Last night I read paper books. Today a professor talk about the books and used a blackboard. I took notes on paper with a pen.<p>Why has nothing changed since my dad went to school.<p>YOU: Take notes on your computer. Use Evernote, penultimate, etc.
Me: I tried to take notes on my computer, but I've realized how inefficient this is. It's impossible put diagrams and text in one place.I've tried dozens of iPad and computer programs.<p>YOU:You can read books on your computer or iPad or Kindle. You can highlight and make notes.
Me: I can write in the margins or highlight in a paper book. Why don't digital books incorporate video, audio, or interactive exercises. They are not customized to me or my learning style. Why are they so expensive.<p>YOU: Your parents used a type writer or pen and paper - you can use Microsoft word.
Me. Is Word a modern program? No - it was released before my birth (came out in NOV of 1990).<p>YOU: What about powerpoint? That has changed classrooms!
Me: In a good way? NO. And once again, powerpoint is nearly 25 years old.<p>YOU: You have all information at your fingertips, Google and Wiki didn't exist when your dad went to school.
Me: Both are well over a dozen years old (Wiki founded 2001, and Google '96).<p>ME: I'll change my point, things have changed since my dad was in college (word, powerpoint, google, wiki).<p>But nothing has changed in schools in the past dozen years.<p>Has it? What am I missing?
Ah, this is a most amusing topic. Here goes my perspective:<p>In my university's electrical & computer engineering classes, the teachers no longer use slides - they did for a while and for various reasons switched back to chalkboards. I can see why - the ones that do tend to go through the slides way too fast, because they have nothing to slow them down. It promotes assuming the students know more than they actually do know too, and the danger of skipping slides.<p>On note taking: I just got a surface pro and aside from the handwriting being a little sloppy, I wish I started using a tablet PC years ago. As a friend that has done so put it, he has his notes archived from every class he's ever taken in folders on his computer. I only keep about a year of old notes/materials because it takes a ton of space when you do it on paper!<p>On ebooks: I like them if they're cheap/free. Frankly I'd rather the teachers just use public domain books or class wikis instead of assigning stuff out of a $150 textbook that nobody ever needs to read otherwise.<p>On typing: I grew up typing, we didn't have a computer at home until I was 9 (and I'm in my 20s), but we always had a typewriter, and when I saw my mom using it, I learned how to use it too! By the time I was around 10, I could already touch type without looking at the keyboard, and that fact randomly dawned on me one day lol. Right now I can type around 140wpm max.<p>On microsoft word: lol, my first computer was a 286 that was as old as I was. It ran WordPerfect and Lotus123. Yes, I used it to write a report, and yes I printed it on a giant dot matrix printer. It was awesome!<p>As for primary school: It has by a lot. The standardized testing and ACT/SAT stuff, especially in high schools, has made the top end crazy advanced. Students are under pressure to graduate having taken calculus, chemistry, physics - all things that for the most part weren't even options in my high school. If you so much as get a B, you won't have much luck getting into any of the good state universities here.<p>That's pretty scary, because as a teenager there's this overwhelming tendency to screw up.
Because it works, is why. Every one of the devices you cite was created by people who were educated in this way.<p>What happened to if it ain't broke don't fix it? Why are pizzas still made in wood fired ovens when you could just use a microwave?
Most of the commenters focus on the technology of learning. Perhaps that's all that was intended, but there's more:<p>1) The student audience is staggeringly different. Back then, it was well-to-do Protestant white males. Now, it's far more representative of the population statistics.<p>2) The subject matter has radically altered. 100 years ago, quantum physics was nonexistent, cosmology was in its infancy, biology was "stamp collecting" (quoting a physicist) and computers were nice young ladies the folks in (1) tried to get close to. Whole departments, good or bad, have appeared (and disappeared) over this time.<p>3) The range and number of "advanced degrees" have greatly increased. Partially due to the huge increase in the number of colleges and universities but also for the creation and/or expansion of whole industries: weapons, pharma, electronics, ... What was the crown jewels of individual countries now shape the economics of the world.<p>4) Computational capabilities is infinitely higher than 100 years ago. This permits computational modeling, medical and/or biological processes (PCR, gene/chip screening, etc) or even economic or hobby activity that would seem diabolic to our predecessors.<p>I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Some things aren't worth changing - some of the pedagogic methods are thousands of years old. As others have said, why change what isn't broken, and why should we adopt "technology" that merely distracts from the problems at hand? Small classes, driven by discussion rather than lecture, are still amazingly effective in transmitting knowledge and stimulating thought.<p>Edit: Oh, and regarding physics... There's been a staggering lot of it in the last 100 years, both good and bad. Sorta altered the world, it has.
> But nothing has changed in schools in the past dozen years.<p>Education is the most conservative of conservative institutions. It will only change when it must, for example when people vote with their feet and educate themselves on subjects not provided by, and using methods not recognized by, present schools. Then you'll see change.
I'd say this depends a lot on what field you are studdying. I don't believe many things have changed with libral arts and humanities because the fields overall are mostly static.<p>On the otherhand fields like computer science, mathmatics and engineering have chnaged immensly. These sorts of programs are preparing you for applied problem solving using (hopefully) industry leading technology. In order to use these tools you still must know the basics and be able to validate your answers with simple hand calculations. So those courses are delivered in a more traditional format. But once new tools are introduced to leverage that foundational knowledge the learning is nowhere near similar to what it was even 10 years ago!
>Last night I read paper books. Today a professor talk about the books and used a blackboard. I took notes on paper with a pen. Why has nothing changed since my dad went to school.<p>Wait, what? My wife is a professor. In some of her classes, a significant amount of student work is done online. Students have the option of buying an electronic textbook. There are required online discussion sessions, online exams, and interactive online supplemental materials (videos, self-guided exercises, etc). I wasn't in college 12 years ago, so I guess I can't be sure - but I would be surprised if these things were commonplace in 2002.
I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the idea that these tools need to change. They seem to work well, and there's a huge variety of tools to choose from so everyone can choose the one that works best for them.<p>I would, however, argue that colleges need to shift from focusing on broadcasting information to students to something else. Information is easily accessible, and making somebody commit things to memory when it's a Google search away seems silly. I have things committed to memory because I need them and use them regularly, and not because somebody told me to learn it.
Education is a business and college administrators want to spend as little as possible. Radically changing things and incorporating new technologies costs money.<p>There are plenty of students willing to fork over cash for the product as it is now, and there is no competition to drive innovation. Prestige requirements, accreditation requirements, etc. lock small schools and newcomers out of the education market. It's also pretty obvious that the top universities and their administrators are connected to each other and act together to hold a monopoly on the business.
It depends on the school and the professor.<p>The most progressive schools put their lectures online, and use class time for interactive q&a and group projects.