by Obamot » 30/05/12, 15:31
Well this topic!
First "most" of these tutorials (call it whatever you want ...).
- It is extremely interesting in all cases where it would be necessary to separate the student from the teacher for a while. Because it can help the student - in some cases - to show him that the problem is not the teacher, or the education system ... but somewhere especially himself!
- This saves students from traveling (disabled, students living far from major centers ...)
- So also interesting for distance education. But also for a while, because nothing replaces the presence of a teacher (I had made a program on the subject ...)
- The student can start at their own pace.
- A huge plus is the democratization of knowledge, for example in cases where - for economic reasons - subjects absolutely need to assimilate material, but cannot afford training: in this case it will work, because there are several preliminary issues. But it is possibly dangerous to count only on this for the teaching of a subject, because nothing replaces the experience of the professor or the "field" with experienced and reliable people around him: because without that, i a student will believe "to know", when he will fall aside because nobody will have put him the focus on the detail which makes all the difference, and / or will not have been able to fix correct priorities ...
- It can also help if the person is already previously trained, to update their knowledge in continuous training. Because she already knows what she is talking about ...
etc.
Possibly a few less
- One of the questions is: what will be left after? If not the incentive (sometimes sickly) to continue to stay glued to the screen? And therefore to cut yourself off from the world a little more?
- Addiction problems, leading to very real new pathologies, for a virtual crutch;
- Encouraging a sedentary lifestyle which brings its share of physiological problems (obesity, early diabetes, depression);
- socially either, it's not the foot. Socialization is about going to the other (the others).
- there is no “stake”. So I would be positive if such games were used in the classroom or at home as a tutorial, but with the gaze or presence of an adult.
So here it is: we cannot value this without good supervision. But it's just IMHO.
The only interest that I see individually: it is training or language laboratory, but if it is not related to the "real world" ...
It is explained that it does not work (or not well) in several cases, including the most important cases, which are:
- the absence of a stake of any kind, which would place the "apprentice" in front of his responsibilities.
- the lack of association of ideas with real (and not virtual) “field” situations;
- the lack of a “collaborative” mode in a (group) work;
- Memory. One would think that it could work in cases where one calls upon “the memory”, but without the two points which precede it is very random.
So to compensate for all this, and get the same benefit as traditional education, it will take a BIG motivation.
By cons, for training, I have nothing against. And training is important, but you have to make it happen one day ... Otherwise it is useless.
One that I liked very much kid, it helped me to structure my brain - but it was not only virtual - it was Lego ... And some others of construction of the same type, like model making.
0 x
Attention toxic: GuyGadebois & Sicetaitsimple
But there is nothing meritorious.