I was most impressed with the progress of Missouri's eMINTs program. To go from 7% to 80% of third graders reading on grade level in three years is quite impressive.
In looking at the actual assignments, I was a bit disappointed with the level of technology used. One of the assignments in particular described the learners traveling through the body. I was hoping for at least a rudimentary simulation or game where the learner could interact with the inside of a virtual body, but such adventures are left to the student's imagination (or future developers) to conjure. Interactivity is limited to choosing which piece of linear text the student wants to read next. What was present was still useful and interesting; my excessively high expectations are probably a product of having read too much science fiction.
The Wenglinsky book introduces the constructivist as diametrically opposed to the didactic approach, with technology as the ideal tool for pursuing the former (preferred) method. The Missouri example appears to fall somwhere between the two extremes. The students investigate on their own, and create an adventure of traveling through a human body, while at the same time their choices in terms of where to do their research are fairly didactic in nature. I think this shows that we don't necessarily need to choose one or the other, but can pick and choose on the basis of the subject at hand and the needs of the individual learners.
An increase from 7% to 80% in three years is unarguably a huge improvement over existing methods. The strength of this program is most likely the ability of the learner to move at his or her own pace and the concomitant feeling of control over the subject matter that must instill. The open source nature of the project increases its scalability by allowing teachers to share across school, district, and even state boundaries. The ultimate question in technology implementation is probably how much technology to implement; at what point do we move from accelerating returns to diminishing returns? The success of this program leads me to reconsider my ideas about how much technology is appropriate to implement at once.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteeMINTS has been going on for several years now. You may be interested in visiting their website ... maybe adding it to your blog post to share. Feel free to e-mail their director to ask where their current statistics might be found. eMINTS has a great reputation. It would be interesting to see the study that documents the third graders' rise from 7% to 80% increase in three years. That's probably the largest increase I've heard of, and it doesn't seem to be reverberating through the education community as much as it would if those numbers are a true reflection on their progress.
The interactivity of text vs. simulation is an interesting question, and one you may want to discuss with Kevin (who's an expert on learning complex skills through simulation).
The question of constructivist vs. didactic would be an interesting specific question to send to the eMINTS folks!
--Dr. G
Alex, you nailed a couple of thoughts I had right on the head: A) The idea of open-source software, as opposed to commercial software is akin to the independantly produced and commercial "generic" textbook issues; and B) how this relates to scalability. It seems open source would be a better platform for differentiated instruction, rather than the catch-all commercial applications available, and make scalability imminently more feasible by it's ability to be customized.
ReplyDeleteA question I had was the remarkable improvement--seems almost TOO dramatic to me. Are the kids just learning to take the tests really well? Are there patterns in the tests that, like video games, are subconsciously learned? I hate to be suspicious but the numbers are staggering.