Teachers Union To Ban Cell Phones

[cybercoma]

That person will be a relic, Angus. The same arguments were probably made about calculators entering the classroom, when for all intents and purposes it has speed up children's knowledge of maths, allowing for higher level skills to be taught sooner.

My point is not that children should be dependent on the internet to answer everything for them, by the way. In fact, this is the exact opposite of what this kind of training is meant to do. Children don't need to memorize menial trivia. They need to know how to problem solve an derive answers for themselves. So the focus of teaching is on that process of coming to answers, as opposed to merely rewarding the answer and only the answer. Anyone can look up facts (read: answers) online or in books. What's important for students to know is how to think critically and come to those answers, as well as evaluate how others come to their answers. This will allow them to navigate all of the information they have at their disposal in order to find answers they're looking for, but more importantly it makes them better equipped to come to answers themselves, whilst also being able to reason, argue, and defend those answers.

I don't know about you, but these weren't exactly the skills they were teaching 8 year olds back in my day. We were learning through rote memorization our multiplication tables and names/dates in history. To what end? Why are teachers wasting children's time memorizing these things, when it would be far more valuable to teach children to be critical thinkers? If I want to know who the main participants and important dates are in the War of 1812, I can look them up. So teaching kids to memorize these things is a colossal waste of resources and time. Teaching kids to think about why the War of 1812 happened, to evaluate the conflict, and make an argument about it's purpose and results. That's what we need to be teaching. Those are the kinds of skills that are valuable to employers, as opposed to the memorization of trivia answers.

[AngusThermopyle]

I think you misunderstood my point Cyber. What I was trying to explain is that many times in my life I've been in situations where I've been required to give answers on the fly right away. In these situations I haven't had access to electronic devices but have had to provide answers based solely on my knowledge at the time. estimates that must be accurate relating to cost, materials, production rates, etc. As I said, I can understand and appreciate your point about critical thinking, this was one area that I for one was well educated in and it has been a valuable skill. However without the ability to problem solve and formulate answers without outside assistance many times I would have been up the proverbial creek.

It should also be added that the ability to communicate clearly, concisely and accurately are of paramount importance. More and more today it appears that functional illiteracy is becoming the norm and the rules of grammar and spelling are being regarded as the somewhat quaint and antiquated relics of a bygone age.

Edited August 20, 2013 by AngusThermopyle

[cybercoma]

I've seen estimates upwards of 40% of Canadian adults being functionally illiterate. It's staggering. We're not talking about kids using netspeak, but grown adults going about their daily routines.

[Boges]

I've seen estimates upwards of 40% of Canadian adults being functionally illiterate. It's staggering. We're not talking about kids using netspeak, but grown adults going about their daily routines.

I find that hard to believe. What is "functional" defined as? You would need to have at least a basic ability to read to successfully use the internet.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Boges

[AngusThermopyle]

I can believe it. This is a problem that I just don't see being solved in the short term, if ever. If anything I can see the problem accelerating and worsening with time. On an anecdotal note I can say that I encounter examples of this everyday. From poor speech to unintelligible written missives. A good example would be anything posted by Socialist himself. Personally however I do believe the prevalence of texting and netspeak only contribute to the problem and do nothing at all to mitigate it.

[AngusThermopyle]

I find that hard to believe. What is "functional" defined as? You would need to have at least a basic ability to read to successfully use the internet.

A basic ability to read can hardly be construed as being functionally literate. Functionality implies the ability to communicate clearly and accurately by either spoken or written word. The ability to read at a basic level does not necessarily automatically imply this ability.

[Boges]

I can believe it. This is a problem that I just don't see being solved in the short term, if ever. If anything I can see the problem accelerating and worsening with time. On an anecdotal note I can say that I encounter examples of this everyday. From poor speech to unintelligible written missives. A good example would be anything posted by Socialist himself. Personally however I do believe the prevalence of texting and netspeak only contribute to the problem and do nothing at all to mitigate it.

I try to use proper grammar when texting but it's hard sometimes. You can't replace using a proper qwerty keyboard to form thoughts. Auto correct sometimes makes stuff worse.

Quite frankly texting is replacing using a phone for actually making phone calls. If I want to reach a friend, I don't call them, I send off a text message.

[guyser]

Semi illiterate , not illiterate.

[GostHacked]

I try to use proper grammar when texting but it's hard sometimes. You can't replace using a proper qwerty keyboard to form thoughts. Auto correct sometimes makes stuff worse.

Quite frankly texting is replacing using a phone for actually making phone calls. If I want to reach a friend, I don't call them, I send off a text message.

I've pushed back on this myself, I loathe texting, so I get people to call me.

[Wilber]

New math is gaining momentum. 4 x 3 = 11 and it's fine in common core as long as the student can explain how he arrived at the answer. This is rea, new age math folks.

It's important to know why you screwed up but unfortunately the real world requires correct answers. Better hope this new age math wasn't used by the engineer who designed the next bridge you drive accross.

[cybercoma]

I find that hard to believe. What is "functional" defined as? You would need to have at least a basic ability to read to successfully use the internet.

That's just it. It depends on how you define functionally illiterate. Generally, it means that people can read words and phrases. They recognize items on menus and familiar things. Using the internet, Facebook in particular, can be accomplished through memorization of the interface. And reading quick blurbs that people put in their status lines doesn't qualify for full literacy. Functionally illiterate tends to mean that people have some ability to read, but if you gave them a passage from a book or something of the sort they would have a difficult time reading and responding to questions about the passage. Functionally illiterate tends to mean you can read, but you have difficulty fully understanding what you read.

Come to think of it, by that definition there seems to be some functionally illiterate board members. I kid. I kid.

[cybercoma]

Personally however I do believe the prevalence of texting and netspeak only contribute to the problem and do nothing at all to mitigate it.

You would be surprised. I've seen arguments that texting and netspeak improve literacy by making people think about what they're writing and learning how to decode the language. I'm not sure I'm persuaded by that though. I'm leaning towards netspeak and texting being completely benign. It seems that people know the difference between formal writing and informal writing.

[cybercoma]

I try to use proper grammar when texting but it's hard sometimes. You can't replace using a proper qwerty keyboard to form thoughts. Auto correct sometimes makes stuff worse.

Quite frankly texting is replacing using a phone for actually making phone calls. If I want to reach a friend, I don't call them, I send off a text message.

This is why I say texting is benign. It's a different medium. Obviously I know how to write, but when I text it's an ugly affair.

Edited August 20, 2013 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

It's important to know why you screwed up but unfortunately the real world requires correct answers. Better hope this new age math wasn't used by the engineer who designed the next bridge you drive accross.

The teacher is supposed to still correct them, but give them credit for their reasoning, arguing, and critical thinking skills. It doesn't mean that they accept 11 as a correct answer. It means they tell them 11 is incorrect and show them where they went wrong along the way figuring it out.

[Wilber]

The teacher is supposed to still correct them, but give them credit for their reasoning, arguing, and critical thinking skills. It doesn't mean that they accept 11 as a correct answer. It means they tell them 11 is incorrect and show them where they went wrong along the way figuring it out.

That's not new math, just a good teacher. There is nothing new about that unless correct answers are no longer required to pass a math course.

[cybercoma]

That's not new math, just a good teacher. There is nothing new about that unless correct answers are no longer required to pass a math course.

It's new in the sense that the answer isn't the only thing that gets graded. Back in the day, we used to have kids memorize things and just regurgitate the answer. Teaching is now more about teaching kids how to think, reason, and argue their points. The "new" idea of math is that the answer isn't as important as how you get there. And obviously if the answer is wrong, you've tripped up on getting there somehow. So this is what's addressed.

The video is a bit of sensationalism designed to infuriate people who jump to conclusions about the pedagogy. It's meant to make people think that teachers are going to give a checkmark to students who say 3x4=11. The reason I say socialist is someone's "gimmick" account is because he tends to post material like this. Obviously this is a video that would show up on conservative websites to give people fits. The kneejerk reaction is that teachers are giving kids wrong information. Posting this here and saying, "I'm going to teach kids that 3 x 4 = 11," is meant to be provocative and it's meant to parody liberal views on teaching.

But the fact of the matter is that "3 x 4 = 11" is never going to be marked as correct because it isn't. The teacher or researcher's point in the video is that focus needs to be away from the specific answers themselves being worth all of the marks and that teachers need to start focusing on the process students go through to derive their answers. The bulk of the grading should be on their critical thinking and reasoning skills, not on things derived from rote memorization.

Edit: Formatting

Edited August 20, 2013 by cybercoma

[bleeding heart]

I can believe it. This is a problem that I just don't see being solved in the short term, if ever. If anything I can see the problem accelerating and worsening with time. On an anecdotal note I can say that I encounter examples of this everyday. From poor speech to unintelligible written missives. A good example would be anything posted by Socialist himself. Personally however I do believe the prevalence of texting and netspeak only contribute to the problem and do nothing at all to mitigate it.

Yes, and interestingly, never in history have so many people--notably young people--been continually reading and writing. So plainly, what we read and write is of serious significance.

[bleeding heart]

This is why I say texting is benign. It's a different medium. Obviously I know how to write, but when I text it's an ugly affair.

OK...despite what I've just said, this is a fair point.

that is, the quality of literacy between a kid who doesn't read and write at all versus one who only reads and writes the messiness of texts...well, that the former still doesn't read or write remains, and texting hasn't negatively affected that.

[Wilber]

It's new in the sense that the answer isn't the only thing that gets graded. Back in the day, we used to have kids memorize things and just regurgitate the answer. Teaching is now more about teaching kids how to think, reason, and argue their points. The "new" idea of math is that the answer isn't as important as how you get there. And obviously if the answer is wrong, you've tripped up on getting there somehow. So this is what's addressed.

The video is a bit of sensationalism designed to infuriate people who jump to conclusions about the pedagogy. It's meant to make people think that teachers are going to give a checkmark to students who say 3x4=11. The reason I say socialist is someone's "gimmick" account is because he tends to post material like this. Obviously this is a video that would show up on conservative websites to give people fits. The kneejerk reaction is that teachers are giving kids wrong information. Posting this here and saying, "I'm going to teach kids that 3 x 4 = 11," is meant to be provocative and it's meant to parody liberal views on teaching.

But the fact of the matter is that "3 x 4 = 11" is never going to be marked as correct because it isn't. The teacher or researcher's point in the video is that focus needs to be away from the specific answers themselves being worth all of the marks and that teachers need to start focusing on the process students go through to derive their answers. The bulk of the grading should be on their critical thinking and reasoning skills, not on things derived from rote memorization.

Edit: Formatting

While understanding the process is very important, it isn't much good if you can't come up with the right answer. There is a place for memorizing such things as multiplication tables. They give kids the ability to come up with answers when their phone battery is dead.

BTW whatever happened to grammar? I would have got a smack for using "me and ___"

[AngusThermopyle]

It's new in the sense that the answer isn't the only thing that gets graded. Back in the day, we used to have kids memorize things and just regurgitate the answer.

Really? When I was in school back in the seventies our work was graded not just on the final answer but on the process used to arrive at this answer. Therefore you could get the answer wrong yet still receive marks for the work done. You could not get every question wrong and still pass, however you could get some wrong and, based on the work done, still pass the test. There is nothing new about the reasoning process, its been used in schools for decades at the very least.

[GostHacked]

It's new in the sense that the answer isn't the only thing that gets graded. Back in the day, we used to have kids memorize things and just regurgitate the answer.

Really? When I was in school back in the seventies our work was graded not just on the final answer but on the process used to arrive at this answer. Therefore you could get the answer wrong yet still receive marks for the work done. You could not get every question wrong and still pass, however you could get some wrong and, based on the work done, still pass the test. There is nothing new about the reasoning process, its been used in schools for decades at the very least.

That did happen for me back in high school. But that was with specialized math stuff like calculus. Yes you get the marks for some of the work, as it is complex. But basic math 4x3=12 gets one mark. You either get it right or wrong, and will get one point, or none. So it does not matter how much work you show (as there really is nothing to show other than 4x3=12) no points should be given.

[cybercoma]

For a child just learning multiplication and what it means, it's not true that 4 x 3 just is 12. You teach kids WHY it's 12. What that looks like. And how you get to that answer. There is a process.

[Mighty AC]

It is naive to believe that open lessons keep students from texting and tweeting rather than doing their work. Teachers are not always the problem.

It's naive to believe that quiet students are listening and comprehending. Have you ever tuned out during a lecture? I lose focus often, even without the aid of a connected device. When whole class lecture is the primary information delivery method, what do students do to catch up? Wouldn't it be nice to rewind a video, retry the simulation or click a hyperlink for more information?

First of all, engaging, investigative, on demand lessons and activities do make it far easier for students to stay on task. Secondly, the goal isn't to completely prevent student distraction. The goal is to allow students to learn at their own pace, creatively, through a variety of mediums. Technology makes this possible. Working on collaborative group tasks and prompts from a circulating teacher can mitigate the potentially distracting features of their devices.

[Big Guy]

Up to the last few years, the major function of primary and secondary education was the dissemination of facts (or empirical data) and/or how to find it. The Internet has made most of that process redundant. The emphasis is now shifting to the application and manipulation of information to solve problems. Because of the nature of teenagers and their generally very short attention span, the cell phone in the classroom is an irritant and diversion from an efficient, productive and focused classroom.

Even without the temptation of cell phones (and their evolving technological functions), a teacher with excellent class management techniques has a real challenge keeping 30 teenagers involved for at least half a lesson.

I believe that cell phones (and their varying degrees of technological sophistication) have no place in the classroom. That kind of technology should be used during after school hours to complete homework assignments.

[Wilber]

For a child just learning multiplication and what it means, it's not true that 4 x 3 just is 12. You teach kids WHY it's 12. What that looks like. And how you get to that answer. There is a process.

Of course there is and there always has been. Learning multiplication was never about just memorizing tables. Tables were just a tool that allowed people to make quick calculations without artificial help. Back in the day when there was none, the days when cashiers weren't totally flummoxed if they didn't have a machine to tell them how much change to give.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Wilber