Is Multimedia Too Cool For School - Essay Example

Is Multimedia Too Cool For School?” Education today has undergone various transformations from days of old. Schools at present may have similar goals of optimizing students’ learning and maximizing their potentials but may have differing philosophies, approaches and educational strategies in fulfilling these goals. Teachers come up with several strategies in capturing their students’ attention, and courses are offered in helping educators become more efficient in imparting knowledge and skills to their pupils. No longer do they limit their teaching strategies to boring lectures, dizzying written and oral examinations and students’ delivery of memorized answers to expected questions. Teaching aids have likewise expanded from using flashcards, blackboard demonstrations and textbooks to more concrete materials like actual 3-dimensional objects, dioramas and multimedia materials. Todd Oppenheimer, in his controversial article in the Atlantic Monthly recounts: In 1922 Thomas Edison predicted that "the motion picture is destined to revolutionize our educational system and ... in a few years it will supplant largely, if not entirely, the use of textbooks." Twenty-three years later, in 1945, William Levenson, the director of the Cleveland public schools radio station, claimed that "the time may come when a portable radio receiver will be as common in the classroom as is the blackboard." Forty years after that the noted psychologist B. F. Skinner, referring to the first days of his "teaching machines," in the late 1950s and early 1960s, wrote, "I was soon saying that, with the help of teaching machines and programmed instruction, students could learn twice as much in the same time and with the same effort as in a standard classroom." Ten years after Skinners recollections were published, President Bill Clinton campaigned for "a bridge to the twenty-first century ... where computers are as much a part of the classroom as blackboards." (Oppenheimer, 1997 p. 45) In the 1950’s schools were introduced to film strip projectors as new “visual aids” in learning. Sometime after that, "Sunrise Semester" debuted on television, as a first step in the "video revolution" that was going to transform education in America. (Schwartz, n.d.). Many more followed such as closed-circuit television broadcasting videotaped interviews of foreign experts, development of children’s educational television shows, books with audio cassette tapes, use of slide projectors and overhead projectors. Very common in the current educational system is the use of computers as tools in teaching and learning. Currently, schools widely use a multitude of computer software and encourage “powerpoint” presentations of lectures and student reports. Some even go as far as creating digital films for the sake of “high quality” presentations. Videos of films, documentaries and educational shows are included in library listings accessible to teachers for their classes. Such multimedia materials abound in today’s schools. The Age of Multimedia What are multimedia systems, and how useful are they in education? Hapeshi and Jones (1992) simply define a multimedia system as “any method that mixes the use of audio and visual channels for communication. However, today, multimedia more usually refers to computer-controlled systems that combine a rich mix of text, graphics, still and moving pictures, speech, music, and sounds.” Under this definition, electronic media such as television, audio clips, videos, as well as technological advances like computers, i-pods, internet, mobile communication, audio-video presentations from LCD projectors, and the like, count as multimedia material. Eugene Schwartz in his discussion on Computers in Education opines that “one of the most readily accepted truisms concerning computers is that they, along with other electronic media, are "a set of tools to enhance the imagination and provide new methods for expression and learning." Indeed, the rich colors of the animated graphics, the dynamic movements, interesting sounds and music and fast-paced action on screen keeps viewers in awe. Add to that the appeal of being interactive, that at one click of a button rewards the viewer with an immediate response. Children would definitely choose something so exciting over traditional educational materials like one-dimensional textbooks and plain lectures. “Today, multimedia technology is playing a progressively bigger role in education, with some of the view that this technology is revolutionizing teaching and learning. For example, computers have revolutionized the teaching of engineering. In addition, Internet and on-line campuses (with cyber-classes) are now common in the education arena, particularly at the tertiary level. Such educational forums are without walls (`open architecture universities) and based on electronic learning. In such an environment, there are electronic admissions, electronic activities, electronic student counseling, electronic bookstores, electronic assessment and electronic libraries.” (Family & Community Development Committee, 1998) Wendy Schwartz states three main reasons that computers should be a significant part of a student’s education: (Norman, n.d. ) computer can make learning all subjects easier, and they are especially valuable in developing students language and problem-solving skills Students can use computers to reach hundreds of telecommunications networks, these sources provide a huge amount of information that students cannot get from textbook and more traditional learning tools Computer literacy, understanding computers technology, is necessary for most good-paying and interesting careers These seem to be valid reasons for insisting on the inclusion of multimedia, specifically computers in schools. However, this paper intends to develop a more thorough analysis of such justification. The Multimedia Dilemma All the aforementioned developments, influenced by modern advances in technology, seem to benefit students, as their learning medium is not limited to printed matter. However, debates on the use of multimedia in schools have erupted, questioning its overwhelming effects on education. Advocates claim that benefits of multimedia use far outweigh the disadvantages. Clements (1999) maintains that “Technology can change the way children think, what they learn, and how they interact with peers and adults” (p. 1). He also recommends technology as a tool for improving childrens learning through exploration, creative problem solving, and self-guided instruction (Clements & Samara, 2003). A three-year project at the Center for Best Practices in Early Childhood Education at Western Illinois University (Hutinger & Johanson, 2000) provides additional support for using computer technology with young children with disabilities. Their study emphasizes access to computers as an avenue to social interaction among children, working cooperatively, gaining confidence in themselves, controlling their environments, and making gains in language and communication. Hutinger and Johanson, supported by research by Clements (1999), point out that the enabling component of computers assists children in transforming concrete ideas into symbolic form. Fischer and Gillespie (2003) describe their research in a Head Start classroom. Their findings suggest that (1) open-ended software programs encourage children to explore and extend beyond their thinking, (2) computers are just another option in the classroom, (3) computers help bridge concrete and abstract thinking, and (4) technology stimulates cooperative behaviors among children. They also report that the teacher encourages children to help others who may be struggling with computer use. A seemingly successful computer program intended for educational use was developed by Seymour Papert. “Seymour Papert’s vision for early childhood education involves using Logo, a child-friendly computer language. He envisioned a discovery, or self-directed, method of teaching and learning.” (Gillespie, 2004). Dr. Gillespie explains: “Logo is a child-friendly computer language that was developed by Seymour Papert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1968. One way for children to use Logo is through a software program called MicroWorlds ™ (see Figures 1 and 2). This graphical software package allows children to create their own scenes (worlds) and program icons to move. Children can create pictures and develop short- or long-term projects. Another way for children to use Logo is through a Lego™ product commonly called Lego-Logo (see Figures 3 and 4). This product incorporates a small, but relatively heavy (compared with other Lego pieces), computerized and battery-operated RCX™ Lego piece (see Figure 3) that can be programmed to move the child’s Lego structure by using the computer language Logo to control Lego motors. This Lego piece is called a programmable brick by its developers (Resnick, Martin, Sargent, & Silverman, 1996).” Figure 1. Head Start students work with MicroWorlds Logo on laptops. Clements (2001a) and others believe that mathematics should be introduced to children in preschool. Logo can be developmentally appropriate for children in Piaget’s preoperational stage (Gillespie & Beisser, 2001); that is, it may be appropriate for 3- to 6-year-old children. However, certain precautions must be taken. “Childrens thinking in Piaget’s preoperational stage is rule based, but not necessarily logical. Therefore, scaffolding their problem-solving techniques can be difficult because their problem solving may be based less on the evidence at hand and more on the childrens preset ideas about what the computer needs or wants. In addition, children in this age range would not yet be expected to show consistent evidence of the concrete operational stage but would instead exhibit signs of centration, nonreversability, and egocentrism. These characteristics again can pose challenges in the logical world of computer programming. “Some researchers have pointed out some of the specific advantages to children of directly engaging in computer programming.” (Gillespie, 2004) Kafai (1996) wrote that “through programming, children learn to express themselves in the technological domain” (p. 38). Resnick (2001) argued that “one of the benefits of programming with Logo is that children develop a fluency with technology such that they learn to master the technological environment and to become not just consumers but creators of new technologies.” (Gillespie, 2004) In 1986, Clements found that after 22 weeks of Logo, first- and third-graders improved in the areas of classification, seriation, metacognition, creativity, and describing directions. Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) was also effective at improving third-graders classification skills. Clements argued that Logo may be a more powerful treatment for first- than third-graders, because first-graders are likely to be in a period of structural transition regarding classification and seriation. More recently, Clements has focused on the importance and benefits of children’s experiences with spatial and geometric concepts, starting with Logo (Clements & Burns, 2000) and extending to other software that emphasizes these math skills (Clements, 2001b). Jessy Norman reports that school districts across the United States, about seventy of them, are working with The Microsoft Corporation to create what they call a "Connected Learning Community". Together, Microsoft and the schools have developed the "Anytime, Anywhere Learning" program whose goal is for all students to have their own portable computer and to use these tools like pencils and paper. According to the programs promoters, the idea is to enable students to produce the work that would be acceptable in classrooms around the world (The Education Digest- pg58). The program also gives teachers access to the Internet, they can talk with other teachers and put technology into the curriculum anytime, anywhere. Teachers in this program have stated that students are not just learning better and faster: they are also learning and doing things that were impossible without the new technology (59). The program is said to have boosted the students problem-solving skills and intellectual autonomy. The mechanical processes of typing and retyping have been minimized; it is reported that these students can spend more time now on other things in the classrooms. Enthusiasm for multimedia use is not universally shared by specialists in childhood development. The doubters greatest concern is for the very young -- preschool through third grade, when a child is most impressionable. Their apprehension involves two main issues. (Oppenheimer, 1997) First, they consider it important to give children a broad base -- emotionally, intellectually, and in the five senses -- before introducing something as technical and one-dimensional as a computer. This is coherent with the beliefs of Education and Psychology giants such as Piaget, Rosseau, Froebel, Montessori, Dewey that hands-on experiences with concrete objects are necessary prerequisites to more abstract learning. The concrete interactions and experiences with the real world helps children retain learning better because they have actually experienced learning using most, if not all their senses. Hands-on learning is “the opportunity to manipulate physical objects such as beans or colored blocks. The value of hands-on learning, child-development experts believe, is that it deeply imprints knowledge into a young childs brain, by transmitting the lessons of experience through a variety of sensory pathways.” (Oppenheimer, 1997) "Curiously enough," the educational psychologist Jane Healy wrote in Endangered Minds: Why Children Dont Think and What We Can Do About It (1990), "visual stimulation is probably not the main access route to nonverbal reasoning. Body movements, the ability to touch, feel, manipulate, and build sensory awareness of relationships in the physical world, are its main foundations." Unfortunately in most schools, activities that promote active learning are not encouraged beyond the preschool level. Second, they believe that the human and physical world holds greater learning potential. The teacher is one major component in the real world. Schwartz (n.d.) puts it beautifully when he says, “The teachers living and warm presence, and the unfolding of content in the immediacy of the moment are what convey knowledge - and wisdom - most powerfully to the child. Anything that "mediates" between the child and teacher will, in some sense, dampen down this living quality.” A thorough inquiry paper in Australia on the effects of television and multimedia on children and families in Victoria likewise gives honor to teachers as it mentions, “Nothing can properly replicate the educator who completes mathematical tasks before your eyes; nor the logical philosopher who debates paradoxes extempore; nor the historian who has smelt the archives and brought their dusty documents to life; nor the professor of English who weeps as he reads Scottish border ballads. Books have been doing for centuries what multimedia can do, and still, in all their variety and brilliance they never replaced the living, breathing, creative teacher” (Family & Community Development Committee, 1998 ) Wardle (1999) believes that computers do not need to be part of childrens foundation for learning. She asserts that the early years are necessary for establishing a foundation for success later in life, and computers have limited value in doing so. Cordes and Miller (2000) report that an international group of physicians, scientists, and researchers called for a moratorium on computers in preschools and early elementary grades. They believe that computers interfere with healthy physical and mental development. Todd Oppenheimer is an investigative journalist who has spent much time studying computer use in education. He has visited several schools around the United States, in Harlem, rural West Virginia, Napa, California and Marylands affluent Montgomery County to paint a fascinating picture of their experiences with technology in classrooms. His thorough research is compiled in his book, The Flickering Mind: The False Promise of Technology in the Classroom which is essentially an extended version of his award-winning 1997 Atlantic Monthly article "The Computer Delusion." His controversial views have caused unending debates between multimedia advocates and opponents. His views are summarized in the following sentence: “There is no good evidence that most uses of computers significantly improve teaching and learning, yet school districts are cutting programs -- music, art, physical education -- that enrich childrens lives to make room for this dubious nostrum, and the Clinton Administration has embraced the goal of "computers in every classroom" with credulous and costly enthusiasm” (Oppenheimer, 1997) The openness and attitudes of teachers, being the frontliners in this particular educational reform is examined. Most teachers are not adequately prepared yet to make use of exciting new educational technologies because neither their teacher education programs nor their schools have provided sufficient time or incentives for them to learn (Norman, n.d.). Jie-Qi Chen & Charles Chang of the Erikson Institute have conducted a study on the effectiveness of the Whole Teacher Approach to Professional Development to enhance teachers’ proficiency in technology. Within their professional teacher training, teachers were made aware of how adept they were with computers so they can use these skills in their own teaching practice. Targeting multiple dimensions, program goals for teachers were (1) to develop positive attitudes toward computer use, (2) to acquire knowledge and skills needed to integrate technology with teaching and the curriculum, and (3) to apply computer skills and knowledge through classroom practices that enhance teaching and learning (Chen & Chang, 2006). Table 2 encapsulates all the skills a teacher should possess in order to justify her effective and efficient use of computers in her classes. Absence of one or more skills could greatly affect the quality its educational use and her students’ learning. It is clear that much of the benefits of computer use stems from a good teacher’s handling of students’ avid curiosity and interest in the computer and adeptly direct their learning towards positive and productive endeavors. Table 2 Goal Areas and Objectives for Teacher Proficiency in Technology Goal Areas Objectives Attitudes Confident using a computer in the classroom Comfortable using Internet and email communication Comfortable teaching children how to use computers Knowledge and Skills Understands basic computer functions and commands Skilled in selecting developmentally appropriate software Capable of learning new software programs using program manual, help files, and trial-and-error approach Knows how to install new programs independently Classroom Practices Teaching Methods Encourages children to explore software Pairs a more-competent with a less-competent child Works with children one on one Uses computers as a learning center Incorporates use of software when planning activities Classroom Practices Computer-Generated Instructional Materials Newsletters Lesson plans School report cards Child assessments Calendars Educational games (Chen & Chang, 2006) Another salient argument of Oppenheimer against multimedia use in schools is about the changing priorities in what educators believe must be taught to the students. It is pathetic that “non-academic” subjects like Music, Art and Physical Education are the first to go in favor of Computer courses when those activities directly benefit the over-all growth and development of student’s physical health and body coordination, creativity and cultural knowledge. Even more surprising, in a poll taken in the mid-1990’s, U.S. teachers ranked computer skills and media technology as more "essential" than the study of European history, biology, chemistry, and physics; than dealing with social problems such as drugs and family breakdown; than learning practical job skills; and than reading modern American writers such as Steinbeck and Hemingway or classic ones such as Plato and Shakespeare. (Oppenheimer, 1997). Since teachers’ recommendations are potent in the decision-making processes of schools and states, it follows that the seductive idea of having an impressive multimedia program as pitched for by the teachers would easily earn the nod of those who hold the purse strings. This is reflected in Oppenheimer’s report from his 1997 article: “In keeping with these views New Jersey cut state aid to a number of school districts this past year and then spent $10 million on classroom computers. In Union City, California, a single school district is spending $27 million to buy new gear for a mere eleven schools. The Kittridge Street Elementary School, in Los Angeles, killed its music program last year to hire a technology coordinator; in Mansfield, Massachusetts, administrators dropped proposed teaching positions in art, music, and physical education, and then spent $333,000 on computers; in one Virginia school the art room was turned into a computer laboratory. Meanwhile, months after a New Technology High School opened in Napa, California, where computers sit on every students desk and all academic classes use computers, some students were complaining of headaches, sore eyes, and wrist pain.” (Oppenheimer, 1997) Such enormous spending is scandalous! Total school spending on computer technology, in the ’90s alone, was estimated at $70 billion. And the ongoing Federal “e-rate” program continues to pump $2.25 billion each year into Internet networks for poor schools. (Rogers, 2003). “Those promoting technology, whether in government or industry, come in for particular criticism for fostering this state of affairs. Oppenheimer chastises Clinton Administration officials for their unbridled enthusiasm about technology and many of their efforts to expand its reach in schools. To be sure, various industries stand to gain or lose a lot depending on government policies and companies promoting classroom technology are no exception. Consequently theyre not shy about pushing their agenda with those in government.” (Rotherham, 2006). All these at the expense of the education of our children! Negative Effects of Multimedia on Children Much more important is considering the negative effects multimedia has on schoolchildren. Since arguments on this issue cover several points, the discussions are organized under different headings specifically, the negative effects of computers, internet, television and video games on children. Computers: The early and excessive concern about “computer literacy,” too often at the cost of basic literacy has greatly affected how children think. “There is some evidence that too much computer activity early in life—in lieu of real-world experience—may indeed limit intellectual and creative development.” (Rogers, 2003). One computer feature highly attractive to children is its immediate response without taking into account the thinking time of children. When children get much exposure to such spoonfeeding of knowledge, they learn to rely on the alternative answers the computer provides instead of thinking through questions themselves. One small but carefully controlled study went so far as to claim that Reader Rabbit, a reading program now used in more than 100,000 schools, caused students to suffer a 50 percent drop in creativity. Apparently, after forty-nine students used the program for seven months, they were no longer able to answer open-ended questions and showed a markedly diminished ability to brainstorm with fluency and originality. (Oppenheimer, 1997). Students do develop creativity with computers, but not of the kind original thinkers have – that of processing real knowledge and applying it to life situations. Because of the infinite options computers have in making student projects look snazzy, children have the tendency to focus more on beautifying their presentations with eye-catching fonts, graphics and special effects rather than concentrating on the expression of true quality learning – sort of focusing more on form rather than content. The easy "cut and paste" function in todays word-processing programs, for example, is apparently encouraging many students to cobble together research materials without thinking them through and if its attractive enough for them, assume that the external quality of the presentation could make up for the content, however poor. Jane Healy and other psychologists do not believe that computer games expand childrens imaginations. Instead, they think that “the computer screen flattens information into narrow, sequential data. This kind of material, they believe, exercises mostly one half of the brain -- the left hemisphere, where primarily sequential thinking occurs. The "right brain" meanwhile gets short shrift -- yet this is the hemisphere that works on different kinds of information simultaneously. It shapes our multi-faceted impressions, and serves as the engine of creative analysis.”(Oppenheimer,1997) David Elkind, a professor of child development at Tufts University says, "You cant simultaneously get an overview and detail with a computer," he says. "Its linear. It gives you tunnel vision. What computers can do well is what can be calculated over and over. What they cant do is innovation. If you think of some new way to do or look at things and the software cant do it, youre stuck.” This thought, in itself is chilling because it means that if a child gets too dependent on using the computer, it is likely that he will lose the ability to think creatively and independently. Internet: The coming of internet technology may be viewed by most as a panacea for information and communication-deprived individuals. One cannot argue at the convenience the internet brings in terms of research, communication, business, etc. Logging on promises the user a trip to infinite possibilities. Keeping in touch with a loved one over the internet is one seduction that people cannot resist. Instead of mailing a letter by post and waiting for a period of time for a response, communication is possible in seconds at the click of a button! However, a significant, and widely-contested study at Carnegie-Mellon University revealed that people spending even a few hours a week on line experience far more depression and loneliness than if they used the computer network less frequently. (Schwartz, n.d.) Such results are surprising since researchers expected that Web surfing would be a rich social experience that can be emotionally fulfilling. “Based on these data, the researchers hypothesize that relationships maintained over long distances without face-to-face contact ultimately do not provide the kind of support and reciprocity that typically contribute to a sense of psychological security and happiness, like being available to baby-sit in a pinch for a friend, or to grab a cup of coffee.” (Schwartz, n.d.). Leniently allowing children to access to the internet poses danger to them. Reports of child molesters preying on innocent victims online have increased over the years. A more common concern is the unregulated information children may have access to. Stephen Kerr, a professor at the College of Education at the University of Washington and the editor of Technology in the Future of Schooling (1996) claims, "Its information by anyone, for anyone. Theres racist stuff, bigoted, hate-group stuff, filled with paranoia; bomb recipes; how to engage in various kinds of crimes, electronic and otherwise; scams and swindles. Its all there. Its all available. Older students may be sophisticated enough to separate the Nets good food from its poisons, but even the savvy can be misled. On almost any subject the Net offers a plethora of seemingly sound "research." But under close inspection much of it proves to be ill informed, or just superficial. "Thats the antithesis of what classroom kids should be exposed to," (Kerr, 1996) Television: Figure 1: Childrens viewing, 5-12 years of age, mid-1995 Source: A.C. Nielsen, TV Trends 1995. Consistent with the figure depicted above, many children are exposed to television within the family environment early in their lives, from being nursed in front of it to eating, playing, painting or reading books in front of the television, with or without parents. Since television has the power to keep children’s interest and making them “behaved” for a prolonged period of time, it has been known to be this generation’s “baby-sitter” so adults tasked with watching over the children gain free time to do other things. However, no matter how much it provides information and entertainment value, television has not escaped the criticism of child advocates. One effect attributed to television viewing is children’s development of unhealthy habits like consuming junk food and tendency to be physically inactive. “The well-known "couch-potato" syndrome is probably the result of taking in too many calories (junk food -- which is advertised on television -- stuffed in unconsciously as kids stare at the screen) and not burning up enough calories (sitting still rather than running around and playing).” (Miller, 1999). Its influence has led children in undertaking less physical recreation. Much has been said about the coordination abilities and motor skill development of young people in the 1990s. Some of the research is critical of the advent of multimedia technology because it has meant far less physical recreation and involvement in competitive sport for young people. This in turn, has led to deterioration in a range of motor skills Another factor attributable to television viewing is that children substitute for social interaction, therefore precluding the development of important social skills and friendships, necessary for self-esteem and personal growth. (Family & Community Development Committee, 1998). The effects of the content of television shows are likewise being questioned in influencing children’s thinking and moral views. There is not enough children’s programs that teach important skills such as math, reading, science or problem solving. Most of the television shows, including cartoons are non-educational. Unmonitored television time is linked with poorer school performance because of shorter time spent on schoolwork or lack of sleep. Also, television hands kids all the answers, promoting passive learning and short attention spans. As a result, kids have difficulty concentrating and working hard to solve a problem. (Miller, 1999). In many instances, television shows promote negative behavior in children. Television violence has been shown to be a risk factor to the health and well-being of the developing child, adolescent, and to the stability of their families. “In 1996, the National Television Violence Study examined the most extensive body of television programming ever collected for the purpose of content analysis. The study found that the majority of all entertainment programming contains violence. Especially disturbing was that the perpetrators of violence went unsanctioned in 73% of these violent scenes, since the most effective way of reducing the likelihood of young viewers imitating violent behavior is to show such behavior being punished. “Ignoring consequences of violence (including the pain of victims, the victims families, and the families of perpetrators) or depicting the consequences unreasonably sets in motion a destructive encoding process. Viewers become desensitized and fearful and begin to identify with aggressors and the aggressors solutions to various problems. The violent behaviors and attitudes thus encoded, aggression is now all the more likely in personal situations. “ (American Psychiatric Association, n.d.). Several studies have shown that a child is more likely to display violent or antisocial behavior depending on the degree of violence and the total number of violent programs he or she watches. Being impressionable, children are likely prey to excessive consumerism due to exposure to advertisements. The average child, under age eight years of age, may not discern, or have defenses against, the selling intent of the advertisements. (Family and Community Development Committee, 1998). It is not unusual for children to keep on asking their parents for the latest toy, candy or cereal repeatedly shown on television. Unless parents know how to curb such whims, these children may grow up spoiled or materialistic and will hold beliefs that the newest advertised product is the key to their happiness. Video Games: Given a choice, children would most likely prefer playing computer/video games rather than watching television because of its interactive qualities. The marketing and sales of various game consoles such as Sony Playstation and Pocket Play Station (PSP), Nintendo Gameboy (Color, Advance, Advance SP, DS versions) and Gamecube, Microsoft X-box, etc. have been sky high in recent years that such toys are usually on children’s “wish lists”. Consequently, sales of video games have likewise boosted. The multitude of video games in the market serves a variety of children’s interests. In 1993, the video game industry began putting ratings on video games (E for everyone, T for teen, and M for mature). Psychologists such as David Walsh, PhD, have conducted research on how useful the ratings are and how easily children can purchase mature-rated video games. (American Psychological Association, n.d.). This is a cause for concern because much of videogames with ‘teen’ or ‘mature’ ratings have violent content may influence children’s aggressive tendencies. “Studies by psychologists such as Douglas Gentile, PhD, and Craig Anderson, PhD, indicate it is likely that violent video games may have even stronger effects on childrens aggression because (1) the games are highly engaging and interactive, (2) the games reward violent behavior, and because (3) children repeat these behaviors over and over as they play” (Gentile & Anderson, 2003). “Dr. Anderson and colleagues have shown that playing a lot of violent video games is related to having more aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Furthermore, playing violent games is also related to children being less willing to be caring and helpful towards their peers. Importantly, research has shown that these effects happen just as much for non-aggressive children as they do for children who already have aggressive tendencies.” (Anderson et al., under review; Gentile et al., 2004). What is alarming is that children would rate such violent games as their favorites. Perhaps it gives them a sense of power over something they can control, assuming they believe they have little power in the real world. Simulation games give children a hand at trying out something they cannot otherwise do in real life. Sherry Turkle, the sociology professor at MIT, has studied youngsters using computers for more than twenty years. In her book Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet (1995) she described a disturbing experience with a simulation game called SimLife. After she sat down with a thirteen-year-old named Tim, she was stunned at the way Tim can keep playing even when he has no idea what is driving events. “For example, when his sea urchins become extinct, I ask him why. Tim: "I dont know, its just something that happens." ST: "Do you know how to find out why it happened?" Tim: "No." ST: "Do you mind that you cant tell why?" Tim: "No. I dont let things like that bother me. Its not whats important." “Anecdotes like this lead some educators to worry that as children concentrate on how to manipulate software instead of on the subject at hand, learning can diminish rather than grow. Simulations, for example, are built on hidden assumptions, many of which are oversimplified if not highly questionable.” (Oppenheimer, 1997). “Turkles concern is that software of this sort fosters passivity, ultimately dulling peoples sense of what they can change in the world. “ (Oppenheimer, 1997). Bringing Humanity Back In The Classroom Technology brings on undeniable advantages to the human race. It makes life a lot more convenient. This paper acknowledges that multimedia technology may benefit children in their education and development, however, it ascribes to a more human-centered method of education. It is more interested in the development of upright people with integrity, strong character and concern for all of humanity. Children in their growing years need to experience life as nature intended them to. They need opportunities to see and care for real animals and plants, smell real scents, taste real flavors, listen to real sounds emanating from actual objects and feel real textures with their hands. It follows that children should learn from a real person. Eugene Schwartz says, “If a living teacher is the childs role model for learning, the child will naturally strive to become more of a human being; if software and the ghostly images of people on TV screens are the role models, the child will (through her inherently imitative nature) slowly become ever more "machine-like," impersonal and "cool." He also notes that allowing a child to have real life experiences rather than all of the animated and digitized substitutes for such experiences offered by software - such a child will have the healthiest foundation for valuing technology in later life. This paper does not suggest to totally ban multimedia use in schools. Rather, it suggests that it should not dominate the school curriculum. It is respectful of differing views of professionals regarding multimedia use, but moreso those that advocate the best interests for children. One such organization held in high esteem when it comes to children’s interests is the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). In their position statement “Technology and Young Children—Ages 3 through 8,” NAEYC (1996) notes that “professional judgment is required by teachers to determine whether technology is age appropriate, individually appropriate, and culturally appropriate for the children in their care. NAEYC recommends the integration of technology into the learning environment as one of many options to support childrens social and cognitive abilities but cautions that computers should not replace other valuable learning centers, such as blocks, art, sand or water play, books, dramatic play, or exploratory areas in the classroom. “ As a fitting ending to this paper, the reader is referred to Todd Oppenheimer’s interview on his views on how education should be: “What are the “enlightened basics”? Todd Oppenheimer: These comprise three basic building blocks. The first is the foundation of thought. For young children, it starts with the fundamentals of play and creativity—not with simulated images but with real people and real things. (“The more muscle the more memory,” as one teacher told me). As students grow older, this block grows into what can be best described as the art of inquiry—the ability to investigate a complex question your own way, drawing on a broad base of knowledge. The second missing building block is a national collection of teachers who not only are well-trained, but are also sufficiently well-paid to attract the world’s best and brightest—that is, people who can put good training to efficient, creative use. The third and final block would be an education culture that is first and foremost about people—and which trusts people, rather than numbers, to be the primary judge of a youngster’s progress.” (From: “Q&A with Todd Oppenheimer, author of THE FLICKERING MIND”) Reference List A.C. Nielsen, TV Trends 1995. American Psychiatric Association (n.d.) “Psychiatric effects of media violence” retrieved on January 6, 2007 from http://www.healthyminds.org/mediaviolence.cfm American Psychological Association, (n.d.) “Violent video games - psychologists help protect children from harmful effects”, Psychology Matters, American Psychological Association (APA) Online Anderson, C. A., Gentile, D. A., & Buckley, K. E. (under review). Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents: Further Developments and Tests of the General Aggression Model. Anderson, C. A. & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, Vol. 12, pp. 353-359. Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C.,(Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Chen, J. & Chang, C., (2006) ‘Testing the Whole Teacher Approach to Professional Development: A Study of Enhancing Early Childhood Teachers’ Technology Proficiency’, Early Childhood Research & Practice, Spring 2006: Vol.8, No. 1 Clements, D. H. (1986). Effects of Logo and CAI environments on cognition and creativity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 309-318. EJ 339 575. Clements, D. H. (1999). The effective use of computers with young children. In Juanita V. Copley (Ed.), Mathematics in the early years (pp. 119-128). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ED 440 786. (Also available: http://investigations.terc.edu/relevant/EffectiveUse.html [2004, November 18].) Clements, D. H., & Burns, B. A. (2000). Students’ development of strategies for turn and angle measure. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 41(1), 31-45. EJ 607 154. Clements, D. H. (2001a). Mathematics in the preschool. Teaching Children Mathematics, 7(4), 270-275. EJ 670 455. (Also available: http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/FAS/Clements/Files/Preschool_Math_in_TCM.pdf [2004, April 2].) Clements, D. H. (2001b). On math, music, and more. Early Childhood Today, 15(4), 46. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J.. (2003). Young children and technology: What does the research say? Young Children, 58(6), 34-40. “Computer myths and realities” retrieved on January 6, 2007 from http://www.booknoise.net/flickeringmind/myths/index.html, Cordes, C., & Miller, E. (Eds.). (2000). Fools gold: A critical look at computers in childhood [Online]. College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood. Available: http://www.allianceforchildhood.net/projects/computers/computers_reports_fools_gold_contents.htm [2004, September 11]. ED 445 803. Family & Community Development Committee, (1998) ‘Inquiry into the effects of television and multimedia on children and families in Victoria , retrieved on January 4, 2007 from: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/fcdc/default.htm, Fischer, M.A., & Gillespie, C.W.. (2003). Computers and young childrens development. Young Children, 58(4), 85-91. EJ 676 583. 18(3), 66. EJ 623 694. Gentile, D. A. & Anderson, C. A. (2003). Violent video games: The newest media violence hazard. In D. A. Gentile (Ed.), Media violence and children. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishing. Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent aggressive attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 27, pp. 5-22. Gillespie, C.W., & Beisser, S. R. (2001). Developmentally appropriate LOGO computer programming with young children. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 232-247. EJ 639 715. Gillespie, C.W.,(2004) ‘Seymour Papert’s vision for early childhood education? A descriptive study of head start and kindergarten students in discovery-based, Logo-rich classrooms’, Early Childhood Research & Practice, Spring 2004: Vol. 6, No. 1 Hapeshi, K., & Jones, D.,(1992), Interactive multimedia for instruction: a cognitive analysis of the role of audition and vision’, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. Volume: 4. Issue: 1. Healy, J. (1990)Endangered minds: why children don’t think and what we can do about it , New York: Simon & Schuster Hutinger, P. L., & Johanson, J. (2000). Implementing and maintaining an effective early childhood comprehensive technology system. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(3), 159-173. EJ 614 771. Kafai, Y. B. (1996). Software by kids for kids. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 38-39. Krause, S. (n.d.) The Flickering Mind, a review, retrieved on Jan. 6, 2007 from: http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/reviews/krause_review.html Lynch, S.A. & Warner, L. (2004) ‘Computer use in preschools: directors reports of the state of the practice’, Early Childhood Research & Practice: Fall 2004: Vol. 6, No. 2 Miller, D. (1999) ‘Televisions effects on kids: It can be harmful’ retrieved on January 4, 2007 from: http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9908/20/kids.tv.effects/index.html Norman, J. (n.d.), ‘Negative Effects of computers in classrooms’, retrieved on Jan. 4, 2007 from http://courses.wcupa.edu/fletcher/english121/projects/10b/jessy.htm Oppenheimer, T. (1997) ‘The computer delusion’, The Atlantic Monthly; July 1997; Volume 280, No. 1; pages 45-62. Oppenheimer, T. (n.d.) “Schooling the Imagination”’ retrieved on January 6, 2007 from http://www.southerncrossreview.org/30/waldorf.htm Papert, Seymour. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books. Q&A with Todd Oppenheimer, author of THE FLICKERING MIND retrieved on January 6, 2007 from http://www.booknoise.net/flickeringmind/press/src/QA_oppenheimer.pdf Resnick, M., Martin, F., Sargent, R., & Silverman, B. (1996). Programmable bricks: Toys to think with. IBM Systems Journal, 35(3/4), 443-452. (Also available: http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/353/sectionc/martin.pdf [2003, April 5].) Resnick, M. (2001). Closing the fluency gap. Communications of the ACM, 44(3), 144-145. Rogers, M. (2003) ‘Are computers wrecking schools?’, Newsweek Web Exclusive, Oct 28, 2003 retrieved Jan. 4, 2007 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032542/site/newsweek/ Rotherham, A. J. (2006), “Analysis and Perspectives of Todd Oppenheimers The Flickering Mind” Education Review, May 15, 2006.http://www.educationsector.org/analysis/analysis_show.htm?doc_id=373184, Schwartz, E., (n.d.) Computers in education, retrieved on January 4, 2007 from http://www.millennialchild.com/Computers01.htm Stephen T. Kerr (Ed.) (1996). Technology and the future of schooling. Chicago, Illinois: National Society for the Study of Education. Stoll, C. (1995) Silicon snake oil: second thoughts on the information highway, Anchor Books Ed edition Turkle,, S. (1995) Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster, . Turkle, S. (1997) “Seeing through computers: education in a culture of simulation,”, The American Prospect , March-April 1997 No. 31, pp. 76-82 (http://epn.org/prospect/31/31turkfs.html). “Violence in media: how does it affect families” retrieved on January 6, 2007 from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f012.htm Walsh, D. A., & Gentile, D. A. (2001). A validity test of movie, television, and videogame ratings. Pediatrics, Vol. 107, pp. 1302-1308. Wardle, F.. (1999). Foundations for learning: How children learn: The latest on ways to maximize childrens learning and development. Children and Families, 18(3), 66. EJ 623 694. Appendix I: Survey of Computer Use in Texas Child Care Centers Please complete the following questions regarding computer use in your center: 1. At what age do children begin to use computers in your center? a. under 2 years b. 2-3 years c. 3-4 years d. 4-5 years e. not available—please skip to question 11 2. What is the ratio of computers per child in your center? a. 1 computer for every 5-10 children or fewer b. 1 computer for every 10-20 children c. 1 computer for every 20-30 children d. 1 computer for over 30 children e. not available 3. How are children taught to use the computer at your center? (please circle all that apply) a. Observing other children b. Observing adults c. Tutorial software d. Group instruction e. Individual instruction f. Peer instruction 4. What is the most common form of supervision of children using computers? a. adults visually monitor zone where computers are used b. adults are beside children as they use computers c. children use computers independently in centers or the classroom 5. How are computers placed in your center? a. in learning centers in the classroom b. in a separate room from the classroom c. other (specify): _______________ 6. How do children use the Internet at your center? a. with 1-1 adult supervision b. with adult watching a group of children c. independently with an Internet filter d. independently e. Internet access not available to children 7. How are computers used in your center with children who have disabilities? a. used in the same way as other children used computers b. computers have been adapted for children with disabilities c. computers are not used with children in our center who have disabilities d. no children with disabilities are enrolled at our center 8. What peripheral devices are used with children with disabilities? (please check all that apply) ___ trackball ___ mouse ___ touch screen ___ adapted switch ___ special keyboard ___ none used Other : (specify) ____________________________________________________ 9. Please rank the goals of using computers at your center by checking the appropriate box: Goal Not Important Somewhat Important Important Very Important To provide appropriate use of free time         To increase enrollment for the center and public relations         To allow children to explore and play with technology         To reward children for good behavior         To teach basic skills needed in school and life         To extend concepts taught in the classroom         10. Please list the most popular software/computer programs used at your center: Preferred by boys Preferred by girls Preferred equally by both genders                               11. Estimated percentage of children at your center who use computers at home: ____ 0-24% ____ 25-49% ____ 50-74% ____ 75-100% 12. Estimated average annual income of families of children at your center: ____ 1-Week 4. On a scale of 1 to 10, please rank how effective your last year’s inservice training was in improving your computer skills.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not-Effective Somewhat-Effective Very-Effective 5. On a scale of 1 to 10, please rank how effective your last year’s inservice training was in helping you integrate computer technology with classroom teaching.  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not-Effective Somewhat-Effective Very-Effective Attitudes (Please circle ONE number that best describes your experience) 1. I feel very confident when I use a computer in my classroom. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strongly-disagree Neutral Strongly-agree 2. I feel comfortable using the Internet (email, Web browsing, etc.). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strongly-disagree Neutral Strongly-agree 3. I feel comfortable teaching computers to young children. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strongly-disagree Neutral Strongly-agree 4. I feel comfortable teaching computers to my colleagues. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strongly-disagree Neutral Strongly-agree 5. I feel comfortable teaching computers to my parents. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strongly-disagree Neutral Strongly-agree 6. I fear that computers may take over some parts of my job I enjoy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strongly-disagree Neutral Strongly-agree 7. I think that using a computer would make my work easier. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strongly-disagree Neutral Strongly-agree 8. I think it is more beneficial for children from low SES backgrounds to be exposed to classroom-based computer experience in early childhood. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strongly-disagree Neutral Strongly-agree Knowledge & Skills (Please circle ONE number that best describes your experience) 1. I usually need someone’s help when I use a computer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strongly-disagree Neutral Strongly-agree 2. I usually can teach myself a new computer program from the manual or the help files. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strongly-disagree Neutral Strongly-agree                                                                                                               3. I usually can teach myself a new computer program from trial and error. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strongly-disagree Neutral Strongly-agree 4. I know enough about computers to install a new computer program onto a machine. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strongly-disagree Neutral Strongly-agree 5.  I know a lot about the criteria for selecting children’s educational software. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Strongly-disagree Neutral Strongly-agree 6. Please list the criteria you consider when you select educational software for young children. Instructional Methods Practice How often do you use the following methods when using computer technology in your classroom?  Please check ONLY ONE CATEGORY next to each method. Method Never Seldom Sometimes Often Always Encourage children to explore the software freely           Pair a more-competent child with a less-competent child           Teacher works with children one on one           Computers are used as a learning center activity           Computer software is integrated into other classroom teaching activities           Instructional Materials Practice What is your experience in using a computer to create classroom/instructional materials?  Please check ONLY ONE CATEGORY next to each classroom/instructional material listed. Classroom/Instructional Material I do not know how to use a computer to do this. I have watched someone do it but never tried myself. I have tried myself but often have a hard time doing a good job. I can do it but it often requires a great deal of effort and assistance. I can do it with ease and confidence. Newsletter           Lesson plan           Prepare school report card           Child assessment           Calendars           Educational games           From: Chen, J. & Chang, C., (2006) ‘Testing the Whole Teacher Approach to Professional Development: A Study of Enhancing Early Childhood Teachers’ Technology Proficiency’, Early Childhood Research & Practice, Spring 2006: Vol.8, No. 1 Read More