The results of the NCLB mandated evaluation of reading and math software is now available (see press release).
On average, after one year, products did not increase or decrease test scores by amounts that were statistically different from zero.
For reading products, effects on overall test scores were correlated with the student-teacher ratio in first-grade classrooms and with the amount of time that products were used in fourth-grade classrooms.
For math products, effects were uncorrelated with classroom and school characteristics.
The pdf of the full report is available for download.
A report based on a second year of data collection will be released at a later date.
if:book has an interesting post concerning the future of print media – most specifically newspapers. The post references material suggesting that print will be around for a long time for certain applications.
Print reading, he says, tends toward the sustained and immersive, the long-form linear narrative. Computer reading, on the other hand, is multi-tasky — distracted, social, bite-sized, multidirectional. (Cory Doctorow)
The post also includes reference to a new eye-movement study that concludes readers process online stories more extensively than that traditional newspaper format (see if:book link for more information and link). Such data may require careful interpretation – newspaper stories (if I remember how writers create stories) are written in a way that positions important and summary information early within the story and then provide details. Such stories are written to allow readers with different motives to process the stories differently. My point – the media type and the media format may be confounded and this connection must be considered in interpretation.
Back in January, I offered a post concerning the Department of Ed’s attempt to improve the quality of research focused on classroom software. On a lark, I emailed one of the researchers and received assurance that the report (based on research conducted in 2005) would be available in 6 weeks. OK – Jan, Feb. Mar, Apr – and counting.
Today I receive my copy of eSchool news and note that an eSN “exclusive” has now targeted the same issue. Among the many disappointing comments in the eSN article is the revelation that findings will not be broken out by software program but reported as an aggregate. I thought the idea of determining which of the targeted programs worked and which did not was the purpose of this $10 mill mandated study. So, we won’t end up finding out which programs are effective (I guess this removes the concern that EETT money if it is still available will have to be spent on effective software). I also wonder whether the software used in 2004-2005 continues to exist in the format that was evaluated.
EdWeek’s Technology Counts is now available (online). A unique aspect of this year’s issue is that it marks the tenth year of this special issue and anyone interested is invited to view the previous 9 issues.
We have long used this research as a source of basic quantitative data on the technology resources available in schools. While always dated, the data used were fairly standard and it was possible to track change over time.
In recent years, the publication has taken to grading the accomplishments of individual states and even providing a feature allowing comparisons among states. I see that North Dakota was given a D+ in use of technology. This sounds pretty dire and happens to reflect what I would regard as the bottom line issue. I continue to be dissatisfied with how EdWeek operationalizes Use of Technology – student standards include technology, students are tested on knowledge of technology, state has a virtual school, state offers computer-based assessments. Is this what an educator or parent would think of when asked about the educational use of technology? Please call these variables something else. I am interested in whether students make use of technology in learning the subject matter they are expected to master. This goal has little to do with what students are expected to learn about technology, whether technology is used in evaluating their knowledge, or whether they have access to a virtual school. Unfortunately, EdWeek appears focused on data that are easily obtained from state reports, but have little to do with what students do in content area learning.
Blogger Andy Carvin has urged active bloggers to declare today Stop Cyberbullying Day. His declaration was prompted by the case of blogger Kathy Sierra who in some way has prompted the ire of a group that has taken pleasure in harassing and threatening her. While I agree with the sentiment, I wonder about the benefits of the reaction. A rally focused on the evils of cyberbullying seems unlikely to threaten those who engage in such behaviors and may delight those who somehow might assume they have accomplished something in generating such a reaction. I also worry that a simplistic reaction by some may discourage access to blogs in those locations I continue to hope will see personal expression as a positive thing. Easy for me to say I guess – I am hassled by spammers, but not by bullies. Do read Carvin’s post.
A certain type of guilt has been embedded within my academic personality. I credit this to my early academic training. I am tempted to compare this to religious training, but I do not want to be accused of being politically incorrect. If I become excited about something and become an advocate, there is a little voice that constantly challenges me – what evidence do you have? Sometimes I admire those who can advocate without feeling the need to justify. Taking time to establish and communicate supporting evidence slows you down and takes away some of that “cool” from presentations. Well – enough of this public examination of my personal behavior.
I encourage educators to involve their students in content-based multimedia projects. Like any activity that competes for limited classroom time, the issue of impact should be considered. As I have examined in previous posts, this perspective is typically tagged as constructivist in orientation and the efficacy of activities grouped within this category has been challenged. What about counter arguments? This is a struggle. One argument I rely on defines multimedia projects as opportunities to engage in multimedia authoring potentially allowing one to draw upon the writing to learn literature.
I must being experiencing an especially bad case of academic guilt lately because I have felt the need for further justification. From the depths of my many years of experience, I have dredged up another concept – Teaching to Learn. Multimedia authoring resembles teaching to learn – mastering a specific body of information so that you can teach it to someone else. While this argument probably resonates with anyone who teaches, cool and logical sounding ideas still do not satisfy the true test (show me the data). I remember a topic associated with Mastery Learning (a topic that intrigued me many years ago). In some mastery systems, students serve as tutors for other students and the benefits to the tutors (often in college settings) have been examined. For example, Johnson and Ruskin (1977 – note the date here – I take some satisfaction in remembering this book was on my shelf) describe a study comparing the change in GRE scores for psychology majors who did or did not serve as tutors between the occasions on which they took the GRE specialty exam in psychology. The study reported much higher gains for those who served as tutors. Processing information while or so you can help others understand it appears to be beneficial.
One caveat – your mileage many vary. More and more I am convinced that benefits come not from doing an activity, but from doing an activity well. This may speak to the limited success of many constructivist ventures and perhaps to the benefits of uninformed teaching.
Johnson, K. & Ruskin, R. (1977). Behavioral instruction: An evaluative review. Washington, DC: American Psychology Association. (Benefits to proctors is discussed on page 145.)
If you have experimented with or are seriously using web apps (e.g., Google docs and spreadsheets), you may find a post on the ReadWrite blog to be of interest. This post briefly contrasts advantages and disadvantages of browser and Internet based apps vs. offline browser apps (perhaps not a distinction you might recognize – not the same as an offline app such as MS Word). I guess offline browser apps have existed for some time (e.g., Composer), but thinking of the browser as a way to meet general productivity needs is a little different.
I think the educational benefits of online browser apps are obvious – low or no cost and access from multiple locations (if schools allow). What about offline browser apps? I guess that might depend on cost issues.
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
