Mike Toliver

Or (as has been stated elsewhere a number of times) maybe it doesn't make any difference who's in power....

I've started a new topic on "problems with ICT" since John suggested it. [http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2919] However, I would like to say that "best practices" and problems go hand in hand. I agree that simulations can be an excellent use of ICT - I can make evolution happen in a few seconds on my computer and it would take a tad longer in the lab. Again, data analysis is much speedier with CT, and I've been able to do labs in my science classes that I couldn't have done previously without this technology. Students can open dialogues with people from around the world (since I've been on John's Spartacus website, I've received hundreds of inquiries about the Vietnam War). That, of course, has a downside as well - how do they know I even served in Vietnam? I can use video to show natural phenomena to my students that would be very difficult or impossible to do otherwise.

John asked those of us who raised problems in the "best practices" thread to start a new thread on problems. I think "best practices" and "problems" are inter-connected - every benefit of ICT has its downside. What matters is the balance. Here's my list of some problems (which, like best practices, have their upside): 1. Every minute a person spends learning how to use computers is a minute that they're not devoting to learning the content of their field. 2. There is a tremendous amount of bad information available on the Internet, posing as good information. It takes a relatively mature person to be able to tell the difference. For students, this can be a major problem, because their motivation is often to get the assignment done as quickly as possible (and ICT allows students to get "information" very quickly) and they might well take the first 6 sources they find rather than taking the needed time to critically evaluate what they're seeing. 3. Computer presentations (e.g. Powerpoint) can be made quite "glitzy" without adding any benefit beyond what one could have had with a simple overhead. These "glitzy" features most often serve to distract the audience, rather than focus their attention on the subject at hand. 4. The seductive nature of CT easily leads to its mis-use. For example, one can obtain a CD containing images of great works of art, and with the right "gizmos" present that to an audience. This would seem to be an advance over slides and slide projectors. But the computer projected images are much poorer than slide projection. Our answer? Work to make the "gizmos" for computer projection better so they might some day be as good as the simpler and better slide technology we've abandoned. 5. It costs a lot, and once you're on the "technology treadmill" you've got to continually re-invest to "keep up to date". I have bought 5 new computers since 1986 (and I would have bought more, but fortunately my college is now buying my office computers for me). And I suspect I'm on the low end of new computer purchases. That's about ten thousand dollars I've spent on computers alone; and my college has spent and continues to spend hundreds of thousands to provide this stuff to staff and students.

I've used computers in my classes since 1986. I currently use both Mac and PC platforms - Mac for video, still pictures, music, page layout and web publishing; PC for data analysis, word processing, simulations, and web publishing. I've taken training for most of the major software packages from MS, and taught myself page layout, html, and others. I echo previous comments about the appropriate use of computers. They are a tool - and one which can be addictive and easily over-emphasized.

It seems to me that a more fundamental question is "Is the cost/benefit of ICT sufficient to justify the amount of attention it receives?" I've been using computers in my classes since 1986. The most useful thing for me, and the thing which I was not able to do until computers became more available, was for data analysis by my students. This simply can't be done by hand in a reasonable amount of time, but access to computers (and my college is very good at providing access) allows students to do analyses that could never hope to do otherwise. Which means I have to train them in how to use the computer for that purpose. Which means I have to know how myself. Well, ok, I'm pretty geeky and I've spent a lot of time (and money) learning the ins and outs of Microsoft Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Adobe GoLive, Photoshop, Quark Xpress, HTML.....yadda yadda. I can edit video, pictures, sound and incorporate them into my Powerpoints, I can construct a printed document that looks immaculate and includes color figures, graphs, etc. I can make web pages that incorporate many of these features as well: in fact, my wife and I got a grant to construct a web site on the natural history of a lake in our town (http://www.lakeeureka.eureka.lib.il.us/) and we've spent 4 years working on it. And every minute I've spent doing all that is a minute I didn't spend learning more about the content of my field. I've had some of my better students tell me to turn the damn computer off and just use the board to discuss the issues at hand - and bring in my own experiences in the field. When my wife was teaching art history, one of the IT people told her she could get a CD of all the slides she was using. So instead of having to use all those slides and a couple of slide projectors, she could use a computer, a data video projector, a number of CD's and project images of infinitely poorer quality than the slides she was using. Makes sense to me! Then she'd get to spend time learning Powerpoint instead of Medieval Art! Since I was one of the few faculty using computers in the late '80's on campus, I had students asking if they could come to my house and use my computer to write their papers. I once had a student spend 2 hours on MY computer trying to get an 8 item bibliography to print out. My wife got so sick of it, she grabbed his hand-written copy and typed the bibliography on our typewriter in 3 minutes. We've got computers on the brain - and we need to think about the APPROPRIATE use of the damn things rather than use them simply because we can. And don't get me started on the mountains of chaff available on the internet which students discover during their "research" - from which MAYBE one kernel of wheat will fall. I once had a student writing a paper on scientific fraud turn in a paper contending that all cancer research was fraudulent. Her justification was that she'd found a web site that presented that point of view - and supported it by stating that - despite all the money we've put into cancer research - we still haven't found a cure! Science marches on!

Not sure if I can contribute to this debate, but it's certainly interesting. First, a little background. My dad worked on the A-bomb in WWII at Los Alamos. He was one of a very small number of people who asked that control of nuclear weapons be turned over to the United Nations after the war ended. He did feel that use of the A-bomb was necessary to end the war (and I think he's probably right - read Richard Rhodes "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" to get a sense of how far the militarists in Japan were willing to go). I joined the US Marine Corps and went to Vietnam because I felt it was my duty to fight the communists "wherever they reared their ugly heads". I really thought we could make a positive difference for the South Vietnamese. So, I was definitely naive. So were the peace demonstrators - they really thought that demonstrations would show the politicians the error of their ways and "everything would be beautiful". So there was a lot of naivete going around in those days - which I think was a good thing. Nowadays seem much more cynical (or maybe it's just me...) and it's not as stimulating.

Charles Darwin. Copernicus is up there, too. Admittedly, I'm biased, but I think both of these people completely changed our conception of our Universe and ourselves.

There's a similar one for the US. Sorry, I don't have the link handy, but if you enter "Rate My Professor" in google you'll get it. I'm on there. One of my students thinks I have a "Mr. Rogers quality" in my teaching. I really liked Mr. Rogers, so I'll take that as a compliment.

Hi all - It seems there's a connection between our discussion here and the one in "Finnish education is the best". I refuse to use standardized tests in my classes, though we're under some pressure to "assess" what we're doing and to connect that to national norms. The pressure comes from accrediting bodies (who appointed them the overseers of education?), and - because of that - the faculty assessment committee. I have the liberty to get away with my refusal (so far) because I'm at a private college. In public schools, one has to tow the line. This is not to say that all assessment is bad, or that teachers shouldn't be held responsible for what happens in the classroom. But the "No Child Left Behind" nonsense and the move towards "McDonaldification" of education will give us very poor results.

I don't have much experience teaching at elementary and secondary levels - though I do have some (mostly private schools, so probably atypical). My daughter is currently in high school. One factor that seems to steer students one way or another is the teacher. A teacher with a reputation as "fun" (not necessarily easy) often attracts pupils to whatever subject she teaches. If biology is typically taught as "a cold is caused by a) a virus a bacterium c) a protozoan" we're in trouble. The essence of science is asking "how" and "why" - and neither of those questions is multiple choice.

As an undergrad, I majored in biology and literature. When I tell people about that combination, they think it's pretty unusual - and I guess it is. But I've had a number of biology students over the years with the same attraction to the arts, which I regard as a very good thing. Many of our students interested in medicine wind up majoring in both biology and chemistry - partly for practical reasons (they have to take so much chemistry anyway, why not get a major in it?). My college lacks a physics major - which I regard as a real tragedy in a liberal arts college. We never could get enough students to populate that major. Maybe physics is dead?

Rowena - There is MUCH more to biology than "just regurgitating facts". I regard chemistry as crucial to understanding much of biology, and physics as crucial to understanding much of chemistry. You won't help your cause by downplaying the importance of either physics or biology. We have a very small number of chemistry students here, but we have a very small number of students (about 530) in the whole college, so we're not very representative. None of our chemistry teachers (we have two - organic and inorganic) waters anything down. All of our biologists (the largest population of students in the sciences here) HAVE to take at least 4 semesters of chemistry - and I try and get them into 2 semesters of physics. That, of course, means a couple of semesters of calculus as well. It's not easy to be a science student - regardless of one's major

I guess I think the literal truth IS important. Every time an "inspiring" story is presented as truth, and then is discovered to be fiction, it erodes readers' faith in what they're reading. Thus, the next time they read or hear about an inspirational teacher, they may be inclined to doubt it, especially if their contact with the educational system has been largely negative. Aren't there enough REAL stories out there? Here's one, though I don't know how inspiring it is... When I entered my first science fair in junior high, I had been studying butterflies for years. I really knew a lot about them. But my project was not presented well, and thus the judges were inclined to give me a "9" instead of a "10" - which would have meant that I wouldn't advance to the next round. One of the judges, a science teacher from a high school in another part of the city, recognized potential in my project and persuaded the other judges to change their scores. Then he met with me and invited me to come visit him and learn how to present what I knew more effectively. I did so, on a weekday after he had put in a long day at his high school. He spent several hours with me, asking me questions to make sure I really did know my stuff, suggesting ways I might present that knowledge to the observors. Based on his advice, I completely re-did my project. I placed first in regionals, and third at state. Twenty-five years ago, I got my Ph.D. in entomology, studying (you guessed it) butterflies. I probably would have done that anyway, but that man really showed me what it meant to be a teacher. I can't even tell you his name, but I know I owe him...

One thing the US education system does do is parade "our right to vote" all the time. Students are told it's their civic duty and that US soldiers have died so they can "vote". I certainly agree that our educational system is geared towards vocation - and is becoming more so with the "No Child Left Behind" nonsense - but it also pushes "Voting" as a "Civic Duty". So why don't more people vote? Because it doesn't make any difference. Their lives wouldn't have gotten any better had Kerry been elected - so why bother? Until we have real options here, there's not much point.

From my perspective, the Viet Cong and the NVA never lacked for weapons, including some fairly large weapons (122mm rocket launchers, near the DMZ substantial artillery, anti-aircraft weapons). Of course, the VC often obtained weapons by over-running outposts (usually of poorly-trained South Vietnamese troops, but occasionally American) and grabbing weapons and ammo. The locals used booby traps VERY effectively (most of our casualties came from these). They used fragmentation grenades with the fuses removed, attached to trip wires, and dud artillery rounds or aircraft bombs. Very similar to the roadside devices that are being used so effectively in Iraq right now.

Don't blame me...I voted for Nader (sorry, couldn't resist!) Interestingly, when the election results for our county were published in the local (weekly) paper, no votes were listed for Nader (I had to write him in on my ballot - but it still should have counted). The libertarian candidate got 85 votes (he was on the ballot). I know I'm not the only one who voted for Nader here - so I wonder where our votes went.... Derek is absolutely right about the main party alternatives - neither was worth the powder it would take to blow 'em sky high. Hey, maybe our election was as "free" as the January Iraq election promises to be! We really have brought US style democracy to Iraq! We've won!!

I suspect that one thing that US citizens have in common with the rest of the world is their desire to not have anyone else telling them what to do - which is one reason why, when WE try to tell others what to do the situation blows up in our face. You perhaps underestimate the motivation of US troops; but I'm not sure that will make a difference. I think you are largely correct about the outcome. It reminds me more and more of Vietnam....

I can't speak for church leaders (it'd be nice if some of them joined this forum!), but I can tell you that the Disciples of Christ here in town largely oppose US actions in Iraq. I think that is probably true of the national leadership in that denomination as well. The Catholics made a big deal about "just war" during the Vietnam era, and it wouldn's surprise me if they did that again. Have they? I don't know. Some other denominations are probably supportive, but I couldn't tell you which. At this point, it doesn't seem that churches are contributing to the debate as much as they did during Vietnam.

Actually, most American I know moan about how strong the UN is - go figure. They really don't want anyone else telling the US what to do. David, of course you are right about the US and its lack of support for the UN. I try and get my two cents in, but the UN is not a popular institution in the US. It needs to be....

John - What do you mean by "the established church"? In the US, I challenge you to name one monolithic "established church". True, protestant fundamentalists overwhelmingly supported "W" - but those folks aren't considered "main-line" protestants by "established churches" (like the Episcopalians, Disciples of Christ, etc.). The Catholics, hung up as they are on the issue of abortion, would still not be a strong factor for the Republicans; for example, Catholics would have a great deal of trouble with traditional Republican views on capital punishment. When I came to Eureka, I found (to my surprise) an active group working for peace and opposing Ronald Reagan's foreign policy in - surprise, surprise - "the established church". I think the issue is more complex than you seem to imply.

David - Thank you for your response. It helps me to know that you agree that these terms should be applied in an even-handed way. I agree that the US should abide by international law - including the World Court. However, there are many difficulties in the application of international law to war. I can pretty much guarantee that the insurgents in Iraq don't give a rodent's hind end about "Nuremberg" or "International Law". I think that, while at least some passing acquaintance with international law is a part of military training in the US, an American soldier isn't going to be thinking much about it when faced with the possibility of getting killed by a "non-combatant". The obvious solution is to ban war - which is THE major crime here. Lotsa luck... Failing that, I'd like to see a UN with some real teeth. When a George Bush says "We're going to invade (insert country here)", the UN says "Oh no you're not!" and George W. Bush HAS to listen. I don't know how to accomplish that, but I think that's the way we've got to go.

NO - it is NOT the "Nuremberg defence". I ask you to put yourself in the place of an American soldier fighting in Iraq. You throw around the word "indiscriminate" pretty indiscriminately. In guerrilla war, you may well be killed by a woman, a child - anybody. That is the nature of guerilla war. When you are in that position, and your life depends on making split second decisions , you will quickly learn to regard EVERYBODY as potential "enemy". American soldiers do not have the ability to easily distinguish "friend" from "foe" - but I guarantee you (having been there myself) that the decision to fire on someone is NEVER an easy one - unless you're a psychopath or you're under attack. It is FAR from being "indiscriminate". Why don't you apply the term "indiscriminate" to the insurgents - who CAN easily distinguish who the enemy is and yet employ car bombs and other "indiscriminate" means of attack - who are, in fact, killing some of their own people? Don't they fit the definition of "War Criminal"? I applaud what the Nuremberg tribunal attempted to do - but guess what? Even that tribunal was selectively applied. "Strategic bombing" of German and British cities deliberately targeted civilians - why weren't those people tried? Palestinian suicide bombers deliberately target civilians - why aren't they called "war criminals"? The people who flew planes into the WTC deliberately targeted civilians? I haven't heard you folks call them "war criminals". If you want to throw around words like "war criminal" and "indiscriminate" - at least do it in an even-handed way. Otherwise, I regard it as so much ideological BS.

It's Veteran's Day in the US - always an "interesting" day for me. Elsewhere in this forum I've heard US troops referred to (by several different people) as "war criminals". Certainly, some troops have behaved in a criminal manner (and some have been convicted by the US Military of that criminal behavior), but they are not "war criminals". I refer you to today's New York Times - the editorial printing portions of letters by US soldiers killed in Iraq. The motivation that shines through is not to teach the Iraqis a lesson - it is to help the Iraqi people. I certainly agree that this intention may be misguided - but I think honest intentions make a difference. When I went to Vietnam, it was also with the intention of "helping" the South Vietnamese. One of the most devastating things about the war for me was the discovery that my presence was not going to "help" them - but that's what I wanted to do. And that's what most US soldiers in Iraq want to do. Please don't tar them with the "war criminal" brush - they don't deserve it. Apply it George W. Bush instead.

Yes the French certainly had much greater success in Vietnam (sorry, couldn't resist...). In the first Gulf War, I remember listening to an Arab-American woman decrying the demonization of Arabs in the media. My wife and I were talking about this and she said "What do you expect? If you send soldiers into a region where they're going to have to kill people, you have to make the "enemy" appear less than human." In Vietnam, we were discouraged from any contact with the peasants (and by that time - 1968 - it was in our best interest to keep our distance because the peasants could well kill us). Interestingly, the US soldiers who look back on Vietnam with the greatest pride are those few soldiers (special forces, Marine CAP's) who lived and worked with the peasants. I just read a story in the Chicago Tribune about the Marines moving into Falluja with Iraqi commandos - and the Marines were relying heavily on the Iraqis to tell friend from foe. I don't think it's as easy as David would have us think. It may well be that the powers that be have made a conscious decision to reduce understanding between US forces and Iraqis - if so, it would be the same story I've seen more times than I care to remember - but still, in guerilla warfare it is often impossible to tell who you can trust - which is why guerilla warfare is so effective.

David is certainly right about the expectations of most soldiers in foreign wars. After all, one relies on one's own experience in new situations. I don't know that I was exactly shocked to learn that the Vietnamese peasants regarded us as the invaders and the enemy, and the VC (if not the NVA) as their protectors, but it certainly changed my opinion about the morality of the Vietnam War. I learned that little lesson very early in my tour, and spent the rest of my tour doing my best to stay alive without surrendering my soul. Perhaps my fellow Marines will learn the same lesson in Falluja - which would be bad news for Mr. Bush. Another thing - probably everyone would agree that travel is a good thing and broadens one's perspective. The question is, who can afford it? I visited my father in a distant state, and that visit put us in debt from which it will take a year or more to recover. I probably make more than the average American in my job. How do you expect the average American to get any overseas travel?