Education BETA 2
Sometimes it seems to me that the use of so-called. "Modern technology" has become a kind of fetish of our education system - a useless subject, and in the form in which it is used - just harmful, but, nevertheless, constantly disturbing the minds of people who have power, and not very much.
Although, in its pure form, I faced “modern technologies” in education twice in my life, but, as they say, face to face, in my own skin I felt the charm of the “innovative tendencies”, their positive and negative sides.
Everyone is aware of the benefits of using interactive and multimedia technologies in the learning process. These include enhancing the involvement of pupils and students in the educational process, and increasing the comprehensibility of the material through the use of visual models, modeling processes in real time (take at least the same well-known Phun) and interactive maps, and the ability to work with rapidly changing sources. Everything is fine, no doubt. However, look at what we have in real life.
And in real life, interactive and multimedia technologies turn into those “modern technologies”, over which a translucent skeleton with a scythe, whose name is PowerPoint, hovers.
I do not know who first invented the use of PowerPoint to organize "modern" classes, but without a doubt - this person should have been killed in the gas chamber, after having shot three times.
My own experience of such “innovative” trends is sad to the horror. In our university, we have a whole course held lectures using "modern technology". It looked like this: the students, after reading the lecture material at home (which was all printed in a special book, broken by section and numbered), come to the audience at the designated hour, where they watch the lecturer for half an hour reading badly opened PowerPoint slides. It is impossible not to come to the lecture - attendance is strictly controlled by the method of answering test questions, which are surrendered to the teacher at the end of the lecture, and no one has a desire to pass on this read material.
')
But the innovation process cannot be stopped, and after a semester of such a disgrace, in the second semester a new fetish appeared, called Smart-board and flipcharts. A smart board (if someone doesn’t know, this is such a board that supports feedback) was used to be the screen on which the PowerPoint presentation is being projected, and the flipcharts became the replacement for handwritten tests. For this, each student under the pass (so that they didn’t steal it) was given a control panel with six buttons, and the game "who wants to be a millionaire" started. Students had to read the test questions that were projected onto the Smart-Board and press the buttons corresponding to the correct answer choices. Naturally, because of the crookedly written software that interacted with the consoles (which worked on Vista only under superadmin, and apparently was built on PowerBuilder, because it required its runtime libraries), half of the students did not register the consoles in the system ( and without this it was impossible to work), there was a fundamental limitation on 30 consoles simultaneously connected in the system (and we had 2 groups of 26 people at the lecture), moreover, the lecturer himself did not understand the technology, but a special person responsible for it matter not b It was, as a result, the data of such surveys were constantly disappearing, were crookedly preserved and in general behaved indecently.
In the end, it should be noted that the lecturer, which was discussed, was the head of the department of innovative technologies in education, in the same institution. And again in the fifth round, stamping and PowerPoint beat progress and common sense by knockout. Clear victory.
It is not strange, I do not claim that PowerPoint is evil in the flesh. He has his own niche in which he successfully applied. But for its use in education should be shot, and here's why.
Education (especially high school and primary - secondary school can still be put on stream, but with reservations) - the process is creative. If the aim is to teach a person, then one should follow his needs, questions, how he perceives the material. Many times I saw how the teachers changed the plan of the lecture on the go, when they saw that the students' reaction differed from the planned one. An ordinary chalkboard paired with chalk (or even a felt-tip pen, which is also now considered an innovation) allows such a move.
PowerPoint is not. She sets a rigid plan for the material, and any variation physically becomes impossible. Even if you are a talented lecturer and you feel the audience in your gut - PowerPoint binds you hand and foot, inserting a gag into your mouth, and you become a speech synthesizer attached to the presentation. You can no longer dwell on some moment of the lecture and explain it in a little more detail - you do not have the necessary means for this, you are forced to take it by ear, and this is hard.
In addition, to build a good presentation is also an art. Unfortunately, teachers' level of computer literacy is often very low, and the age of many already makes it difficult to master new material with such ease. New cadres do not correct the situation - at the courses on innovative technologies in education (there are such people) they are taught the same thing - how to make a presentation in PowerPoint and conduct a lesson on it. Step to the right, step to the left - an attempt to escape, a jump in place - an attempt to take off. In this regard, university professors still have some kind of freedom, they are free to conduct lectures as they please, and school teachers are locked in a strict control framework by the education department, who simply does not understand why children in the classroom play games and watch cartoons, not a presentation.
Innovation policy can not be entrusted to people with stereotyped thinking. Now, innovation policy in education resembles nailing with a spectrum analyzer - everyone understands that the spectrum analyzer is cool and we should use it, but for some reason use it in the most inappropriate way for it.
The same problem is with teaching computer science at school. Everyone understands that computer science is important, but no one knows what to teach children. Programming? Yes, the basics should be taught (as well as the basics of biology, chemistry and physics, than computer science is worse?), But for this to be done, there must be a qualified teacher with knowledge of the language (which is in itself rare). General literacy? How many copies are broken between the proponents of the industrial approach (to teach what they will work with later, that is, Windows and Microsoft Office, although Linux and OpenOffice are becoming increasingly popular) and supporters of all-round development (which for some reason means only Linux and OpenSource, although no one prevents you from fully developing on Windows), and it seems to me that the parties will never agree with this approach, because they forget about the child and his interests, and they only think about how to drag more people into their camp. Or maybe, really, it would be necessary to teach children to write queries in Google and the rules of behavior on the web? The lessons of ethics have been thrown out of the school curriculum, and as the experience of communication on forums scored by 14-year-old children shows, it’s for nothing.
This is a small lyrical digression. I return to the topic of the modern approach to education.
Ideally, the lecture process using “innovative technologies” should be structured as follows.
The teacher comes to the classroom, opens a laptop, where he has a set of materials prepared for the lecture (models, graphs, slides, applications), in which he is free to navigate. He begins to lecture, projecting on the board certain materials from his collection, skillfully wielding a marker, places accents on certain provisions of the lecture. According to the reaction of the audience, he determines the level of perception of the material, and on the move changes the lecture plan, opening either materials that are designed to ease students' perception of difficult material for them, or, on the contrary, shows additional interesting models designed to arouse people’s curiosity about the subject of the lecture. If a student asks a particularly interesting question - the teacher does not hesitate to get into Google, find an article on this topic and sort out the problem, or postpone the discussion until the consultation or the next lecture (if the topic of the question is non-core, or the lecturer is not aware of the question asked). Students observe not only definitions and static drawings (which are also important) on the blackboard, but also dynamic models and video clips.
Here, the most important condition is the living thinking of the lecturer and his interest in this topic. That is, innovations will have to be raised by enthusiasts. This is normal, in principle, it has always been so. The main thing is that something good and useful is not crushed in the germ of the management of education.
However, for now, these are dreams. Although, maybe, some of those present here will ever encounter the need to teach, or they will go to teach people of their own accord, and my article will push a person to think about how to do it to teach people, not to deliver a tick opposite the line "the development of the budget allocated to innovative technologies."
Mandatory set of notes:
Although, in its pure form, I faced “modern technologies” in education twice in my life, but, as they say, face to face, in my own skin I felt the charm of the “innovative tendencies”, their positive and negative sides.
Everyone is aware of the benefits of using interactive and multimedia technologies in the learning process. These include enhancing the involvement of pupils and students in the educational process, and increasing the comprehensibility of the material through the use of visual models, modeling processes in real time (take at least the same well-known Phun) and interactive maps, and the ability to work with rapidly changing sources. Everything is fine, no doubt. However, look at what we have in real life.
And in real life, interactive and multimedia technologies turn into those “modern technologies”, over which a translucent skeleton with a scythe, whose name is PowerPoint, hovers.
I do not know who first invented the use of PowerPoint to organize "modern" classes, but without a doubt - this person should have been killed in the gas chamber, after having shot three times.
My own experience of such “innovative” trends is sad to the horror. In our university, we have a whole course held lectures using "modern technology". It looked like this: the students, after reading the lecture material at home (which was all printed in a special book, broken by section and numbered), come to the audience at the designated hour, where they watch the lecturer for half an hour reading badly opened PowerPoint slides. It is impossible not to come to the lecture - attendance is strictly controlled by the method of answering test questions, which are surrendered to the teacher at the end of the lecture, and no one has a desire to pass on this read material.
')
But the innovation process cannot be stopped, and after a semester of such a disgrace, in the second semester a new fetish appeared, called Smart-board and flipcharts. A smart board (if someone doesn’t know, this is such a board that supports feedback) was used to be the screen on which the PowerPoint presentation is being projected, and the flipcharts became the replacement for handwritten tests. For this, each student under the pass (so that they didn’t steal it) was given a control panel with six buttons, and the game "who wants to be a millionaire" started. Students had to read the test questions that were projected onto the Smart-Board and press the buttons corresponding to the correct answer choices. Naturally, because of the crookedly written software that interacted with the consoles (which worked on Vista only under superadmin, and apparently was built on PowerBuilder, because it required its runtime libraries), half of the students did not register the consoles in the system ( and without this it was impossible to work), there was a fundamental limitation on 30 consoles simultaneously connected in the system (and we had 2 groups of 26 people at the lecture), moreover, the lecturer himself did not understand the technology, but a special person responsible for it matter not b It was, as a result, the data of such surveys were constantly disappearing, were crookedly preserved and in general behaved indecently.
In the end, it should be noted that the lecturer, which was discussed, was the head of the department of innovative technologies in education, in the same institution. And again in the fifth round, stamping and PowerPoint beat progress and common sense by knockout. Clear victory.
It is not strange, I do not claim that PowerPoint is evil in the flesh. He has his own niche in which he successfully applied. But for its use in education should be shot, and here's why.
Education (especially high school and primary - secondary school can still be put on stream, but with reservations) - the process is creative. If the aim is to teach a person, then one should follow his needs, questions, how he perceives the material. Many times I saw how the teachers changed the plan of the lecture on the go, when they saw that the students' reaction differed from the planned one. An ordinary chalkboard paired with chalk (or even a felt-tip pen, which is also now considered an innovation) allows such a move.
PowerPoint is not. She sets a rigid plan for the material, and any variation physically becomes impossible. Even if you are a talented lecturer and you feel the audience in your gut - PowerPoint binds you hand and foot, inserting a gag into your mouth, and you become a speech synthesizer attached to the presentation. You can no longer dwell on some moment of the lecture and explain it in a little more detail - you do not have the necessary means for this, you are forced to take it by ear, and this is hard.
In addition, to build a good presentation is also an art. Unfortunately, teachers' level of computer literacy is often very low, and the age of many already makes it difficult to master new material with such ease. New cadres do not correct the situation - at the courses on innovative technologies in education (there are such people) they are taught the same thing - how to make a presentation in PowerPoint and conduct a lesson on it. Step to the right, step to the left - an attempt to escape, a jump in place - an attempt to take off. In this regard, university professors still have some kind of freedom, they are free to conduct lectures as they please, and school teachers are locked in a strict control framework by the education department, who simply does not understand why children in the classroom play games and watch cartoons, not a presentation.
Innovation policy can not be entrusted to people with stereotyped thinking. Now, innovation policy in education resembles nailing with a spectrum analyzer - everyone understands that the spectrum analyzer is cool and we should use it, but for some reason use it in the most inappropriate way for it.
The same problem is with teaching computer science at school. Everyone understands that computer science is important, but no one knows what to teach children. Programming? Yes, the basics should be taught (as well as the basics of biology, chemistry and physics, than computer science is worse?), But for this to be done, there must be a qualified teacher with knowledge of the language (which is in itself rare). General literacy? How many copies are broken between the proponents of the industrial approach (to teach what they will work with later, that is, Windows and Microsoft Office, although Linux and OpenOffice are becoming increasingly popular) and supporters of all-round development (which for some reason means only Linux and OpenSource, although no one prevents you from fully developing on Windows), and it seems to me that the parties will never agree with this approach, because they forget about the child and his interests, and they only think about how to drag more people into their camp. Or maybe, really, it would be necessary to teach children to write queries in Google and the rules of behavior on the web? The lessons of ethics have been thrown out of the school curriculum, and as the experience of communication on forums scored by 14-year-old children shows, it’s for nothing.
This is a small lyrical digression. I return to the topic of the modern approach to education.
Ideally, the lecture process using “innovative technologies” should be structured as follows.
The teacher comes to the classroom, opens a laptop, where he has a set of materials prepared for the lecture (models, graphs, slides, applications), in which he is free to navigate. He begins to lecture, projecting on the board certain materials from his collection, skillfully wielding a marker, places accents on certain provisions of the lecture. According to the reaction of the audience, he determines the level of perception of the material, and on the move changes the lecture plan, opening either materials that are designed to ease students' perception of difficult material for them, or, on the contrary, shows additional interesting models designed to arouse people’s curiosity about the subject of the lecture. If a student asks a particularly interesting question - the teacher does not hesitate to get into Google, find an article on this topic and sort out the problem, or postpone the discussion until the consultation or the next lecture (if the topic of the question is non-core, or the lecturer is not aware of the question asked). Students observe not only definitions and static drawings (which are also important) on the blackboard, but also dynamic models and video clips.
Here, the most important condition is the living thinking of the lecturer and his interest in this topic. That is, innovations will have to be raised by enthusiasts. This is normal, in principle, it has always been so. The main thing is that something good and useful is not crushed in the germ of the management of education.
However, for now, these are dreams. Although, maybe, some of those present here will ever encounter the need to teach, or they will go to teach people of their own accord, and my article will push a person to think about how to do it to teach people, not to deliver a tick opposite the line "the development of the budget allocated to innovative technologies."
Mandatory set of notes:
- My first post
- No karma, I can not write to a specialized blog
- Yes, utopia, but something needs to be changed. While there are only strategic goals, but I would like tactical
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/57810/
All Articles