Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Jan 2018 17:51 UTC
Windows

Microsoft is making a bigger push to keep students and teachers using Windows this week. At the annual Bett education show in London, Microsoft is revealing new Windows 10 and Windows 10 S devices that are priced from just $189. The software giant is also partnering with the BBC, LEGO, NASA, PBS, and Pearson to bring a variety of Mixed Reality and video curricula to schools.

Lenovo has created a $189 100e laptop. It’s based on Intel’s Celeron Apollo Lake chips, so it’s a low-cost netbook essentially, designed for schools. Lenovo is also introducing its 300e, a 2-in-1 laptop with pen support, priced at $279. The new Lenovo devices are joined by two from JP, with a Windows Hello laptop priced at $199 and a pen and touch device at $299. All four laptops will be targeted towards education, designed to convince schools not to switch to Chromebooks.

I'm not sure if these wil persuade schools away from Chromebooks, but assuming non-education customers can get them as well, they may be great little machines for running secondary operating systems on.

Thread beginning with comment 653109
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: I'm a bit off but...
by kwan_e on Tue 23rd Jan 2018 11:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I'm a bit off but..."
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

"The first question to ask is does laptops actually help with education?

Research says not really.

Citation needed!
"

Have you been living under a rock?

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34174796

It is obvious that computers


"Obvious" means nothing, and it says a lot about science education that people still think "obvious" or "makes sense to me" is an adequate substitute for real results.

(laptops/tablets/my-first-sony) can help with education.


Hypothesis does not meet experience.

A computer is also far cheaper (1000 Euro for hardware+software+maintenance per year) than a teacher (60000 Euro per year).


Completely irrelevant. One good teacher can do more than however many laptops you can put in front of a student. A teacher can/should adapt to the student (if only they weren't being forced to teach to the test). Properly training and paying for teachers is much more cost efficient than dumping technology on people.

Edited 2018-01-23 11:20 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: I'm a bit off but...
by avgalen on Tue 23rd Jan 2018 12:47 in reply to "RE[4]: I'm a bit off but..."
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Have you been living under a rock?

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34174796

No, I haven't been living under a rock. I have actually worked in education and have kids that are just starting their education. I also actually read the article and not just the headlines. The main point that article makes is that "Investing heavily in school computers and classroom technology does not improve pupils' performance", however "Students who use computers moderately at school, such as once or twice a week, have 'somewhat better learning outcomes' than students who use computers rarely.
Or as the OECD's education director Andreas Schleicher says:
The findings of the report should not be used as an "excuse" not to use technology, but as a spur to finding a more effective approach.

He gave the example of digital textbooks which can be updated as an example of how online technology could be better than traditional methods.

Mark Chambers, chief executive of Naace, the body supporting the use of computers in schools, said it was unrealistic to think schools should reduce their use of technology.

It is endemic in society now, at home young people will be using technology, there's no way that we should take technology out of schools'


So yes, it is obvious that laptops/tablets/my-first-sony can help with education and that hypothesis does meet experience.

One good teacher can do more than however many laptops you can put in front of a student.
My example was about putting a few students in front of a computer for a bit while the teacher was in front of others. A teacher couldn't do both at the same time so it is obvious that computers can help with education.

This isn't a 1-or-the-other situation. These children get the best education with a well trained teacher that has good tools (books and computers) available.

Properly training and paying for teachers is much more cost efficient than dumping technology on people.

Strawman argument

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: I'm a bit off but...
by kwan_e on Tue 23rd Jan 2018 13:42 in reply to "RE[5]: I'm a bit off but..."
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I also actually read the article and not just the headlines.


Clearly you didn't.

The main point that article makes is that "Investing heavily in school computers and classroom technology does not improve pupils' performance", however "Students who use computers moderately at school, such as once or twice a week, have 'somewhat better learning outcomes' than students who use computers rarely.


Here's a quote you want to ignore:

"The results show "no appreciable improvements" in reading, mathematics or science in the countries that had invested heavily in information technology"

No appreciable improvements. "Somewhat better" is still leading to no appreciable improvements. Trying to pin your hopes in "somewhat better" is like trying to find the active ingredient in homeopathic remedies.

Here's another choice quote from the OECD education director:

"He said making sure all children have a good grasp of reading and maths is a more effective way to close the gap than "access to hi-tech devices""

Or as the OECD's education director Andreas Schleicher says:
The findings of the report should not be used as an "excuse" not to use technology, but as a spur to finding a more effective approach.


Funny how you quote him as support for your argument. He wouldn't be saying to find a more effective approach if the current approach was already effective, would he? The fact that he has to say we need to find a more effective approach means it's not effective currently. Ironic how we're talking about reading ability and this just proves the point that technology didn't help in your case.

So yes, it is obvious that laptops/tablets/my-first-sony can help with education and that hypothesis does meet experience.


Still no. All the things you listed are things you can do with technology but you haven't shown that they actually help.

To repeat the quote: "no appreciable improvements".

"One good teacher can do more than however many laptops you can put in front of a student.
My example was about putting a few students in front of a computer for a bit while the teacher was in front of others. A teacher couldn't do both at the same time so it is obvious that computers can help with education.

This isn't a 1-or-the-other situation. These children get the best education with a well trained teacher that has good tools (books and computers) available.
"

Actually it is. Because governments are actively denigrating teachers and keep trying to replace them with cheaper technology. They keep wanting to pay teachers less and laway oness, using money as an excuse, but think nothing of throwing money at computers that for students, I repeat the quote:

"show no appreciable improvement".

"Properly training and paying for teachers is much more cost efficient than dumping technology on people.

Strawman argument
"

No it's not. It's the big picture argument. I'm looking at the bigger picture. Your argument of comparing the "sticker price" of a computer versus a teacher was the strawman argument. What were you even thinking trying to make that ridiculous argument?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: I'm a bit off but...
by Adurbe on Wed 24th Jan 2018 11:44 in reply to "RE[4]: I'm a bit off but..."
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

I thought I would do a bit of my own reading (benefits of working with academic publishers), and the headlines of the article don't particularly match with the academically peer reviewed research;

Technology as a Change Agent in the Classroom
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-387-09667-4_9

"Further, the combination of the student “owned” laptops and the transformed classroom environment resulted in sustained gains in writing and problem-solving relative to comparison students. "

Its a modern habit to reference the article which summarises the research (BBC and Co) rather than the actual research and its findings. Have a read, but it doesn't look like the actual research matches your (quite ardent) assertions.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: I'm a bit off but...
by avgalen on Wed 24th Jan 2018 16:13 in reply to "RE[5]: I'm a bit off but..."
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Thanks, but I, like many others, don't have access to the actual research (unless I pay 35-85 Euro) so we rely on summaries and other sources. Research is difficult enough to draw unbiased conclusions from. Almost all research will conclude that "children with access to computers have a better education than children without access to computers" which is logical because of the hidden factor of money.

The above mentioned article came from an interview as direct from a reliable source as I could expect. I drew an interesting conclusion from it: "no computers normal, some computer-time better, lots of computer-time worse".
As you could read from the discussion that followed (that I stepped out of because it was getting too heated and doesn't have much to do with the original topic anymore) this conclusion was already debatable.

So I did what most humans will do, I looked at this from personal experience and confirmed my own bias while adjusting it slightly.
(Old me thought lots of computer-time would still be better than no computer time, but some-computer-time is best in both my personal experience and the article)

Reply Parent Score: 3