Information technology company, Javvin, is a company which specialises in providing the latest information technology services. Information technology is a worldwide industry which is expanding on a continuos basis. Computers are the core of inforrmation technology and with the improved usage of these machines, results will be caused which influences the improvement of the information technology industry as a whole.
An extensive variety of computer software is being developed on a daily basis which is, in turn, expanding the world and importance of information technology. Various handbooks have been published by Javvin in relation to the functioning of Information technology in society as well as proper usage of the computer.
Information technology has a large impact on various other industries and its' influence is evident in the efficient functioning of society as a whole.
SEA laptops a very poor idea
By William Lucie-Smith
One of the election promises of the new Government was to provide laptop computers for SEA pupils. In fact point one of the immediate action plan for the first 120 days was " Every child going to secondary school from the SEA will be provided with a laptop to begin their secondary school education." The Minister of Education has informed us that this will involve 15,000 children and will cost $45 million for the hardware alone.
It is a widely held viewpoint that information technology is the key to future development and therefore it is imperative to have a computer literate society if we are to develop from being a Third World country. The PNM of Eric Williams made development through education a cornerstone of its philosophy and very few people would disagree with that.
Over the years there have been very many education initiatives, all aimed at developing a well educated and productive society. No doubt this is the reason for free secondary education, free university education, the development of a second university (UTT), the scholarship programme (not the Ministry of cultures slush fund but the one for our high achievers at A-levels), GATE, HYPE and a myriad of other projects. Given the key importance of information technology to society today it is not surprising that a Government would want to improve and broaden computer skills. The key question however is whether this programme is a good way to spend $45 million and whether it will have the desired effect.
There have been a number of letters to the newspapers querying the likely effectiveness of this programme. Among the important points being made (to name just a few) are the following:
• Providing effective computer rooms with desktops (cheaper) available to all students would be more cost effective.
• Software is a major cost and this programme does ensure the availability of appropriate software.
• Internet is a major resource but many homes have no Internet access to use that resource.
• Many homes will not have printers or be able to afford paper and other supplies.
• Students are masterful time wasters and the computer is the ultimate time wasting equipment. Without close supervision student will play games watch movies, surf the net etc.
• Maintenance will be a problem and many household will not have support. Hardware will "mash up "quick or even be sold.
Most of the above is intuitive or anecdotal. However, I am grateful to a UWI professor who reads my column and directed me to The New York Times July 9 edition which contains reference to actual research done on this subject. I strongly recommend that our Minister of Education review this article (by Randall Stross) before he finalises this programme.
There is an organisation called "one laptop per child" that is a non-profit organisation in Cambridge Massachusetts, USA, that sells rugged but inexpensive (less than US$275 each) computers to the governments of lesser developed countries. The largest recipients are Uruguay (400,000), Peru (280,000) and Rwanda (110,000). However, the project has not revolutionised education as hoped. Kentaro Toyama who worked on these projects with Microsoft and is now a research fellow at the school of information at the University of California Berkeley believes the concept of one laptop per child is utopian and rests on the myth that "technology is the bottleneck".
He says there are many other bottlenecks including infrastructure. He says "studies of PCs in schools are mixed at best. Most show that a good school with good teachers can do positive things with PCs, but that PCs don't fix bad schools".
Studies show that laptops out of school are counter-productive. Economists trying to measure the educational impact of computers on schoolchildren in low income households, using a variety of methodologies, found no educational benefit and test scores often decline. Ofer Malamud, Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, concluded "we found a negative impact on academic achievement. I was surprised but when we presented our results, people in the audience said they were not surprised given their experiences with school children."
The study conducted in Romania provided strong evidence that children in households with computers received lower grades in maths, English and Romanian". Students did use the computers but mostly for games and not schoolwork. Studies in North Carolina also showed that access to the internet showed lower reading and maths scores.
A Texas four-year study on the use of computer in middle schools also provided poor results. Despite the schools configuring computers to block e-mail, chat, games and objectionable web sites, key word blocks failed for Spanish sites and the kids were adept at getting around the blocks. This US $20 million control study reluctantly concluded "there's was no evidence linking technology immersion with student self-directed learning or their general satisfaction with schoolwork".
Hopefully it is not too late for this programme to avoid the worst errors. This can be achieved by confining the computers to school, making them available to all students and closely supervising their use. Otherwise case studies conclude the effort may have a negative impact.
It is a widely held viewpoint that information technology is the key to future development and therefore it is imperative to have a computer literate society if we are to develop from being a Third World country. The PNM of Eric Williams made development through education a cornerstone of its philosophy and very few people would disagree with that.
Over the years there have been very many education initiatives, all aimed at developing a well educated and productive society. No doubt this is the reason for free secondary education, free university education, the development of a second university (UTT), the scholarship programme (not the Ministry of cultures slush fund but the one for our high achievers at A-levels), GATE, HYPE and a myriad of other projects. Given the key importance of information technology to society today it is not surprising that a Government would want to improve and broaden computer skills. The key question however is whether this programme is a good way to spend $45 million and whether it will have the desired effect.
There have been a number of letters to the newspapers querying the likely effectiveness of this programme. Among the important points being made (to name just a few) are the following:
• Providing effective computer rooms with desktops (cheaper) available to all students would be more cost effective.
• Software is a major cost and this programme does ensure the availability of appropriate software.
• Internet is a major resource but many homes have no Internet access to use that resource.
• Many homes will not have printers or be able to afford paper and other supplies.
• Students are masterful time wasters and the computer is the ultimate time wasting equipment. Without close supervision student will play games watch movies, surf the net etc.
• Maintenance will be a problem and many household will not have support. Hardware will "mash up "quick or even be sold.
Most of the above is intuitive or anecdotal. However, I am grateful to a UWI professor who reads my column and directed me to The New York Times July 9 edition which contains reference to actual research done on this subject. I strongly recommend that our Minister of Education review this article (by Randall Stross) before he finalises this programme.
There is an organisation called "one laptop per child" that is a non-profit organisation in Cambridge Massachusetts, USA, that sells rugged but inexpensive (less than US$275 each) computers to the governments of lesser developed countries. The largest recipients are Uruguay (400,000), Peru (280,000) and Rwanda (110,000). However, the project has not revolutionised education as hoped. Kentaro Toyama who worked on these projects with Microsoft and is now a research fellow at the school of information at the University of California Berkeley believes the concept of one laptop per child is utopian and rests on the myth that "technology is the bottleneck".
He says there are many other bottlenecks including infrastructure. He says "studies of PCs in schools are mixed at best. Most show that a good school with good teachers can do positive things with PCs, but that PCs don't fix bad schools".
Studies show that laptops out of school are counter-productive. Economists trying to measure the educational impact of computers on schoolchildren in low income households, using a variety of methodologies, found no educational benefit and test scores often decline. Ofer Malamud, Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, concluded "we found a negative impact on academic achievement. I was surprised but when we presented our results, people in the audience said they were not surprised given their experiences with school children."
The study conducted in Romania provided strong evidence that children in households with computers received lower grades in maths, English and Romanian". Students did use the computers but mostly for games and not schoolwork. Studies in North Carolina also showed that access to the internet showed lower reading and maths scores.
A Texas four-year study on the use of computer in middle schools also provided poor results. Despite the schools configuring computers to block e-mail, chat, games and objectionable web sites, key word blocks failed for Spanish sites and the kids were adept at getting around the blocks. This US $20 million control study reluctantly concluded "there's was no evidence linking technology immersion with student self-directed learning or their general satisfaction with schoolwork".
Hopefully it is not too late for this programme to avoid the worst errors. This can be achieved by confining the computers to school, making them available to all students and closely supervising their use. Otherwise case studies conclude the effort may have a negative impact.
0 comments:
Post a Comment