If Everything Will Eventually Be Obsolete, Should We Bother Learning Anything At All?
from the miseducation dept
For many years, Jakob Nielsen has been seen by some folks as the authority on web usability -- particularly people in the media, who find it really hard to write articles about the topic without quoting him. Still, plenty of people don't really agree with his ideas, even though web usability and user-interface design remains an important topic. He's ventured a little bit outside of that with the latest self-published column on his web site, saying that teachers and schools are screwing up (via Guardian Unlimited) by teaching kids how to use specific computer applications instead of "life-long computer skills". He also offers a bunch of such skills kids should be taught. Some of them are just silly, like "workplace ergonomics" and, unsurprisingly, "user testing and other basic usability guidelines", while others seem rather spurious or vague, like skills to deal with information overload and "writing for online readers". But the problem with the others -- like "search strategies" and "computerized presentation skills" -- is that it would make little sense to teach these general topics without using something like Google or PowerPoint to illustrate them. Nielsen doesn't seem to realize, or perhaps he's just unwilling to accept, that training people in certain applications or the skills to use them isn't a mutually exclusive idea that precludes learning deeper concepts. Quite often, the best way to learn these "life-long skills" he's so fond of is by, you know, actually using the tools and applications that are available today. Plenty of people got their start in computers not by being taught anything in a formal setting, but by just starting to mess around with them, and in time, many of these deeper concepts were absorbed unconsciously or simply learned -- despite Nielsen's contention that students are unlikely to learn them on their own. Nielsen is saying that students shouldn't be taught anything concrete about computers because the programs in use today will eventually be upgraded or replaced, but that's pretty pointless. Such a claim would seem to undermine Nielsen's entire point, since after all, it seems unlikely that the "life-long" skills he's pointed out will stand up to the test of time, either.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
the main thing that many schools/teachers fail to teach is critical thinking. we get so frustrated with the students and what they didn't learn from their previous teachers that we are inclined to hold their hands too much, coddling them a little bit more each year.
if you are able to develop the kids' critical thinking, they will figure out so much more by themselves. that is probably what jakob is getting at, but maybe he's saying it in the wrong way. you can give kids some skills in powerpoint, but you also need to SHOW THEM that both the hard and soft skills they learn there are indeed applicable to other programs, and in other situations that have nothing to do with "computerized presentation skills."
i learned how to program from messing around with BASIC on an Apple II+ in the early 80s. the problem-solving skills i began to develop back then served as a foundation for both careers i've had since: software developer and English teacher.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I took a "computer science" course at a university around 1987, as part of the science requirement to earn my degree. While not everything I studied at the university has proven all that useful, absolutely nothing I studied in that computer course has any value whatsoever today. One of the major parts of the course was learning to use Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS. Knowing that has zero value today. Not even any of the skills involved in that have any use today.
Just wait another 10 or 20 years, Paul`and Ash. None of those skills you're learning now will have any value at all any more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Plenty of the skills I learnt 10 years ago are worthless now and yes in certain areas my knowledge has slipped (sorry but when it comes to DOS 5 I am no longer your man...)
However in other areas my knowledge has grown dramatically as my career has turned corners etc
I would LOVE to have kept up to date with everything but I simply don't have the time or capacity, as each of the fields is constantly expanding as well. It'd be like trying to climb a tree by hugging the trunk and then expecting your arms to grow longer and still allow this method half way up
This is why you need to continue to develop your skills in the workplace. Yes analytical thinking techniques would be very useful things to teach properly (I get sick of technicians applying the 'A banana is yellow so all that is yellow must be a banana' logic to situations), but I also get sick of people who come to the workplace knowing the theory of 3D relational databases or whatever but not being able to type a single line of SQL
There is a neat little balance between theory and practical and in all honesty I think the schools in the UK are closer to it than the universities (for their respective levels of eductaion obviously)
Using tools available at the time gives a student knowledge in them, which can usually be leveraged in whole or in part to other applications, but more importantly makes that knowledge hands-on, remember: "Tell me, and I'll forget. Show me, and I may not remember. Involve me, and I'll understand."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
learn fundamentals, not specifics
Does anyone recall having heard the axiom that "If the only tool you have is a hammer every problem will resemble a nail"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I have such a problem with educational programs teaching a network course that essentially just gets prepares someone for the first Cisco certification test. Principles outlast technologies, which is one reason technical schools don't get the respect that four year universities get.
My students' degrees should be relevant 40 years from now. Of course, the specific technologies will be long gone and they will have to be a lifetime learner to stay relevant, but the approaches to solving problems and learning new technologies will not change that much.
My brother in law went to technical school and has made himself quite valuable in his current position, but he can't get out of his current job because his degree only prepared him for a version of software that is no longer supported: except by his company.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
umm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Everything I know I....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Article
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nielsen is right...
But....... those are longer term skills and in the short term folks need to learn current technology, including (sometimes) specific applications or hardware.
Will my software be obsolete in several years? Maybe. But thats not the point if I can't use it and be successful right now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Two things:
2) Learning the finer points of almost any subject is also a waste of time nowadays. Such a huge portion of human knowledge is just a few clicks away that the rote memorization of facts of yesteryear is obsolete.
Education needs to be more focused on laying a foundation in a broad number of areas without getting too incredibly detailed in any one, but with just enough depth that you know how to look for the specifics as needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hm.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The problem is that, whether theoretical or application, many programs teach "Knowledge" and encourage "Comprehension" and to a less extent "Application," but fail to require students to demonstrate that they can perform "Analysis," "Synthesis," and "Evaluation."
When a student gets out of a program, s/he should have an application toolset and theoretical foundation that s/he learned, yes, but more importantly, they should be able to take that ideas from multiple domains and apply that critical thinking to new problems.
Many small programs suffer from emphasizing "tools" (so their students can get a job right out of college), and many larger program suffer"theory" (so their students can have that reputation), but both fail to really prepare students.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Full of it
I could highlight this by pointing out the troubles people had with IE7 and its new interface. What is the friggin point of learning an application if MS or another company is just going to re-invent how it works in a couple of years.
General computer knowledge doesn't go obsolete in a few years only specific program knowledge does. Stop wasting kids times with MS applications that will become incompatible with the newer versions before you can blink your eye. Thats not knowledge that is wasted time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Full of it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Training and Learning
As other's have noted, it's important to learn both general skills (and understanding the process, of the "why") and also specifics and how it's applied (the "how").
You really can't separate the two and be very effective.. they go hand in hand. If you understand why something works, and not just how it works, you gain a deeper understanding and are able to figure things out when the "how" changes.
To allude to the article, it's stated that learning a specific application isn't as useful as learning lifelong computer skills... one is really just a subset of the other.
Learning Microsoft Office 2003 for example, is a snapshot in time and is a component of a larger set of skills understanding how formatting works, how the keyboard, shortcut keys, printing, mail merge, etc., (whatever skill you choose to insert here). As the Office program changes, the underlying understanding of why things work they way they do, and why they NEED to work the way they do remains fairly constant. So as the programs change, the person's ability to pick up the new skills increase.
That's pretty much the beauty of most modern OS's, in that they all are built upon a similar set of commands and function the same way. You can just from one program to another. Even going from Windows to Linux, there are enough similarities for someone to make the jump fairly easily (digging under the hood of course there are a TON of differences).
Regards, Christopher Rees
President,
Palaestra Training
www.palaestratraining.com
1-800-324-0946 - Office
1-888-796-9675 - Fax
[ link to this | view in thread ]