If you follow edtech blog or twitter feeds, you likely encountered the description of a recently released study concluding that providing computers to low income middle school students (mostly) did nothing to improve their academic performance. I first encountered the description of this study on TechCrunch. This study has not been published, but has been released as a working paper. I located the paper by way of a search for the authors (the TechCrunch link points you to a site that wants to charge you for the paper).
Since TechCrunch could not argue that placing computers in the homes of families with low income improved academic performance, the authors concluded:
This means that the likely culprit is far more insidious: the family and environment. I taught at-risk youth for years and saw first-hand how parents who didn’t prioritize college paralyzed their eager children. In my home, it was expected that I go to graduate school before I even knew what it was
This conclusion (possibly accurate) reminds me of a study conducted by James Coleman back in the 1960s.
Let me provide a little more detail about the study (read it yourself if you want) and encourage you to come to your own conclusions. This is the type of assignment I like to require of graduate students. I want them to make decisions based on research, but I also want them to consider research with a critical eye.
Farlie and Robinson secured a large number of refurbished Windows computers and made them available to children who had no access to computers at home. They did this in a way that would eliminate concerns often raised with nonmanipulative research. They first identified children without home access and then then gave the computers to half at random (everyone received comparable equipment by the end of the study). This was pretty much it. There were no instructions for parents. I am unsure regarding Internet access but the computers had an ethernet card and modem.
The study found no treatment-related advantage in grades or standardized test scores. In comparison to the control group, the experimental group spent .8 hours more per week using computers for school work, 8. hours more for games, and .6 hours more for social networking. This confused me for a bit, but time at school and the homes of friends counted so all students did have some access. There was no significant difference in time spent on homework.
So, do you reach the same conclusion as the author of the TechCrunch article? I recall a comment (I attribute to Larry Cuban, but I am not certain) that tech advocates do not admit what they propose does little good, they assume that the resources were not sufficient, something was done wrong, etc.
What arguments can you generate that do not fit with this criticism? Would providing some training or suggestions for parents be a good thing to do or would such a suggestion not be a difference associated with SES?
Here is a criticism that occurred to me. I would predict that teachers did nothing to take advantage of the technology made available to students. How could they? Not all students could be assumed to have computers. Hence, little could change with the type of assignments teachers could offer.
