Tag: Research

Here is my response

The Gates Tip Line includes a recent post in which the host asks for replies to a teachers negative analysis of Prensky’s comments (I did not see the phrase “engage me or enrage me”, but this is the type of comment that Prensky uses). The host was disappointed with the lack of response to the request for responses to the teacher. I attempted to add a comment, but the options appear to require that you identify yourself through a commercial blog service or OpenID. I will add my comment here. By the time I read the comments, some had already made the effort to reply. I have excerpted one comment I would like to address:

The teacher’s statements above fly in the face of what the last two decades of psychological research have found (which (surprise!) support constructivist models of learning rather than a transmission model of education!). ‘Guide on the side,’ not ‘sage on the stage.’ As much as possible, discovery- and inquiry-based learning rather than lecture and regurgitation.

I don’t like phrases like “regurgitation”. These discussions should be about data and sound judgment. We can leave the defamatory phrases to the politicians. If you mean memorization, say so. I do agree that education should attempt to require more than memorization. Lecturing, like books, is an information delivery system. Hopefully, learners are capable of using information, however they encounter it, as the starting point for learning. The constructivist model, as I understand it, suggests we all understand by attempting to interpret experiences (including lectures I assume) based on our existing personal knowledge.

I would sincerely like to be made aware of the research mentioned here (please provide references). If you have followed my recent and past comments, I have not read what I consider quality research supporting the “child-centered” position. I have read many books and articles on the topic and I have myself added to this material, but these are not research papers. As I have said, I can direct you to reviews of research by Sweller; Chall; Mayer; and Lesgold that are quite critical. You have to consult these reviews for the specific studies that are available. So, there are many studies arguing the negative side of this debate.

Perhaps this is a matter of differences in definition – constructivism and child-centered are difficult to operationalize. I am not attempting to bait anyone here, but since blog hosts are appealing to general readership for help and information. If we can switch the discussion to the data, please help by offering references the rest of us can review. I have already read negative reviews, where are the positive studies?????

Chall, J. (2000). The academic achievement challenge: What really works in the classroom. Guilford.

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.

Lesgold, A. (2001). The nature and methods of learning by doing. American Psychologist, 56(11), 964-973.

Mayer, R. (2001). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14-19.

Loading

Why Johnny Can’t Read

I think I read Flesch’s Why Johnny Can’t Read back in graduate school. For one reason or another, this problem seemed to disappear. Perhaps math and science issues became greater concerns.

Problems with reading proficiency are about to receive more attention. A recent study by the National Endowment for the Arts urges attention to the lack of reading activity once students hit middle school.

“We are doing a better job of teaching kids to read in elementary school. But once they enter adolescence, they fall victim to a general culture which does not encourage or reinforce reading. Because these people then read less, they read less well. Because they read less well, they do more poorly in school, in the job market and in civic life.”

Among the possible causes is the “profileration of electronic media”. The news article I have linked does include statements contending that the research does not include online reading and students may be reading, but reading different types of material.

Loading

Researchers claim Maine’s 1:1 initiative improves achievement

Researchers have released a report evaluating student achievement as a consequence of a 1:1 laptop initiative. The researchers claim quite significant improvements in writing proficiency. At this point I have only had an opportunity to read the executive summary so I may have more to say after I have read the methodology.Maine Laptop Research.

Loading

K12 Back to School Data

This is kind of interesting – the U.S. Census Bureau has compiled a collection of data relevant to the K12 environment under the heading Back to School 2007-2008 (thanks to Ray Schroeder for this lead).

You have to scroll down quite a ways to find the technology section. In looking at the topics (e.g., use of computer or Internet to complete school assignments – 75% and 66%), I continue to be amazed by how dated the sources are on such topics. The government cites data from 2003. I have been trying to remember how I used a computer in 2003. I remember the components were pretty much the same (keyboard, monitor, etc.). I don’t remember Second Life, creating a wiki, creating a wiki within Blackboard, YouTube, free CNN video, Last.FM, slingbox, the iphone, listening to college lectures from MIT and U.C. Berkeley as late night entertainment when I can’t sleep, etc. Now, some of these options may have been available and they escaped by attention, but most are new. Think the stats have changed?

I do appreciate the effort of whomever put together the list. Not his/her fault the data are old.

Loading

AERA 2007

We spent the last week in Chicago and in the journey getting from here to there and back. The event was the American Educational Research Association convention (2007). The one presentation I attended that may be of interest to those who read this blog concerned the evaluation of math and reading software I just described last week. A presenter from Mathematica and a discussant from Stanford considered the results of the first phase of the study. Here are a couple of comments that I found helpful.

Even though the study involved many schools, teachers, and students, treating school and teacher as units of analysis required, based on a power analysis, that the researchers expect an effect size of .15 to regard an effect as significant. In this situation, it was not possible to evaluate the impact of the 16 individual instructional packages that were used and the overall effect of reading or math software did not achieve statistical significance.

Based on tracking functions present in some of the software programs, the researchers estimated that use of the software replaced approximately 10% of traditional instruction. The discussant noted that for approximately $25 per seat (the average cost of the software) it might be argued that 10% of teacher time was freed to attend to the needs of individual students. This “spin” on the results was kind of interesting and at first I thought this to be a positive statement and quite optimistic given the very guarded approach taken by the researchers. However, while potentially true, it would also seem that this flexible time must not have been used productively or achievement gains would have been generated.

The data from the second phase of the study is still under review. The second phase will allow a comment on individual software packages.

Representatives from a couple of software companies were in the audience and noted that the software was implemented with the minimal amount of technical support and inservice preparation. The presenters accepted this description, but countered that this was the level of support that schools normally purchased.

The presenters were careful to stay away from speculating how the results of the research would be interpreted by politicians and policy analysts. The presenters argued that the results could be spun in different ways.

We did have the opportunity for a little recreation. The Sunday before the conference we were able to watch the White Sox and Twins. It was cold, but Santana was pitching for Minnesota and we are becoming big Twins fans. Twins won.

Baseball field

Blogged with Flock

Loading

Research Results are now available.

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.

Loading

Ed Tech Research Under Fire

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.

Loading