| Gerhard
Fischer gerhard@cs.colorado.edu University of Colorado, Boulder |
Mike
Eisenberg duck@cs.colorado.edu University of Colorado, Boulder |
Mitch
Resnick mres@media.mit.edu MIT Media Lab | |
| Discussion for CSCL 99 at Stanford University December 12-15, 1999. | |||
| For technical questions/problems with this website, send email to Ann Eisenberg, annie@hypergami.com | |||
Educational computing has evolved alongside a tradition of dissent. Over the past generation, there have been claims that computers in classrooms foster isolation, lack of creativity, rigid (or alternatively, sloppy) thinking, an overemphasis on abstract thinking (and consequent undervaluing of real world experience), and more. Yet despite the persistent controversy, the presence and importance of computers in schools continues to grow.
We would like to engage in a discussion with CSCL attendees on this subject; our purpose is to take stock of the progress of educational computing in the light of the criticisms that have been leveled against it over the years. Have any of the early criticisms been defused? Have the criticisms themselves changed in response to the growth of technology? Are there truly irreconcilable differences between the computer enthusiasts and critics, or is there a hope of finding common ground and a culture (or at least a subculture) of detente between the two populations?
This website has been created as a forum for those intending to attend the CSCL '99 conference. Our goal is to solicit opinions from those who consider themselves both proponents and detractors of educational computing, and to foster a discussion that clarifies both points of agreement and points of fundamental philosophical difference. We will use this website as a starting point for discussion at CSCL '99.
We will attempt to focus the discussion to approach these issues with an eye toward the history of the controversy, and toward changes in technology. The growth of the Internet, or the advent of such notions as virtual reality or ubiquitous computing, might render some criticisms obsolete while making others more urgent. Quite possibly the discussants may suggest future directions for research that would empirically resolve apparent points of difference.
For each of the issues to be discussed at CSCL 1999, we have primed the discussion with one or two representative quotes from the "critical literature" (see the bibliography page on this site). We invite you to send in your response to this issue. You need not, of course, respond directly to the particular quotes that we have chosen if there are other issues that you feel are more important or interesting; and you are welcome to send something in even if you don't necessarily plan to attend the CSCL conference. We will act as moderators for the discussion and update this site regularly prior to the conference.
Here are some starting hypotheses for discussion:(the date of the most recent discussion update is indicated to the left) |
||
| 12/3/99 | 1. That computational environments lead to destructive social patterns in classrooms, or poor social development among children. | enter the discussion |
| 12/6/99 | 2. That computers exacerbate a separation or fragmentation of cultures-e.g., between rich and poor, or between "technical" and "non-technical" cultures. | enter the discussion |
| 12/10/99 | 3. That computers represent a misappropriation of financial and intellectual resources in education, and that their cost is disproportionately high in view of whatever benefits they might bring. | enter the discussion |
| 12/3/99 | 4. That computers encourage a style (or styles) of thought that, in one way or another, represent a negative shift in human culture. This might be (e.g.) a loss of literacy or attention span, an overemphasis on rules or formality, a loss of appreciation for complexity, or a loss of contact with real-world phenomena and objects. | enter the discussion |
| 12/2/99 | 5. That computers foster a shift toward trivial, ephemeral, or perhaps even objectionable educational content. | enter the discussion |
| 12/5/99 | 6. Other comments. | enter the discussion |