Monday, September 7, 2009

TQ #2

While it certainly appears that these two studies demonstrated failures of technology in the classroom, I'm left wondering what information is missing from the reports. According to the summary of the software study, all the teachers indicated they were instructed in the software and that they understood it. What isn't included in the report is whether the teachers agreed to the study begrudgingly or enthusiastically, or whether they felt ownership of the process or whether they felt this was yet another ridiculous idea foisted upon them by the bureaucrats who had nothing to do with actual classroom teaching. Extrapolating the success or failure of technology use in general would be a mistake.




Wenglinsky research suggests that technology is best used in conjunction with constructivist methods. I didn't see any mention of training the teachers on how to use the software in conjunction with the classroom. Simply showing them how to load the program and make the problems appear would not be sufficient to show any demonstrable progress if, in fact, the software was amenable to constructivist teaching methods.

Technology is meant to augment the ability of humans to perform a certain function, but it needs to be used with understanding and in context. The ancient methods of didactic teaching would not be well served by technology configured for modern constructivist methods any more than a caveman would be served by providing hum with Photoshop to assist in his cave drawings. Ultimately, I think studies like this one are a danger to the cause of instructional technology. It can easily create the impression that technology has no place in the classroom, when the more proper conclusion is that bureaucrats have no place in educational research.

  1. Institute of Educational Sciences (2007) Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from the First Student Cohort. Executive Summary. US Department of Education. Washington, DC.
  2. Institute of Educational Sciences (2008) Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report. Executive Summary. US Department of Education. Washington, DC.
  3. Wenglinsky H. (2005) Using Technology Wisely: The Keys to Success in Schools. Teachers College Press. Columbia University. New York. pp. 43-59
  4. http://xkcd.com/605/

Book choices:
Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future
The Diamond Age or, A Young Lady's Illustrated Prime
(I also picked up The Singularity is Near)

2 comments:

  1. I like your spin on this--that the research is (incorrectly) approached from the standpoint of bureaucrats mandating that technology be integrated with almost prescient knowledge that the results would be unflattering.

    The study design, while sound in it's scientific method, isn't approached from the position of 'how can we improve through technology?', it was more of a 'how does technology affect improvement?' style approach. Here it was 'learn this, apply this, teach this (or don't) and let's see what pops out the other end.' All excellent points, Alex.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alex,
    In politics we call 'em bureaucrats, in education we call 'em administrators. You made some interesting observations, but I think we still need to grapple with the results, imperfect as they are. These are some of the BEST studies in our field (not sayin' much, is it?). LOVE THAT CARTOON! (thanks for the source)

    I'm interested in your reaction to The Diamond Age ... hope you like it!
    --Dr. G

    ReplyDelete