Catholic Exchange Forums » Homeschooling
Computers in the home
(36 posts)Well, I guess we've evened them out.
We do have a computer (very limited use for them, and no internet).
But the books?
500?
I scoff at such a puny number!
(now...where did I put that catechism? and how do I keep that shelf from buckling under the weight?)
Posted 1 year ago #
Books have what computers still seem tied to modernism about - books are 'quiet-icious'. Computers increasingly sound like some 'squeaky-wheel' - books linger near, like old friends. Computers are one-eyed, Cycloptic temptations.
Noise is what TV IS - not just what it sounds like. The guy with his radio on too loud should have a bounty put on him. Why should I have to listen to what -to use 'increasingly' as I increasingly will and do - increasingly is obnoxious - uh -'stuff'? Should I force him to read the forward of the book I have, to even things out? And, especially since his - uh - 'stuff' - interferes with my reading?
And, name for me the Aquinas of the sound-making set? Sound that is - YES - increasingly increasing unto increasing NOISE!
Studies are too much like polls; and polls in Britain are the same as polls here - whose apple was being polished? I agree my reading is vital; but, my reading is entended by Internet sources. How about training our kids on proper use of ANY tool - reading (not-porn, etc.; I even eschew novels), computers (not-porn), even friendships ('read their smiles') - and, yes, even dish soap and cabinets, and Windex and towels.
I remain your obedient servant, but God's first,
Pristinus Sapienter
(wljewell @mail.catholicexchange.com or ...yahoo.com)
Posted 1 year ago #
I have a theory.
When we look at a screen, we use different parts of our brain than when we look at a book. Actually, I think we use a different part of our brain when we view anything such as we might do at a stadium or an arena.
What I surmise is that over the evolutionary time span of our human frames, the survival of our ancestors depended on them being able to quickly spot threats and take a defensive stance or head for the trees or the cliff dwellings, or whatever. When we raise our eyes to something, we reduce or cut off blood circulation to certain parts of the neck and head. The part of the brain that remains engaged is that part which scans the viewing area for movement. Any brain that kept its analytical engine engaged was long ago eaten or trampled or killed by something that got past the first layer of defense, detection. So in our brains the analysis faculty is turned off when we view a scene. All we have left is the conditioned responses of fight, flee, or freeze. The rest of the brain is sort of shut-down; no distractions allowed, as it were.
When we sit down in a chair) with a book, our absorptive faculty is free to activate. Our back is secure, its as if we are up against that cave wall of long ago once again. We feel secure enough to give the conditioned response mechanisms a chance to go idle and let the gray matter be devoted to thought and analysis and reflection.
Once I worked on a project and was able to place the monitor so that the screen was nearly horizontal. This allowed me to read the screen as if it were a book laying on the work surface. I found I functioned with fewer errors and less fatigue with the monitor like that.
Combined with my experience trying to play word games, or even just trying to participate in a group rosary, while driving a car, led me to believe that the brain yields to a higher demand when viewing a scene and doubly so, if motion is perceived.
How could such a theory be tested?
- Regards,
- Old Sigma
Posted 1 year ago #
Sure - we'll blind you - move you around in various controlled venues - make soft white-noise, sometimes - give you various devotional sacramentals to hold - tell us what you see and perceive and can operate on, then. It would only be extreme if you were blinding me, instead. :) As, it is only extreme to shoot abortionists, not let him kill a dozen babies that day. :\
Ugh, the caveman, meets Chesterton, back to rock . . . ?????
Looking down is more neck-natural than holding one's head up to make a horizontal in the air.
AND, you know? . . . when are they going to formulate a bladder-control (like they have mouth-crud-control) Crest toothpaste?
I remain your obedient servant, but God's first,
Pristinus Sapienter
(wljewell @mail.catholicexchange.com or ...yahoo.com)
Posted 1 year ago #
"Sure - we'll blind you - "And how would that provide a test of two alternative ways of collecting information through the eyes. Clearly I am missing something here. Please elucidate.
- Regards,
- Old Sigma
Posted 1 year ago #
Okay - first think with ironic humor, that it is likely some researcher out there mourns NOT being able to blind someone as part of 'the study'. This is also to say that my whole post is of a very-tongue-in-cheek nature.
Second, (moving my tongue to the other cheek) we remove the very sense that has its qualities stroked by computer graphics, etc. I.e., your sight's qualities have been 'eliminated'.
Third, we give you other-sensory input, limited only by having them all of a spiritual sense. Of course, your computer is now nearly useless, your close ones have to read the Bible, CCC and other such books to you, and you spend a lot of time listening to Gregorian chant.
(Pulling my tongue from my cheek so as not to slur . . .)
'Now, Siggie, how doth thy faith attend, thy faith grow, now?'Even imagining that - in that I am basically alone - means great loss of how my faith can be enhanced by my senses - my sight is probably ninety-plus percent of my input. I am literally hung on my Rosary beads. Though, of course, there are far worse fates. I remain your obedient servant, but God's first, Pristinus Sapienter (wljewell @mail.catholicexchange.com or ...yahoo.com)
Posted 1 year ago #
Re PS's post of 15 December 2006, @ 8:11 pm.
Hmmm. Perhaps an interesting question there. The one you raise about having others read to you if you are blind. I'm thinking of the blind men in the Gospel who, though blind had perceived the truth of Jesus and, through their faith, were healed.
In the Greek tragic poets there is a theme that only the blind can really see the outcome of human actions. There is too a retro expression of this in some of T. S. Eliot, unless my memory fail. (Without sight, without memory; that would be hard to bear I think.)
- Regards,
- Old Sigma
Posted 1 year ago #
How so, moderator-wanna-be? Sight and PC in the home - they correlate in how the thread was advancing. Though, the blind have to imagine-all-along what we are content to wait to see, of outcomes.
Actually, it is without means of communication - input and output - at bottom, words - that undermine retention in memory. Babies rarely hold on to memories until they have means to express them. If they could come out communicating - talking well - a thought about which most mothers would pale - they would have means to complete the grasp of memory for all that they experience.
Like 'event hangers', words are. How a home PC fits into that may be interesting if you have a program that utters common words gently to an infant watching and listening. Pictures and spelling with the sound would only advance Baby into "NO!" and "GIMME!" much sooner. Or, "LOADED! Dispel it before you can smell it!" Or, "RED ALERT! Diaper rash advancing on all unmentionable zones!" Or, "I get liquified ham and pureed peaches, and he gets solid cuts of meat on rye - we have a problem here!" Or, "On the shopping list, there, teething biscuits - almond flavored, maybe?"
I remain your obedient servant, but God's first,
Pristinus Sapienter
(wljewell @mail.catholicexchange.com or ...yahoo.com)
Posted 1 year ago #
I realize I am really late to jump into this discussion, but it is very relevant to my life right now. I am writing a moral theology curriculum for home educators, and I decided to publish it as a web site and CD-ROM so that I can self-publish and keep costs fairly low. I was hoping that computers and the Internet would be seen as a useful tool by home educators - in addition to books, of which I am a great fan. I tend to agree with wljewell that books and computers can exist side by side.
Is there any hope of resurrecting this thread? Can pouliot and lpioch offer some more thoughts?
"We are made for you, oh God, to live forever in your love and our hearts will not rest until they rest in You." St Augustine
See my blog at www.faith-matters.blogspot.com
Posted 1 year ago #
I think computers are a very powerful tool - especially in the world of education. Even television can be (although it is much more limited than computers), if used properly. Television can help children and young adults visualize what before was very difficult to visualize. Of course, I'm speaking mostly about science (my background), but with history and literature as well. Not as a replacement of reading, but as a possible reinforcement. For me, anyway, I'm very much more visual than anything else. So even (or especially) for history, for it to stick better in my mind, I had to see something above and beyond just reading it. But, as with all things, moderation is the key, and training in the proper use as well.
Now, computers are amazing creations. I really should say the internet, because that is what I'm thinking mostly about here. I have been on the internet almost since the internet was public. I don't know when it was public, but I have been on it since 1992 or so. Of course, back then, not much was on it! So I have developed the ability to seek and find almost anything I wish (information, that is). How can that not be valuable in the learning process?!? But for those that are not adult, IT MUST BE DONE ALWAYS WITH GUIDANCE.
1) it has addictive properties
2) it has morally reprehensible information as well as good information
3) it has SO MUCH information, that one needs an already formed conscience to be able to wade through the rubbish to find the diamonds.
I think, by definition, those 3 properties mean that pre-adults cannot be expected to use it as the powerful tool that it is...without continued guidance and direction.
I am a great fan of books. I have too many. :-) But in education, they, too are limited - by time, space, availability, and cost (if not in other aspects as well).
Posted 1 year ago #
well, I am a software engineer as my employment. So take this for what it is worth.
I have seen both great benifit and great harm done by proper and improper use of technology respectively. computers are no different.
May I reccomend you consider for a moment what the definition of a tool is?
( a object, created by man for the purpose of enhancing his power )
A hammer lets us fasten thing togther in ways we otherwise could not.
A car lets us get places faster. A computer allows us to access coorlate and sort information in volumes and at speeds that are humanly impossible.
Still, one should ask the question , why would I WANT to.
Is traveling faster 'better'?
It has occured to me from time to time that as man extends his power he does not extend his wisdom. However, he does extend his ability to harm himself as much as to do good. I wonder how long the common man will be able to live in comfortable gray areas about many of thier day to day choices.
to address the thread more directly. The harm done is not the fault of the tool. It is a function of how it is being used. The study would probably have been very different if they had looked at homes with computers that did not allow thier children to play video games.
Posted 1 year ago #
These last two posts were excellent. I am especially thrilled by Ipioch's comments. I have always made the point that most Internet use involves reading. The Internet has offered us reading material that would otherwise be unavailable, at little or no cost, and available whenever and for however long we would like to use it. The important thing as far as I am concerned is to steer children away from the glance-and-click browsing technique in which they don't really read anything, but just glance at a web site long enough to see what it's about and then move on to the next. I have also seen students at the high school where I used to teach copying and pasting web pages, and I assume they use that information without really reading it or thinking about it. That's another bad Internet habit (akin to the old copying information out of an encyclopedia). Bad habits are possible with any learning tool. Children need to be shaped.
The Internet also allows for communication and exchange of ideas, such as this forum. Internet use definitely needs to be monitored, but so does all learning my children will do. We have a very good filter on our computers and our computers are in a public part of our house. My daughter is too young to read yet (only 11 months) but I look forward to using the Internet as part of her education.
"We are made for you, oh God, to live forever in your love and our hearts will not rest until they rest in You." St Augustine
See my blog at www.faith-matters.blogspot.com
Posted 1 year ago #
One thing I really like about having books in electronic format is the ability to research them.
For instance if someone claims that Jesus did not name simon - peter. It is easy enough to find all the places in the new testament and where the name simon is used. You can then go back and look at the context of specific statements. It took me about a half an hour to realize that Simon bar Jona was named Cephus ( translate peter) by Jesus in John 1:42 and that the gosphel of mathew 14 "You are petros and on this petra I will build my ecclisa" is not in fact Jesus renameing Simon but an example of when he used the name he had already given him.
without the ability to do keyword searches on the text I would have had to trust secondary sources to find my answer and it may have taken me weeks or months.
Posted 1 year ago #
still the technique I've described above can be abused if you don't learn to read the surrounding text deeply enough to understand the context that the statements were made in.
Posted 1 year ago #
pouliot - if you are worried about blood flow I'd recommend one of the computer desks that places the monitor in the desk itself so that it is in the same reading position as a book. (I think your theory is a little far fetched but if you happen to be right there is an easy solution then isn't there.)
Posted 1 year ago #
"...monitor in desk..." Yes, I've always wanted to test that arrangement. I jury-rigged something like that during an application development effort and it certainly seemed to matter, but the test was too short and naturally the results were subjective and lacked an appropriate sample size.
"...far-fetched..." Thank you.
- Regards,
- Old Sigma
Posted 1 year ago #
While the cautionary news below applies to any home, the homeschooling community might be somewhat more vulnerable than the non-homeschooling household because of the competing demand for hours which are necessarily in short supply.
A study is reported by Britain's Royal Economic Society that claims "Holding other family characteristics constant, students perform significantly worse if they have computers at home."
According to the article in which I found this, "In contrast, children with access to 500 books in their homes performed better."
(Not necessarily a cause and effect relationship there I should think. Also, the precision of the number is a little suspect to me. Why is it that 450 books didn't have a salutary influence?)
Posted 1 year ago #
well, far-fetched means if you think about it drawing more from the creative then from the analytical so in some ways it is a complement.
I've never seen a study to support or refute the idea so from the point of view of a scientist it is still on the table as far as I'm concerned.
Posted 1 year ago #
Try:
"than" &
"compliment"
(Software may signal an error in spelling, but only when it doesn't happen to be a valid word. I believe these are called "spelleo's.") So was that due to a reduction in blood flow, or some other cause? (I beleive the reason for these may tend to support my hypothesis, but of course only you can provide the facts, one way or the other.)
- Regards,
- Old Sigma
Posted 1 year ago #
Pouliot:
Try:
believe
"(I beleive the reason ..."
Sorry, could not resist :).
Posted 1 year ago #
To: CathsMom
RE: "Try: believe"Touché. My fingers mess up a whole slew of words consistently. Mostly "ie" combinations. But some others include "dose" instead of "does", "fo" vs. "of", but I bore you I am sure. Usually I catch them when I proof read but clearly I miss some/many. I must try to do better.
I'd edit some I've found (the above excepted since I didn't find it) but doing so repositions the post to the "most recent" slot and the new sequence can be confusing as context is difficult to find if a long cite isn't provided.
I infer you've been visiting the board long enough to have read my plaint about spelleos and typos.
- Regards,
- Old Sigma
Posted 1 year ago #
I have been visiting the board, that is why I couldn't resist--especially since it is one of the words you listed as often being incorrect on another thread.
I certainly am NO master of the English language as you and wljewell seem to be (and truly shouldn't be pointing out others mistakes), but I found humor in that one.
Posted 1 year ago #
God loves you .
Cathsmom and all,
You find me in a misspelling or grammatic delusion - give me a word of correction . . .
Find me mis-Catholic-izing - scare the hell out of me!
But, do pardon me if you find me e - lip . . . ticklish :)
Remember, I love you, too
Through Christ, with Christ, in Christ,
Pristinus Sapienter
(wljewell @catholicexchange.com or ... yahoo.com)
Posted 1 year ago #
Faithmatters, as a blogger http://cause-of-our-joy.blogspot.com and http://causa-nostrae-laetitiae.blogspot.com I most certainly agree that Catholics must engage the internet for good, or let the pagans corrupt it fully. I would like a link to your moral theology curriculum when it's up; be sure to post it.
I have recently met the author of a compendium of mother's thoughts: "Gifts: how children with Down Syndrome Have Enriched Our Lives". It was first self-published on the internet, and within three weeks, Woodbine House picked it up, and will sell it in stores. Here's another example of how the internet can be used for good.
Posted 1 year ago #
To: Cath-S-Mom
RE: "I have been visiting the board, that is why I couldn't resist--especially since it is one of the words you listed as often being incorrect on another thread. I certainly am NO master of the English language as you and wljewell seem to be (and truly shouldn't be pointing out others mistakes), but I found humor in that one."I found it humorous too, and educational. So please let me know when you find others of mine. There is no substitute for self-discipline and, for it to occur, there must first be awareness.
- Regards,
- Old Sigma (Cradle Catholic - amateur at most endeavours.)
Posted 1 year ago #
Pouliot:
I most likely will not point out any other errors. That one occurred at an opportune time and I took advantage of the situation. Technically they were not the same type of mistake--the one you corrected was more grammatical (using the wrong word) whereas I corrected your spelling.
As for the login name, I should have added another 'H' since it was to reflect Catholic Homeschool Mom (cathhsmom would have been better). I realized it after I created it but am to lazy to correct.
I have no children named Cath (as in CathsMom), nor is my first name Cath or my middle/last initial S (as in Cath-S-Mom).
Posted 1 year ago #
To: CathHsMom aka Cath-S-Mom
RE: "As for the login name, I should have added another 'H' since it was to reflect Catholic Homeschool Mom (cathhsmom would have been better). I realized it after I created it but am to lazy to correct. I have no children named Cath (as in CathsMom), nor is my first name Cath or my middle/last initial S (as in Cath-S-Mom)."Perhaps it will strain credibility, but I took "cathsmom" to stand for "Catholic Schooling Mom," with the understanding, given the name of this forum, that the "Schooling" was being done at home. "Cath-S-Mom" was my attempt to show where I believed the logical breaks were likely to come in the Username; it was not my intent to look for anything personal or obscure in it.
- Regards,
- Old Sigma
Posted 1 year ago #
I see said the blind man. The first attempt at logical breaks created CathsMom so I thought perhaps you thought I was in fact Cath's mom.
I was unsure of the Cath-S-mom (was unable to decipher the S for schooling) so thought perhaps you figured my name was Cath and I didn't want to misrepresent myself.
UH-OH just saw in your copying of my original post that the to before lazy should actually be too. You should have corrected me :)
Posted 1 year ago #
To: CathHsMom
RE: "You should have corrected me :)"As you may have noticed in other cases, I do tend towards some selectivity in the observations I post here. And I selectively correct posts I quote as well. My keyboard doesn't always send the second (or is it the first) of doubled letters reliably so I tend towards considering things like "to" for "too" and "agre" for "agree" as being caused by distant kin of my keyboard rather than errors in usage.
- Regards,
- Old Sigma
Posted 1 year ago #
Leticia Velsquez,
Thank you! I was just thinking about that today, too. I have discovered how podcasting is being used by educators to share the love of learning with the general public and I was wondering why a home educator wouldn't take advantage of such technology.
I checked out your blogs. They are delightful! Your writer's voice is very much that of a strong Catholic mother - very homey but very concerned with the truth. I am going blogroll you on my blog. I hope you would consider returning the favor.
Congratulations on getting published (announced in her blog http://cause-of-our-joy.blogspot.com/ on April 12)! I will look for your article in Faith and Family magazine. We do subscribe to that magazine.
My moral theology course is scheduled to be done in September. I hope to have the web site up at that time as well. I will write myself a note to contact you, and I will probably also post something on this forum. Thank you for offering to link to it!
In the love of Christ,
Jeff
"We are made for you, oh God, to live forever in your love and our hearts will not rest until they rest in You." St Augustine
See my blog at www.faith-matters.blogspot.com
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
Donate
Welcome to our redesigned site. Your continued support will make further improvements possible. Please click here to donate.
CE Spotlight
Faith Factory
Radio & Podcasts
Rock Solid with Mark Shea: April 14, 2008 - Confirmation: Piety and Knowledge