade 30 students' work in real time, allowing for multiple attempts so they can learn how to do it correctly by trial and error with hints?Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Economist had a supplement on education last month. It reported that multiple studies have that the traditional methods of teaching (i.e., textbooks, workbooks, hand writing not typing, direct instruction, no screens in the classroom, and regular hand written homework) are more effective for all regular students - possibly excepting only the special needs students.
One specific type of activity I have found is very effective is used by quill.org. The program gives students two or three sentences and asks them to combine the sentences using transition words. The program gives immediate, individual feedback to the student. It almost replicates having a human tutor. I can teach grammar, and reinforce paying attention to mechanics like capitalization and punctuation, to many students at once using this program, because of the individualized, immediate feedback.
It IS possible to use "screens" for effective instruction IMO.
Here's an example of what I mean:
Patrick Henry opposed new British taxes.
He gave a speech.
The speech was powerful.
The speech was to inspire the colonists.
Directions:
Combine the sentences into one sentence.
https://www.quill.org/connect?_gl=1*10yyae8*_gcl_au*MTc0NDgzOTY2OC4xNzIyNzE1MjMy*_ga*MTIzNDc2MDg3OS4xNzIyNzE1MjMy*_ga_C0FB3VEGYR*MTcyMjcxNTIzMS4xLjEuMTcyMjcxNTI4My44LjAuMA..#/play/lesson/-KnoWhUWhtxvet4_bi4r
This is… so basic. Do you really need an app?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The Economist had a supplement on education last month. It reported that multiple studies have that the traditional methods of teaching (i.e., textbooks, workbooks, hand writing not typing, direct instruction, no screens in the classroom, and regular hand written homework) are more effective for all regular students - possibly excepting only the special needs students.
One specific type of activity I have found is very effective is used by quill.org. The program gives students two or three sentences and asks them to combine the sentences using transition words. The program gives immediate, individual feedback to the student. It almost replicates having a human tutor. I can teach grammar, and reinforce paying attention to mechanics like capitalization and punctuation, to many students at once using this program, because of the individualized, immediate feedback.
It IS possible to use "screens" for effective instruction IMO.
Here's an example of what I mean:
Patrick Henry opposed new British taxes.
He gave a speech.
The speech was powerful.
The speech was to inspire the colonists.
Directions:
Combine the sentences into one sentence.
https://www.quill.org/connect?_gl=1*10yyae8*_gcl_au*MTc0NDgzOTY2OC4xNzIyNzE1MjMy*_ga*MTIzNDc2MDg3OS4xNzIyNzE1MjMy*_ga_C0FB3VEGYR*MTcyMjcxNTIzMS4xLjEuMTcyMjcxNTI4My44LjAuMA..#/play/lesson/-KnoWhUWhtxvet4_bi4r
Anonymous wrote:“Teaching kids about computers” is such a lame excuse. Kids have no trouble at all with picking up computers. I know I only had typing in school and then easily went to college where I worked only on a computer. (I had a home computer to write essays during middle and high).
Anonymous wrote:The naturally talented students may navigate the screen use okay - but what are the opportunity costs? What are the NOT learning while scanning text on screens and doing CTRL F for word search?
The vulnerable readers and writings will absolutely suffer and get shuffled along b/c teachers can't be bothered. Kids can neither write NOR type at this point.
The "Math facts" that you'd think MAYBE tech games / learning could help with don't work either. Even my brightest kid doesn't have confident command of her multiplication tables they way we adults did by writing and copying over and over again.
The tech in the classroom increases bad behavior which then leads to teachers just assigning more so they will be quiet. Textbooks, workbooks, pencils etc. are practically free compared to the wasted $$$ spent on "tech."
The notion that TECH is teaching kids about computers is also a joke. They are apps and games. No kids are learning about computer engineering. That can be a high school class anyway. WHAT A WASTE!!!!
Lastly, the whole-cloth move to tech by public and private schools alike (outlier no-tech schools notwithstanding) with NO research showing any data or tested means to implement expose the educational consultants, Big Tech, administrations and teachers who didn't say a peep as total frauds with no common sense. I don't have to respect an entire swath of people who made such foolish decisions. I knew better and said so from day one. Why did no one on the inside of these organizations?
What a joke. Our poor children - most especially the vulnerable students.
It’s because teachers don’t know how or can’t teach anymore. Either their classroom is bananas with behavioral problems so teacher checks out and lets them play dumb education games or the teacher never really learned how to teach without relying on technology as a crutch.
Anonymous wrote:After touring my child's new FCPS elementary school earlier this summer, I was shocked to learn just how much screens are used (and actual textbooks are not) for learning. The admin who gave me the tour said it's much more engaging that way (meaning students are engaging more with each other and in the lesson rather than "buried in their own textbooks") but this doesn't ring true to me. There is research that shows kids don't absorb content as well when learning from screens as opposed to books, too. I am not 100% anti-screens, I get the world we live in, but any parents or teachers have thoughts/feedback about this?
Anonymous wrote:It IS possible to use "screens" for effective instruction IMO
I don’t think the issue is whether technology can sometimes be helpful. It’s whether the radical shift to a technology-dominated classroom for kindergarten and first grade on up has been effective for student learning, and the answer is resoundingly no. Students read less, write less, and learn less when instruction is focused on using technology.
It IS possible to use "screens" for effective instruction IMO