Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, some of us think it's unnecessary for a 3 yo to be using an ipad. 3 yo's should be learning how to use their imaginations not canned software. However, as a teacher, I do see evidence of both students needing to be entertained to learn and requiring instant feedback or they fall apart. Computer programs could cause both because the brain is still developing at 3. If it develops to require high resolution color graphics wiht sound effects and instant, exciting, feedback when they are right, the satisfaction of looking at your paper and seeing you did something right pales by comparison.
I don't think technology has any place in the hands of 3 yo's. At least, wait until the brain is 90% developed which, I believe is age 5. I think we're conditioning our kids to expect to be entertained and failing to let them learn how to entertain themselves. I think we're also teaching them that learning should be fun. How is a teacher to compete with high definition color graphics and sound effects???
I think you raise fair points. I am wondering why the development of imagination cannot be developed in play that is concurrent with, not entirely replaced by, technology? Granted, you see a different pool of kids than I do- my kids' peers are very much in the imaginative play phase right now (preschool and younger) and my other pool of reference wrt learning is undergraduate students (who I experience much differently than you report experiencing the students you teach, but methinks that is a topic for a different thread). I absolutely agree that kids need to learn delayed gratification. I also believe that they need to learn to utilize the tools available to them (e.g. technology) without relying exclusively on them. So my question is why not use both (tech play and non-tech play)?
ETA: I also believe that learning should be fun, not in terms of bells and whistles, but in terms of stimulating curiosity, at every age.
Last edited by eastwesteastagain; 02-25-2012 at 04:26 PM..
So? Computers are here. Why does that mean 3 yo's should be learning to use them?? What's the advantage? And are you sure there's no harm?
I don't know that teaching young kids with computers hurts (but I can speculate this may be part of the increase in ADD diagnosis as it conditions kids to expect fast paced, color graphics and instant feedback) but I know it has not helped. If it's not helping, why waste the money?
What I see lacking in my students is imagination and the ability to self assess their work. Non computer based play and learning lend themselves to teaching both. My students need someone else to tell them when they do things right. THAT is a serious flaw that could stem from learning on computer programs with instant feedback. Without that feedback, some of my students are crippled. I don't give it. If they ask my opinoin on what they just wrote, I ask "Would you like me to grade this now?". They just look at me dumbfounded and don't know what to do. They can't assess the quality of their own work and I refuse to do so without putting a grade on it. A few are learning to self assess but most are just lost. They need that pop up screen that says "Good Job" or they don't know whether they're right or wrong. IMO, if you can't tell me what you just did is right, you don't know the material.
The reason we have more ADD cases is due to the fact that reporting in todays day and age is much better, and also is taken more serious. There is also a good amount of over diagnoses going on in that field as well. Regardless ADD is a chemical issue in the brain that is not going to be suddenly triggered by computer use. As for your first point, what does it hurt to allow the child a different level of stimulation? Why is it when we grew up watching tv was find, playing video games were fine, but now suddenly using an iPad might be damaging?
I graduated from high school 45 years ago. My high school did not have a vo-tech program. It had an "academic" track, a "business" track (typing, shorthand, etc), and a "general education" track. The graduation requirements were the same for all three tracks, however, X years of math meant different things in each track, e.g. they had courses called "business math" and "practical math" for those who weren't interested in the algebra, geometry, calculus track. However, my friend in the "business" track took algebra b/c she wanted to. About 500 kids were in my class at the start of sophomore year (it was a 10-12 high school), and 458 graduated.
Well you had a decent high school i see . I'd have to ask my mother if her HS had a similar rates. I do know she said that kids not involved in the college track were not required to take the same classes, nor the standardized tests.
No, some of us think it's unnecessary for a 3 yo to be using an ipad. 3 yo's should be learning how to use their imaginations not canned software. However, as a teacher, I do see evidence of both students needing to be entertained to learn and requiring instant feedback or they fall apart. Computer programs could cause both because the brain is still developing at 3. If it develops to require high resolution color graphics wiht sound effects and instant, exciting, feedback when they are right, the satisfaction of looking at your paper and seeing you did something right pales by comparison.
I don't think technology has any place in the hands of 3 yo's. At least, wait until the brain is 90% developed which, I believe is age 5. I think we're conditioning our kids to expect to be entertained and failing to let them learn how to entertain themselves. I think we're also teaching them that learning should be fun. How is a teacher to compete with high definition color graphics and sound effects???
How do you know you can't USE your imagination on a computer? Were not those programs you use on the computer created by someone with great imagination ? My little sister uses the computer with different programs to write up her own little stories that she prints up . And what is wrong with learning being FUN? Some of the best classes in which i learned the most were taught by the most stimulating enjoyable fun teachers. However the classes like 8th grade history *taught by mr means* could put even an insomniac asleep. A good teacher will use the tools at their disposal to get what they need across to the student. The fact is within 10-15 years that type of learning will be standard in most every school room in this country, so this is something teachers will have to adapt too.
Well you had a decent high school i see . I'd have to ask my mother if her HS had a similar rates. I do know she said that kids not involved in the college track were not required to take the same classes, nor the standardized tests.
To tell you the truth, I have little memory of the standardized tests. I think we all had to take them, however.
I think you raise fair points. I am wondering why the development of imagination cannot be developed in play that is concurrent with, not entirely replaced by, technology? Granted, you see a different pool of kids than I do- my kids' peers are very much in the imaginative play phase right now (preschool and younger) and my other pool of reference wrt learning is undergraduate students (who I experience much differently than you report experiencing the students you teach, but methinks that is a topic for a different thread). I absolutely agree that kids need to learn delayed gratification. I also believe that they need to learn to utilize the tools available to them (e.g. technology) without relying exclusively on them. So my question is why not use both (tech play and non-tech play)?
ETA: I also believe that learning should be fun, not in terms of bells and whistles, but in terms of stimulating curiosity, at every age.
I think boredom is the best teacher WRT developing imagination and anything a child comes up with pales next to the bright colorful graphics as far as entertainment value if they're used to animations and sounds that they get from computer programs. And I see no point in computer programs for 3 yo's. If it's not accomplishing anything and may be interferring with developing of imagination and inability to learn without high resolution graphics, why waste your money on it?
I see, absolutely, no reason to plug in a 3 yo. There's plenty of time to plug them in later if you decide they need to be plugged in. I think our kids are way too plugged in.
IMO, you don't stimulate curiosity with computer programs. You do that by encouraging experimentation IRL. You want to stimulate curiosity? Give a 3 yo a refrigerator box to play with.
How do you know you can't USE your imagination on a computer? Were not those programs you use on the computer created by someone with great imagination ? My little sister uses the computer with different programs to write up her own little stories that she prints up . And what is wrong with learning being FUN? Some of the best classes in which i learned the most were taught by the most stimulating enjoyable fun teachers. However the classes like 8th grade history *taught by mr means* could put even an insomniac asleep. A good teacher will use the tools at their disposal to get what they need across to the student. The fact is within 10-15 years that type of learning will be standard in most every school room in this country, so this is something teachers will have to adapt too.
You can use your imagination on a computer...if you're writing the software....or composing music....or writing a paper. 3yo's aren't doing any of these. They're watching colorful animations that popped up when they gave the appropriate canned response. No imagination required.
Even if they can, it's not needed. Give a 3yo a big box to play with and watch their imatination take off. No computer required.
The point is, a computer isn't necessary to teach imagination and could be counter productive. It could also be counter productive WRT a child's ability to actually learn in school without high resolution graphics and may be why Johnny is diagnosed with ADD four times as often here as abroad.
I think boredom is the best teacher WRT developing imagination and anything a child comes up with pales next to the bright colorful graphics as far as entertainment value if they're used to animations and sounds that they get from computer programs. And I see no point in computer programs for 3 yo's. If it's not accomplishing anything and may be interferring with developing of imagination and inability to learn without high resolution graphics, why waste your money on it?
I see, absolutely, no reason to plug in a 3 yo. There's plenty of time to plug them in later if you decide they need to be plugged in. I think our kids are way too plugged in.
IMO, you don't stimulate curiosity with computer programs. You do that by encouraging experimentation IRL. You want to stimulate curiosity? Give a 3 yo a refrigerator box to play with.
IME, anecdotal I admit, the bolded does not hold true, at least at our house. DS can spend hours doing creative things and independent play that have no graphics or sounds, just his brain and his hands. He appears to be more reinforced by social interaction, by figuring out how things work, etc., than by passively learning. Again, we limit screen time of any sort - I think too much of anything is not desirable - so perhaps that is a factor. I would argue there is less passive learning with kids' tech than with kids' TV. Either way, it isn't an either-or proposition (cardboard box or computer).
I'm not sure you stimulate curiosity with computer programs - although when DS decided he was curious about the solar system, we used the computer to look up pictures and fun facts about the planets on a kids' website. I think that's what I mean about using tech as a tool, "an adjunct to", rather than "a replacement for," so to speak.
IME, anecdotal I admit, the bolded does not hold true, at least at our house. DS can spend hours doing creative things and independent play that have no graphics or sounds, just his brain and his hands. He appears to be more reinforced by social interaction, by figuring out how things work, etc., than by passively learning. Again, we limit screen time of any sort - I think too much of anything is not desirable - so perhaps that is a factor. I would argue there is less passive learning with kids' tech than with kids' TV. Either way, it isn't an either-or proposition (cardboard box or computer).
I'm not sure you stimulate curiosity with computer programs - although when DS decided he was curious about the solar system, we used the computer to look up pictures and fun facts about the planets on a kids' website. I think that's what I mean about using tech as a tool, "an adjunct to", rather than "a replacement for," so to speak.
When kids are older, they can use a computer to satisfy curiosity. I just don't believe that 3 yo's do that. The question isn't whether you can use a computer creatively. It's will a 3 yo use it creatively? Or will they just get used to brightly colored graphics telling them "Good Job" when they click the right canned response? I think it's the latter.
Now, once a child starts reading and can look things up, a computer is a great tool to enhance the imagination...but so are books.
I, simply, see no point in screen time for a 3 yo. I see no evidence that it's beneficial and suspect it may be harmful. One thing you can't forget is that a 3 yo's brain is still hardwiring big time. Do we want it hard wired for input from a computer?
When kids are older, they can use a computer to satisfy curiosity. I just don't believe that 3 yo's do that. The question isn't whether you can use a computer creatively. It's will a 3 yo use it creatively? Or will they just get used to brightly colored graphics telling them "Good Job" when they click the right canned response? I think it's the latter.
Now, once a child starts reading and can look things up, a computer is a great tool to enhance the imagination...but so are books.
I, simply, see no point in screen time for a 3 yo. I see no evidence that it's beneficial and suspect it may be harmful. One thing you can't forget is that a 3 yo's brain is still hardwiring big time. Do we want it hard wired for input from a computer?
I guess I disagree to a certain extent with the bolded. Modeling how to (appropriately) use a computer as a tool is teaching in and of itself. I do agree with you that canned responses and "good job" in lieu of other input is not desirable, as is parking a child in front of elecontronic devices to the exclusion of all else; I disagree that that is all children are getting from technology usage or that it is all they are getting in life, period. IME, tech is a part, not the entirety, of kids' worlds.
I would need to go search out the reference but there is already evidence of computer usage changing the way adult brains process information - IIRC, not better or worse, just different. I suspect what will be required of our brains in terms of information processing is changing. In the realm of speculation, do I want my kids' brains processing information just like I do or in an equivalent but different (and perhaps better matched to their environment) way?
Thanks for the discussion - I found it interesting.
Last edited by eastwesteastagain; 02-25-2012 at 06:24 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I'd have to ask my mother if her HS had a similar rates. I do know she said that kids not involved in the college track were not required to take the same classes, nor the standardized tests.
? My little sister uses the computer with different programs to write up her own little stories that she prints up 
