From chan at cl.ncu.edu.tw Sat Apr 7 16:07:42 2007 From: chan at cl.ncu.edu.tw (Tak-Wai Chan) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 16:07:42 +0800 Subject: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002201c778eb$d1355710$0101a8c0@Chanx60> Hi, A colleague sent me this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402 715.html In the article, Elliot expressed his worry. Do you think G1:1 community can help something? Regards, Tak-Wai From sherryh at exploratorium.edu Sat Apr 7 21:20:49 2007 From: sherryh at exploratorium.edu (Sherry Hsi) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 06:20:49 -0700 Subject: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US In-Reply-To: <002201c778eb$d1355710$0101a8c0@Chanx60> References: <002201c778eb$d1355710$0101a8c0@Chanx60> Message-ID: Hi Tak-wai, Maybe we could write another response letter and post on our website. (I am afraid to suggest this because I can't take the lead on this.) Here are some things to note: --the length of the study was 1 year...pretty short if you expect teachers to integrate and make into effective practices. --the software they selected to evaluate were practice-oriented/drill-kill packages with little to no immediate student feedback nor student assessment (with exception to the Andersonian cognitive tutor-one of the five packages in the study.) --The teacher training was given by the developers in how to use the software, not how to use the software effectively for pedagogy or content learning. (But then again, you can't do much with limited software.) --The length of the intervention was on average 17 hours in one year--not a big allocation of time. One could use this study as evidence to show that large-scale adoption of poorly designed/shallow software with little professional development to teachers shows no impact, thus better kinds of designed software (e.g., like WISE, Molecular Workbench, GenScope, SimCalc, Geometer's Sketchpad,...), more investment into research on online assessment and meaningful feedback for learners, more effective teacher professional development, and more allocation of time in the curriculum are all needed to make real improvements. Or, one could also use this study as ammunition to say all computer software and education technology in the classroom is evil and school districts are better off investing in more textbooks. Who wants to take the pen? -Sherry > Hi, > >A colleague sent me this: >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402 >715.html > >In the article, Elliot expressed his worry. > >Do you think G1:1 community can help something? > > >Regards, >Tak-Wai > > >_______________________________________________ >connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org >subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> >http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion From soloway at Umich.edu Sat Apr 7 23:43:26 2007 From: soloway at Umich.edu (Elliot Soloway) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 11:43:26 -0400 Subject: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US In-Reply-To: <002201c778eb$d1355710$0101a8c0@Chanx60> Message-ID: <20070407155309.70C8951F028@mail.lst.ncu.edu.tw> This is a VERY serious situation, I fear. This study will be used to attack technology. Whlie we can attack the methodology of the study, that isn't really going to do much good. One flaw that might be corrected immediately is this: the results from the different programs were averaged together because the companies were afraid that their one piece of software would look bad. But, there are clearly some winners and some losers. The companies themselves might be willing to publish the results. I talked with Andrew Trotter, editor of Education Week, and he is working on that angle. It would be great to see that Program X did in fact result in higher test scores. (I know, I know, test scores as a measure are not the greatest, but....you can't fight everything all the time.) They are conducting this study next year. Maybe the teachers will be better next year using the technology - though it is not clear that the teachers will be getting any more professional development. I hate to have "maybe" as an investment strategy, however. What we as a community need to do is to create model 1:1 programs and then do a proper, gold-standard evaluation. Notice that the current study costs $2billion. That's BILLION. To do a randomized, controlled study is clearly very expensive. But, I think that if we had a few model 1:1 implementations, that we could convince the evaluators to join together to pay for the evaluation. Joe Krajcik, Phyllis Blumenfeld, Namsoo and I did a 1:1 almost-gold-standard study. I am attaching the press release about it. I apologize to the community that we haven't written it up for journal publication yet. So, our first task would be to define what would count as a "model implementation." And then we would have to argue that that model implementation is "scalable" -- that such a model is within the reach of typical schools. We can't propose a "hothouse" model where everything is so perfect that it can only exist in a rarefied atmosphere. I close as I began: the poor, urban and rural schools will suffer because of this study since to get federal money in the US one must have "SBR" - scientifically based research -- to justify the value of the intervention. The rich, suburban schools are buying as many computers as they can drink since they know that equipping their children with technology is the right way to prepare them for the future (and they don't need federal money to do so). The digital divide in the US will continue to grow and become a chasm. This study couldn't have come out at a worse time. This is not what our community needed to be faced with. Elliot Elliot Soloway Arthur F. Thurnau Professor Dept. of EECS, College of Engineering 2260 Hayward, Room 3629, CSE Building University of Michgian Ann Arbor, MI 48109 soloway at umich.edu Mobile: 734-355-4098 Fax: 734-786-1221 -----Original Message----- From: discussion-bounces at g1to1.org [mailto:discussion-bounces at g1to1.org] On Behalf Of Tak-Wai Chan Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 4:08 AM To: discussion at g1to1.org Subject: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US Hi, A colleague sent me this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402 715.html In the article, Elliot expressed his worry. Do you think G1:1 community can help something? Regards, Tak-Wai _______________________________________________ connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: press release detroit palm handheld study.doc Type: application/msword Size: 27648 bytes Desc: not available URL: From robert.kozma at sri.com Sun Apr 8 00:01:33 2007 From: robert.kozma at sri.com (Robert Kozma) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 09:01:33 -0700 Subject: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US In-Reply-To: References: <002201c778eb$d1355710$0101a8c0@Chanx60> Message-ID: <033701c7792e$0399b510$0b00a8c0@BobKozma> Sherry, A somewhat different tack is that it is not just the introduction of technology but the institution of other significant structural changes that use technology in order for there to be a significant impact of ICT. In economic analyses, there was a five-year lag between the widespread introduction of ICT in the US economy and its impact on productivity. Despite the widespread use of ICT in the US in the early 90's, it was not until the late 90's when technology was used to restructure businesses, such as the retail sector (in what is sometimes unfortunately called "the Wal-Mart Effect"), that US productivity dramatically increased. Clearly the IES study looked at the use of ICT that was merely pasted on existing education practices. It will take significant ICT-based structural reform in education (and probably more than the 5-year lag in business) before we see significant results. Bob ____________________ Robert B. Kozma, Ph.D. Emeritus Director and Principal Scientist Center for Technology in Learning SRI International 2151 Filbert St. San Francisco, CA 94123 USA CTL Website: http://ctl.sri.com Personal Website: http://robertkozma.com Phone +1 415 292 2471 Mobile +1 415 623 4340 -----Original Message----- From: discussion-bounces at g1to1.org [mailto:discussion-bounces at g1to1.org] On Behalf Of Sherry Hsi Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 6:21 AM To: Tak-Wai Chan; discussion at g1to1.org Subject: Re: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US Hi Tak-wai, Maybe we could write another response letter and post on our website. (I am afraid to suggest this because I can't take the lead on this.) Here are some things to note: --the length of the study was 1 year...pretty short if you expect teachers to integrate and make into effective practices. --the software they selected to evaluate were practice-oriented/drill-kill packages with little to no immediate student feedback nor student assessment (with exception to the Andersonian cognitive tutor-one of the five packages in the study.) --The teacher training was given by the developers in how to use the software, not how to use the software effectively for pedagogy or content learning. (But then again, you can't do much with limited software.) --The length of the intervention was on average 17 hours in one year--not a big allocation of time. One could use this study as evidence to show that large-scale adoption of poorly designed/shallow software with little professional development to teachers shows no impact, thus better kinds of designed software (e.g., like WISE, Molecular Workbench, GenScope, SimCalc, Geometer's Sketchpad,...), more investment into research on online assessment and meaningful feedback for learners, more effective teacher professional development, and more allocation of time in the curriculum are all needed to make real improvements. Or, one could also use this study as ammunition to say all computer software and education technology in the classroom is evil and school districts are better off investing in more textbooks. Who wants to take the pen? -Sherry > Hi, > >A colleague sent me this: >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR200704040 2 >715.html > >In the article, Elliot expressed his worry. > >Do you think G1:1 community can help something? > > >Regards, >Tak-Wai > > >_______________________________________________ >connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org >subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> >http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion _______________________________________________ connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion From rory at athabascau.ca Sun Apr 8 01:55:48 2007 From: rory at athabascau.ca (Rory McGreal) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:55:48 -0600 Subject: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <0JG50BQFX35DW4@local.athabascau.ca> To ALL: I am surprised that community members are surprised by this result. From Clarke pointed out in 1983, that there is "there are no benefits to be gained from employing different media in instruction" Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459. Tom Russell 2001 compiled a bibliography of 355 studies showing "no significant difference". http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/ My view is that this report in fact supports our use of technology. Was there a significant difference in learning when we went from writing on bark to writing on slates? From slates to fountain pens with ink? From fountain pens to biros? From blackboard to greenboards? 'No significant difference" shows us that the traditional classroom environment without technology is no better than any other. If textbooks are no better than courseware AND they are more expensive, then why wouldn't we make the transition. Why pay $150 per child (or more) for texts when we can get high (or low) quality courseware that is just as good for less. As Elliott points out some software did show better results and the differences between the courseware packages used need to be studied. My guess is that this is the same as some teachers in some classrooms doing better than others. The really valid argument that pro-technologists can use successfully with students and parents (not so much with teachers) is that the whole world is embracing technology, technology is part of nearly ALL spheres of human activity, that there can be no modern education without ICTs. As far as some of the drill and practice software is concerned, though it would be better to put all the CDs in a big box, tie a chain around it and use it as an anchor. (And rote drills in the classroom are no better!) Elliott sees the study as a serious problem. I have no idea about educational politics in the US, but my experience in Canada is that schools and politicians (unfortunately) pay little if any attention to educational studies. ALL social science studies are flawed to some degree. Only in the hard sciences can we expect flawless studies. All the best. Rory McGreal AVP Research Athabasca University Elliott Soloway: This is a VERY serious situation, I fear. This study will be used to attack technology. Whlie we can attack the methodology of the study, that isn't really going to do much good. Sherry: Here are some things to note: --the length of the study was 1 year...pretty short if you expect teachers to integrate and make into effective practices. --the software they selected to evaluate were practice-oriented/drill-kill packages with little to no immediate student feedback nor student assessment (with exception to the Andersonian cognitive tutor-one of the five packages in the study.) --The teacher training was given by the developers in how to use the software, not how to use the software effectively for pedagogy or content learning. (But then again, you can't do much with limited software.) --The length of the intervention was on average 17 hours in one year--not a big allocation of time. __ This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or privileged information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take action relying on it. Any communications received in error, or subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed. --- From rory at athabascau.ca Sun Apr 8 02:01:20 2007 From: rory at athabascau.ca (Rory McGreal) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:01:20 -0600 Subject: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US In-Reply-To: <033701c7792e$0399b510$0b00a8c0@BobKozma> Message-ID: <0JG50BQHW3EKW4@local.athabascau.ca> Bob, Economists are still arguing about the cost-effectiveness and/or social impact of introducing railroads to the US in the 19th Century. Was the horseless carriage really better than the horse and carriage? I believe the point is that if the whole world is using technology, why would we allow our schools to remain as technology-deprived anachronistic havens that our children have to escape from in order to experience the modern world. All the best. Rory -----Original Message----- From: discussion-bounces at g1to1.org [mailto:discussion-bounces at g1to1.org] On Behalf Of Robert Kozma Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 10:02 AM To: 'Sherry Hsi'; 'Tak-Wai Chan'; discussion at g1to1.org Subject: RE: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US Sherry, A somewhat different tack is that it is not just the introduction of technology but the institution of other significant structural changes that use technology in order for there to be a significant impact of ICT. In economic analyses, there was a five-year lag between the widespread introduction of ICT in the US economy and its impact on productivity. Despite the widespread use of ICT in the US in the early 90's, it was not until the late 90's when technology was used to restructure businesses, such as the retail sector (in what is sometimes unfortunately called "the Wal-Mart Effect"), that US productivity dramatically increased. Clearly the IES study looked at the use of ICT that was merely pasted on existing education practices. It will take significant ICT-based structural reform in education (and probably more than the 5-year lag in business) before we see significant results. Bob ____________________ Robert B. Kozma, Ph.D. Emeritus Director and Principal Scientist Center for Technology in Learning SRI International 2151 Filbert St. San Francisco, CA 94123 USA CTL Website: http://ctl.sri.com Personal Website: http://robertkozma.com Phone +1 415 292 2471 Mobile +1 415 623 4340 -----Original Message----- From: discussion-bounces at g1to1.org [mailto:discussion-bounces at g1to1.org] On Behalf Of Sherry Hsi Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 6:21 AM To: Tak-Wai Chan; discussion at g1to1.org Subject: Re: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US Hi Tak-wai, Maybe we could write another response letter and post on our website. (I am afraid to suggest this because I can't take the lead on this.) Here are some things to note: --the length of the study was 1 year...pretty short if you expect teachers to integrate and make into effective practices. --the software they selected to evaluate were practice-oriented/drill-kill packages with little to no immediate student feedback nor student assessment (with exception to the Andersonian cognitive tutor-one of the five packages in the study.) --The teacher training was given by the developers in how to use the software, not how to use the software effectively for pedagogy or content learning. (But then again, you can't do much with limited software.) --The length of the intervention was on average 17 hours in one year--not a big allocation of time. One could use this study as evidence to show that large-scale adoption of poorly designed/shallow software with little professional development to teachers shows no impact, thus better kinds of designed software (e.g., like WISE, Molecular Workbench, GenScope, SimCalc, Geometer's Sketchpad,...), more investment into research on online assessment and meaningful feedback for learners, more effective teacher professional development, and more allocation of time in the curriculum are all needed to make real improvements. Or, one could also use this study as ammunition to say all computer software and education technology in the classroom is evil and school districts are better off investing in more textbooks. Who wants to take the pen? -Sherry > Hi, > >A colleague sent me this: >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR200704040 2 >715.html > >In the article, Elliot expressed his worry. > >Do you think G1:1 community can help something? > > >Regards, >Tak-Wai > > >_______________________________________________ >connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org >subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> >http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion _______________________________________________ connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion _______________________________________________ connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion __ This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or privileged information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take action relying on it. Any communications received in error, or subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed. --- From tatar at cs.vt.edu Sun Apr 8 05:03:40 2007 From: tatar at cs.vt.edu (Deborah Tatar) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 17:03:40 -0400 Subject: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US In-Reply-To: <0JG50BQHW3EKW4@local.athabascau.ca> References: <0JG50BQHW3EKW4@local.athabascau.ca> Message-ID: <5300A987-5575-4C6D-90D2-2CC1565FDFD1@cs.vt.edu> The form of our response is really quite important here because we have to be very simple and clear in our message. I see two elements to this: (1) I believe that, while the 1:1 community can and should frame a response, the most important issue here is not 1:1 computing, or technology in general, or even experimental validity, but narrowly conceived outcome measures. There was a recent article in Educational Researcher claiming that learning has only taken place when there are changes in long term memory, with an unstated and unbacked assumption that (a) we can in fact detect such changes using simple tests and (b) when no such changes are detected through these simple measures nothing of importance has taken place. Claims like this unravel the cognitive revolution and devalue achievements in the learning sciences of the last thirty years. Of course, the averaging of the different programs under evaluation is disgraceful, but the battle for equity that Elliot is talking about will not be won through technology alone or primarily, but through keeping our eyes on the nature of learning. We believe in 1:1 computing, not because of a blind faith in technology nor because we think that all 1:1 technologies are good, but because it provides many pragmatic and pedagogically sound avenues for scaffolding learning in all its rich complexity. If scientifically-based evaluation is undertaken, it must be subject to the same validity considerations as any other scientific enterprise: not one "gold standard" but replication with variation across settings, persons, treatments, and constructs. (2) This leads us to the second point: money. What we have in the United States is an economically created constriction of competition on scientific studies. If people want scientifically based research, they need to pay for it. Millions or billions, they need to pay to do it right, and doing it right means replication, replication, replication---with variation. I note that we have recently submitted the results of our first year Scaling Up SimCalc study to Science. We can't really talk about the results until they come out, but they are very nice. However, even these do not stand alone. These results are built on many previous studies in different teaching venues with different technological platforms, variations on curriculum and assessment constructs. They are also built on a highly successful pilot and a conceptualization of Scaling Up that includes accounting for variation in outcome as well as overall success. In any case, we definitely do not want to create a situation in which we box ourselves in methodologically or otherwise tie our hands in non-essential ways. Cheers, D. Deborah Tatar, Ph. D. Associate Professor of Computer Science and, by courtesy, Psychology 2202 Kraft Dr., Room 123 Blacksburg, VA 2401 (540)231-8457 (office) (540)231-9218 (fax) tatar at cs.vt.edu On Apr 7, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Rory McGreal wrote: > Bob, > Economists are still arguing about the cost-effectiveness and/or > social > impact of introducing railroads to the US in the 19th Century. Was the > horseless carriage really better than the horse and carriage? I > believe the > point is that if the whole world is using technology, why would we > allow our > schools to remain as technology-deprived anachronistic havens that our > children have to escape from in order to experience the modern world. > All the best. > Rory > > -----Original Message----- > From: discussion-bounces at g1to1.org [mailto:discussion- > bounces at g1to1.org] On > Behalf Of Robert Kozma > Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 10:02 AM > To: 'Sherry Hsi'; 'Tak-Wai Chan'; discussion at g1to1.org > Subject: RE: News of evaluating commercial educational software in > the US > > Sherry, > > A somewhat different tack is that it is not just the introduction of > technology but the institution of other significant structural > changes that > use technology in order for there to be a significant impact of > ICT. In > economic analyses, there was a five-year lag between the widespread > introduction of ICT in the US economy and its impact on productivity. > Despite the widespread use of ICT in the US in the early 90's, it > was not > until the late 90's when technology was used to restructure > businesses, such > as the retail sector (in what is sometimes unfortunately called "the > Wal-Mart Effect"), that US productivity dramatically increased. > > Clearly the IES study looked at the use of ICT that was merely > pasted on > existing education practices. It will take significant ICT-based > structural > reform in education (and probably more than the 5-year lag in > business) > before we see significant results. > > Bob > > > ____________________ > > Robert B. Kozma, Ph.D. > Emeritus Director and Principal Scientist > Center for Technology in Learning > SRI International > 2151 Filbert St. > San Francisco, CA 94123 > USA > > CTL Website: http://ctl.sri.com > Personal Website: http://robertkozma.com > > Phone +1 415 292 2471 > Mobile +1 415 623 4340 > -----Original Message----- > From: discussion-bounces at g1to1.org [mailto:discussion- > bounces at g1to1.org] On > Behalf Of Sherry Hsi > Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 6:21 AM > To: Tak-Wai Chan; discussion at g1to1.org > Subject: Re: News of evaluating commercial educational software in > the US > > Hi Tak-wai, > > Maybe we could write another response letter and post on our website. > (I am afraid to suggest this because I can't take the lead on this.) > > Here are some things to note: > --the length of the study was 1 year...pretty short if you expect > teachers to integrate and make into effective practices. > --the software they selected to evaluate were > practice-oriented/drill-kill packages with little to no immediate > student feedback nor student assessment (with exception to the > Andersonian cognitive tutor-one of the five packages in the study.) > --The teacher training was given by the developers in how to use the > software, not how to use the software effectively for pedagogy or > content learning. (But then again, you can't do much with limited > software.) > --The length of the intervention was on average 17 hours in one > year--not a big allocation of time. > > One could use this study as evidence to show that large-scale > adoption of poorly designed/shallow software with little professional > development to teachers shows no impact, thus better kinds of > designed software (e.g., like WISE, Molecular Workbench, GenScope, > SimCalc, Geometer's Sketchpad,...), more investment into research on > online assessment and meaningful feedback for learners, more > effective teacher professional development, and more allocation of > time in the curriculum are all needed to make real improvements. > > Or, one could also use this study as ammunition to say all computer > software and education technology in the classroom is evil and school > districts are better off investing in more textbooks. > > Who wants to take the pen? > > -Sherry > >> Hi, >> >> A colleague sent me this: >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/ >> AR200704040 > 2 >> 715.html >> >> In the article, Elliot expressed his worry. >> >> Do you think G1:1 community can help something? >> >> >> Regards, >> Tak-Wai >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org >> subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> >> http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > > _______________________________________________ > connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org > subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> > http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > > _______________________________________________ > connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org > subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> > http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > > > __ > This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to > whom it > is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or > privileged > information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the > intended > recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, > or take > action relying on it. Any communications received in error, or > subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed. > --- > _______________________________________________ > connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org > subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> http:// > mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion From gjhwang at mail.nutn.edu.tw Sun Apr 8 08:53:09 2007 From: gjhwang at mail.nutn.edu.tw (=?UTF-8?Q?Gwo-Jen_Hwang_=28=E9=BB=83=E5=9C=8B=E7=A6=8E=29?=) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 08:53:09 +0800 Subject: The key to improve the learning achivement of students is not only the software References: <0JG50BQHW3EKW4@local.athabascau.ca> <5300A987-5575-4C6D-90D2-2CC1565FDFD1@cs.vt.edu> Message-ID: <002401c77978$473f36b0$1b01a8c0@your158524a61c> Dear all, The article provides an interesting but incorrect (at least I think so) aspect of the effectiveness of using technology in the classroom. Based on the experieces of applying software or information technology to the courses of elementary schools, I have the following conclusions: 1. In most cases, the effectiveness of using technology in the classroom can not be measured with scores of tests; the training of problem-solving ability is also an imporrtant benifit. 2. The key to improve the learning achivement of students is not only the software, but also the learning activities designed and how the educational software promoted by the teachers. It is not practical to ask the students to use educational software without any learning design. In Taiwan, we have trained the elementary school teachers to design learning activities with educational software and learn how to effectively use educational software in their classes for several years. One can not expect that the students will pay their attentions to learn with the educational software without any guidance or learning activities provided by the teacher. 3. In fact, in the past five years, we found that well designed learning activities with properly selected software were helpful to the students in improving their learning achivements in Taiwan. Sincerely Yours, Gwo-Jen Hwang(???) Department of Information and Learning Technology National University of Tainan 33, Sec. 2, Shulin St.,Tainan city 70005, Taiwan, R.O.C. TEL: 886-915396558 FAX: 886-6-3017001 E-mail: gjhwang at mail.nutn.edu.tw http://web.nutn.edu.tw/el/gjhwang/Chinese_index.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Tatar" To: Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 5:03 AM Subject: Re: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US > The form of our response is really quite important here because we > have to be very simple and clear in our message. I see two > elements to this: > > (1) I believe that, while the 1:1 community can and should frame a > response, the most important issue here is not 1:1 computing, or > technology in general, or even experimental validity, but narrowly > conceived outcome measures. There was a recent article in > Educational Researcher claiming that learning has only taken place > when there are changes in long term memory, with an unstated and > unbacked assumption that (a) we can in fact detect such changes using > simple tests and (b) when no such changes are detected through these > simple measures nothing of importance has taken place. Claims like > this unravel the cognitive revolution and devalue achievements in the > learning sciences of the last thirty years. > > Of course, the averaging of the different programs under evaluation > is disgraceful, but the battle for equity that Elliot is talking > about will not be won through technology alone or primarily, but > through keeping our eyes on the nature of learning. We believe in > 1:1 computing, not because of a blind faith in technology nor because > we think that all 1:1 technologies are good, but because it provides > many pragmatic and pedagogically sound avenues for scaffolding > learning in all its rich complexity. > > If scientifically-based evaluation is undertaken, it must be subject > to the same validity considerations as any other scientific > enterprise: not one "gold standard" but replication with variation > across settings, persons, treatments, and constructs. > > (2) This leads us to the second point: money. What we have in the > United States is an economically created constriction of competition > on scientific studies. If people want scientifically based research, > they need to pay for it. Millions or billions, they need to pay to > do it right, and doing it right means replication, replication, > replication---with variation. > > I note that we have recently submitted the results of our first year > Scaling Up SimCalc study to Science. We can't really talk about the > results until they come out, but they are very nice. However, even > these do not stand alone. These results are built on many previous > studies in different teaching venues with different technological > platforms, variations on curriculum and assessment constructs. They > are also built on a highly successful pilot and a conceptualization > of Scaling Up that includes accounting for variation in outcome as > well as overall success. > > In any case, we definitely do not want to create a situation in > which we box ourselves in methodologically or otherwise tie our hands > in non-essential ways. > > Cheers, > D. > > Deborah Tatar, Ph. D. > Associate Professor of Computer Science and, by courtesy, Psychology > 2202 Kraft Dr., Room 123 > Blacksburg, VA 2401 > (540)231-8457 (office) > (540)231-9218 (fax) > tatar at cs.vt.edu > > > > On Apr 7, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Rory McGreal wrote: > >> Bob, >> Economists are still arguing about the cost-effectiveness and/or >> social >> impact of introducing railroads to the US in the 19th Century. Was the >> horseless carriage really better than the horse and carriage? I >> believe the >> point is that if the whole world is using technology, why would we >> allow our >> schools to remain as technology-deprived anachronistic havens that our >> children have to escape from in order to experience the modern world. >> All the best. >> Rory >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: discussion-bounces at g1to1.org [mailto:discussion- >> bounces at g1to1.org] On >> Behalf Of Robert Kozma >> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 10:02 AM >> To: 'Sherry Hsi'; 'Tak-Wai Chan'; discussion at g1to1.org >> Subject: RE: News of evaluating commercial educational software in >> the US >> >> Sherry, >> >> A somewhat different tack is that it is not just the introduction of >> technology but the institution of other significant structural >> changes that >> use technology in order for there to be a significant impact of >> ICT. In >> economic analyses, there was a five-year lag between the widespread >> introduction of ICT in the US economy and its impact on productivity. >> Despite the widespread use of ICT in the US in the early 90's, it >> was not >> until the late 90's when technology was used to restructure >> businesses, such >> as the retail sector (in what is sometimes unfortunately called "the >> Wal-Mart Effect"), that US productivity dramatically increased. >> >> Clearly the IES study looked at the use of ICT that was merely >> pasted on >> existing education practices. It will take significant ICT-based >> structural >> reform in education (and probably more than the 5-year lag in >> business) >> before we see significant results. >> >> Bob >> >> >> ____________________ >> >> Robert B. Kozma, Ph.D. >> Emeritus Director and Principal Scientist >> Center for Technology in Learning >> SRI International >> 2151 Filbert St. >> San Francisco, CA 94123 >> USA >> >> CTL Website: http://ctl.sri.com >> Personal Website: http://robertkozma.com >> >> Phone +1 415 292 2471 >> Mobile +1 415 623 4340 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: discussion-bounces at g1to1.org [mailto:discussion- >> bounces at g1to1.org] On >> Behalf Of Sherry Hsi >> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 6:21 AM >> To: Tak-Wai Chan; discussion at g1to1.org >> Subject: Re: News of evaluating commercial educational software in >> the US >> >> Hi Tak-wai, >> >> Maybe we could write another response letter and post on our website. >> (I am afraid to suggest this because I can't take the lead on this.) >> >> Here are some things to note: >> --the length of the study was 1 year...pretty short if you expect >> teachers to integrate and make into effective practices. >> --the software they selected to evaluate were >> practice-oriented/drill-kill packages with little to no immediate >> student feedback nor student assessment (with exception to the >> Andersonian cognitive tutor-one of the five packages in the study.) >> --The teacher training was given by the developers in how to use the >> software, not how to use the software effectively for pedagogy or >> content learning. (But then again, you can't do much with limited >> software.) >> --The length of the intervention was on average 17 hours in one >> year--not a big allocation of time. >> >> One could use this study as evidence to show that large-scale >> adoption of poorly designed/shallow software with little professional >> development to teachers shows no impact, thus better kinds of >> designed software (e.g., like WISE, Molecular Workbench, GenScope, >> SimCalc, Geometer's Sketchpad,...), more investment into research on >> online assessment and meaningful feedback for learners, more >> effective teacher professional development, and more allocation of >> time in the curriculum are all needed to make real improvements. >> >> Or, one could also use this study as ammunition to say all computer >> software and education technology in the classroom is evil and school >> districts are better off investing in more textbooks. >> >> Who wants to take the pen? >> >> -Sherry >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> A colleague sent me this: >>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/ >>> AR200704040 >> 2 >>> 715.html >>> >>> In the article, Elliot expressed his worry. >>> >>> Do you think G1:1 community can help something? >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Tak-Wai >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org >>> subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> >>> http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion >> >> _______________________________________________ >> connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org >> subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> >> http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion >> >> _______________________________________________ >> connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org >> subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> >> http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion >> >> >> __ >> This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to >> whom it >> is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or >> privileged >> information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the >> intended >> recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, >> or take >> action relying on it. Any communications received in error, or >> subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed. >> --- >> _______________________________________________ >> connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org >> subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> http:// >> mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > > _______________________________________________ > connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org > subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> > http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > From mres at media.mit.edu Sun Apr 8 02:37:15 2007 From: mres at media.mit.edu (Mitchel Resnick) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:37:15 -0400 Subject: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US In-Reply-To: <0JG50BQFX35DW4@local.athabascau.ca> References: <0JG50BQFX35DW4@local.athabascau.ca> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20070407141921.04267eb0@imap.media.mit.edu> I think it's useful to consider the oft-used analogy to the early days of cinema.... As most of you undoubtedly know, early movies were made by setting up cameras in front of theater productions. If you did a study of people who watched early movies, most probably would have said that they preferred going to the theater. These movies-of-theater-productions might have won over theater on economic grounds, since movies are easier to copy and disseminate than theater productions. But that misses the most important point: the real power of movies came when film-makers developed new forms of storytelling -- very different from putting a camera in front of a theater production. I think the situation is similar with the educational software tested in this study. Although I'm not familiar with the software in the study, my guess is that most of it teaches the same old stuff in the same old way (but uses the computer as a new delivery medium). It is possible that the new technology might win on economic grounds over textbooks, even if the learning is not better. But that misses the point. The true power of new technology is that it allows us to rethink what students can and should learn, and how they learn it (through new types of design activities, experimentation, etc.). If we don't use new technology to fundamentally rethink our approaches to learning and education, then I'm not very interested. I'd rather spend my time and energy arguing for new approaches to learning and education, not simply introduction of technology. M.... At 01:55 PM 4/7/2007, Rory McGreal wrote: >To ALL: >I am surprised that community members are surprised by this result. From >Clarke pointed out in 1983, that there is "there are no benefits to be >gained from employing different media in instruction" > >Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of >Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459. > >Tom Russell 2001 compiled a bibliography of 355 studies showing "no >significant difference". >http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/ > >My view is that this report in fact supports our use of technology. Was >there a significant difference in learning when we went from writing on bark >to writing on slates? From slates to fountain pens with ink? From fountain >pens to biros? From blackboard to greenboards? > >'No significant difference" shows us that the traditional classroom >environment without technology is no better than any other. If textbooks are >no better than courseware AND they are more expensive, then why wouldn't we >make the transition. Why pay $150 per child (or more) for texts when we can >get high (or low) quality courseware that is just as good for less. As > >Elliott points out some software did show better results and the differences >between the courseware packages used need to be studied. My guess is that >this is the same as some teachers in some classrooms doing better than >others. > >The really valid argument that pro-technologists can use successfully with >students and parents (not so much with teachers) is that the whole world is >embracing technology, technology is part of nearly ALL spheres of human >activity, that there can be no modern education without ICTs. > >As far as some of the drill and practice software is concerned, though it >would be better to put all the CDs in a big box, tie a chain around it and >use it as an anchor. (And rote drills in the classroom are no better!) > >Elliott sees the study as a serious problem. I have no idea about >educational politics in the US, but my experience in Canada is that schools >and politicians (unfortunately) pay little if any attention to educational >studies. > >ALL social science studies are flawed to some degree. Only in the hard >sciences can we expect flawless studies. > >All the best. >Rory McGreal > >AVP Research >Athabasca University > > >Elliott Soloway: > >This is a VERY serious situation, I fear. >This study will be used to attack technology. >Whlie we can attack the methodology of the study, that isn't really going to >do much good. > >Sherry: > >Here are some things to note: >--the length of the study was 1 year...pretty short if you expect >teachers to integrate and make into effective practices. >--the software they selected to evaluate were >practice-oriented/drill-kill packages with little to no immediate >student feedback nor student assessment (with exception to the >Andersonian cognitive tutor-one of the five packages in the study.) >--The teacher training was given by the developers in how to use the >software, not how to use the software effectively for pedagogy or >content learning. (But then again, you can't do much with limited >software.) >--The length of the intervention was on average 17 hours in one >year--not a big allocation of time. > > > >__ > This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to whom it > is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or privileged > information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended > recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take > action relying on it. Any communications received in error, or > subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed. >--- >_______________________________________________ >connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org >subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> >http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion ------------------------------------- Mitchel Resnick mres at media.mit.edu http://www.media.mit.edu/~mres From joel_josephson at kindersite.org Sun Apr 8 04:43:51 2007 From: joel_josephson at kindersite.org (Kindersite Joel) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 22:43:51 +0200 Subject: Education Foundation of Europe - Introduction Message-ID: <03e201c77955$75f0e0d0$f80119ac@770V> I am asking for your kind support for a new initiative. The initiative is called 'The Education Foundation of Europe' but the reality is that the founding group wishes to build an NGO that can reach out globally to all. It has been launched by a group of senior educators within Europe who have worked and networked together over a number of years on educational projects funded by the European Union. The foundation will be looking to effect real changes in education by: a. Knowledge transference b. Knowledge comparison c. Cross-fertilization and pollinization d. Innovation and technology The foundation will achieve these missions by: a. Carrying out education projects based on international partnerships b. Educational knowledge transference and comparison, to and from, developed and developing nations c. Cross-fertilization and cross-pollinization across national boundaries I have placed an Executuve Summary and the full document in Pdf format, on the Internet at: http://www.world-education-database.org/Download.htm (if there is a problem downloading, please feel free to contact me to receive the document as an attachment). I am asking for your support by allowing us to add your name to the list of 'Educators with an Interest' (you will find the first list on Page 3 of the documents) If you wish to be added to the list, please reply directly to me with your: 1. Name 2. Profession 3. City/Country 4. Institution Best regards Joel H Josephson. Executive Director http://www.kindersite.org joel_josephson (AT] kindersite.org Where children play and teachers learn Stockholm Prize Finalists European Union Projects: Don?t Give Up, ALL, TOOL2, Chain Stories, Languages from the Cradle, FaceIt From joel_josephson at kindersite.org Sun Apr 8 13:37:26 2007 From: joel_josephson at kindersite.org (Kindersite Joel) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 07:37:26 +0200 Subject: The key to improve the learning achivement of students is notonly the software References: <0JG50BQHW3EKW4@local.athabascau.ca><5300A987-5575-4C6D-90D2-2CC1565FDFD1@cs.vt.edu> <002401c77978$473f36b0$1b01a8c0@your158524a61c> Message-ID: <012b01c7799f$ff5f11d0$f80119ac@770V> I would like to add to the discussion by refering to my personal experiences with the Kindersite Project www.kindersite.org . Initially (October 2003) the Kindersite was placed on the web in the hope of helping to introduce very young children to technology. Since then, it has been adopted as a tool to engage and motivate children in the learning of English as a first and second language, also special needs educators use it to enhance communication skills for a range of disabilities. The Kindersite has received registrations from 17,100 schools in 150 countries. How effective the Kindersite is as a learning tool I cannot evaluate properly as only a single study has been completed, to date, on usage of the content, (USING DIGITAL STORIES TO IMPROVE LISTENING COMPREHENSION WITH SPANISH YOUNG LEARNERS OF ENGLISH - Dolores Ram?rez Verdugo and Isabel Alonso Belmonte, Universidad Aut?noma de Madrid, Spain http://llt.msu.edu/vol11num1/ramirez/default.html ). I can say from the considerable feedback I receive, plus a very basic survey of users, that teachers find and use items of content that fit within their lesson plans to enhance a teaching unit. When I launched the Kindersite I can undersome criticism from opponents of young children using technology and I wrote a short essay that tried to cover some of the for/against points but my conclusion I include below, the full essay is available at http://www.kindersite.org/PDF/Do%20we%20introduce%20computers%20to%20children.pdf. < My opinion is that large-scale research in to the issues needs to be carried out. Not on the scale of a few dozen subjects over weeks as many examples of current research do, but thousands or even tens of thousands of subjects over years. These subjects need to be from 2 years to 8 years old. They need to be widely dispersed geographically. Come from all levels of the social and attainment spectrum. In fact technology and the Internet is a perfect platform to carry out this type of research. I believe that only significant research that studies thousands of subject children over a long-term, years probably, will allow the educational community to really gain full and meaningful answers to the questions such as: 1. Does the early introduction of digital content positively or negatively affect young children? 2. What should be the parameters of the introduction (if any)? 3. What content types should be employed within the introductory process? 4. What constitutes 'good' or 'bad' content and why? 5. What parameters define 'good' or 'bad' content? As a result of sustained and profound research, guidelines should be drawn. These guidelines should offer teachers and parents tried and tested parameters for the use of computers for their children at each age level. It should include areas such as; how long should a child use a computer over a period, maximum and minimum attainment levels to be expected for each age group based on set proficiency standards, how digital content should be integrated in to standard lesson plans in a similar way that other media is used. Most importantly, set standards for educational content providers must be laid down that they must adhere to if they wish to produce educational content utilizable by educators. In addition all young children?s? content, educational or leisure should be labeled with its appropriateness for each age group. These standards should be defined by the research. In conclusion, it is fairly obvious that computer based educational content is becoming a feature of schools, whether we like it or not. In the home we see increasing evidence that even the smallest children are gaining access to computers either with parents or through watching older siblings. It is unreasonable to expect to turn back the clock and bar children below a certain age from computers, this is unenforceable and ineffective. It is our duty to ensure that clear usage standards are set, content guidelines are drawn and sites rated at a governmental level so that children, parents, caregivers and educators have a clear and safe basis for using computers and the Internet with their charges. Anything less is an abrogation of all our responsibility. Joel H Josephson. Executive Director http://www.kindersite.org joel_josephson at kindersite.org Where children play and teachers learn Stockholm Prize Finalists European Union Projects: Don?t Give Up, ALL, TOOL2, Chain Stories, Languages from the Cradle, FaceIt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gwo-Jen Hwang (???)" To: "Deborah Tatar" ; Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 2:53 AM Subject: Re: The key to improve the learning achivement of students is notonly the software > Dear all, > The article provides an interesting but incorrect (at least I think > so) > aspect of the effectiveness of using technology in the classroom. Based on > the experieces of applying software or information technology to the > courses > of elementary schools, I have the following conclusions: > 1. In most cases, the effectiveness of using technology in the classroom > can > not be measured with scores of tests; the training of problem-solving > ability is also an imporrtant benifit. > 2. The key to improve the learning achivement of students is not only the > software, but also the learning activities designed and how the > educational > software promoted by the teachers. It is not practical to ask the students > to use educational software without any learning design. In Taiwan, we > have > trained the elementary school teachers to design learning activities with > educational software and learn how to effectively use educational software > in their classes for several years. One can not expect that the students > will pay their attentions to learn with the educational software without > any > guidance or learning activities provided by the teacher. > 3. In fact, in the past five years, we found that well designed learning > activities with properly selected software were helpful to the students in > improving their learning achivements in Taiwan. > > Sincerely Yours, > Gwo-Jen Hwang(???) > Department of Information and Learning Technology > National University of Tainan > 33, Sec. 2, Shulin St.,Tainan city 70005, Taiwan, R.O.C. > TEL: 886-915396558 > FAX: 886-6-3017001 > E-mail: gjhwang at mail.nutn.edu.tw > http://web.nutn.edu.tw/el/gjhwang/Chinese_index.htm > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Deborah Tatar" > To: > Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 5:03 AM > Subject: Re: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US > > >> The form of our response is really quite important here because we >> have to be very simple and clear in our message. I see two >> elements to this: >> >> (1) I believe that, while the 1:1 community can and should frame a >> response, the most important issue here is not 1:1 computing, or >> technology in general, or even experimental validity, but narrowly >> conceived outcome measures. There was a recent article in >> Educational Researcher claiming that learning has only taken place >> when there are changes in long term memory, with an unstated and >> unbacked assumption that (a) we can in fact detect such changes using >> simple tests and (b) when no such changes are detected through these >> simple measures nothing of importance has taken place. Claims like >> this unravel the cognitive revolution and devalue achievements in the >> learning sciences of the last thirty years. >> >> Of course, the averaging of the different programs under evaluation >> is disgraceful, but the battle for equity that Elliot is talking >> about will not be won through technology alone or primarily, but >> through keeping our eyes on the nature of learning. We believe in >> 1:1 computing, not because of a blind faith in technology nor because >> we think that all 1:1 technologies are good, but because it provides >> many pragmatic and pedagogically sound avenues for scaffolding >> learning in all its rich complexity. >> >> If scientifically-based evaluation is undertaken, it must be subject >> to the same validity considerations as any other scientific >> enterprise: not one "gold standard" but replication with variation >> across settings, persons, treatments, and constructs. >> >> (2) This leads us to the second point: money. What we have in the >> United States is an economically created constriction of competition >> on scientific studies. If people want scientifically based research, >> they need to pay for it. Millions or billions, they need to pay to >> do it right, and doing it right means replication, replication, >> replication---with variation. >> >> I note that we have recently submitted the results of our first year >> Scaling Up SimCalc study to Science. We can't really talk about the >> results until they come out, but they are very nice. However, even >> these do not stand alone. These results are built on many previous >> studies in different teaching venues with different technological >> platforms, variations on curriculum and assessment constructs. They >> are also built on a highly successful pilot and a conceptualization >> of Scaling Up that includes accounting for variation in outcome as >> well as overall success. >> >> In any case, we definitely do not want to create a situation in >> which we box ourselves in methodologically or otherwise tie our hands >> in non-essential ways. >> >> Cheers, >> D. >> >> Deborah Tatar, Ph. D. >> Associate Professor of Computer Science and, by courtesy, Psychology >> 2202 Kraft Dr., Room 123 >> Blacksburg, VA 2401 >> (540)231-8457 (office) >> (540)231-9218 (fax) >> tatar at cs.vt.edu >> >> >> >> On Apr 7, 2007, at 2:01 PM, Rory McGreal wrote: >> >>> Bob, >>> Economists are still arguing about the cost-effectiveness and/or >>> social >>> impact of introducing railroads to the US in the 19th Century. Was the >>> horseless carriage really better than the horse and carriage? I >>> believe the >>> point is that if the whole world is using technology, why would we >>> allow our >>> schools to remain as technology-deprived anachronistic havens that our >>> children have to escape from in order to experience the modern world. >>> All the best. >>> Rory >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: discussion-bounces at g1to1.org [mailto:discussion- >>> bounces at g1to1.org] On >>> Behalf Of Robert Kozma >>> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 10:02 AM >>> To: 'Sherry Hsi'; 'Tak-Wai Chan'; discussion at g1to1.org >>> Subject: RE: News of evaluating commercial educational software in >>> the US >>> >>> Sherry, >>> >>> A somewhat different tack is that it is not just the introduction of >>> technology but the institution of other significant structural >>> changes that >>> use technology in order for there to be a significant impact of >>> ICT. In >>> economic analyses, there was a five-year lag between the widespread >>> introduction of ICT in the US economy and its impact on productivity. >>> Despite the widespread use of ICT in the US in the early 90's, it >>> was not >>> until the late 90's when technology was used to restructure >>> businesses, such >>> as the retail sector (in what is sometimes unfortunately called "the >>> Wal-Mart Effect"), that US productivity dramatically increased. >>> >>> Clearly the IES study looked at the use of ICT that was merely >>> pasted on >>> existing education practices. It will take significant ICT-based >>> structural >>> reform in education (and probably more than the 5-year lag in >>> business) >>> before we see significant results. >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> >>> ____________________ >>> >>> Robert B. Kozma, Ph.D. >>> Emeritus Director and Principal Scientist >>> Center for Technology in Learning >>> SRI International >>> 2151 Filbert St. >>> San Francisco, CA 94123 >>> USA >>> >>> CTL Website: http://ctl.sri.com >>> Personal Website: http://robertkozma.com >>> >>> Phone +1 415 292 2471 >>> Mobile +1 415 623 4340 >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: discussion-bounces at g1to1.org [mailto:discussion- >>> bounces at g1to1.org] On >>> Behalf Of Sherry Hsi >>> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 6:21 AM >>> To: Tak-Wai Chan; discussion at g1to1.org >>> Subject: Re: News of evaluating commercial educational software in >>> the US >>> >>> Hi Tak-wai, >>> >>> Maybe we could write another response letter and post on our website. >>> (I am afraid to suggest this because I can't take the lead on this.) >>> >>> Here are some things to note: >>> --the length of the study was 1 year...pretty short if you expect >>> teachers to integrate and make into effective practices. >>> --the software they selected to evaluate were >>> practice-oriented/drill-kill packages with little to no immediate >>> student feedback nor student assessment (with exception to the >>> Andersonian cognitive tutor-one of the five packages in the study.) >>> --The teacher training was given by the developers in how to use the >>> software, not how to use the software effectively for pedagogy or >>> content learning. (But then again, you can't do much with limited >>> software.) >>> --The length of the intervention was on average 17 hours in one >>> year--not a big allocation of time. >>> >>> One could use this study as evidence to show that large-scale >>> adoption of poorly designed/shallow software with little professional >>> development to teachers shows no impact, thus better kinds of >>> designed software (e.g., like WISE, Molecular Workbench, GenScope, >>> SimCalc, Geometer's Sketchpad,...), more investment into research on >>> online assessment and meaningful feedback for learners, more >>> effective teacher professional development, and more allocation of >>> time in the curriculum are all needed to make real improvements. >>> >>> Or, one could also use this study as ammunition to say all computer >>> software and education technology in the classroom is evil and school >>> districts are better off investing in more textbooks. >>> >>> Who wants to take the pen? >>> >>> -Sherry >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> A colleague sent me this: >>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/ >>>> AR200704040 >>> 2 >>>> 715.html >>>> >>>> In the article, Elliot expressed his worry. >>>> >>>> Do you think G1:1 community can help something? >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Tak-Wai >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org >>>> subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> >>>> http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org >>> subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> >>> http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org >>> subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> >>> http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion >>> >>> >>> __ >>> This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to >>> whom it >>> is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or >>> privileged >>> information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the >>> intended >>> recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, >>> or take >>> action relying on it. Any communications received in error, or >>> subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed. >>> --- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org >>> subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> http:// >>> mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion >> >> _______________________________________________ >> connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org >> subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> >> http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion >> > > > _______________________________________________ > connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org > subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> > http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > From d.laurillard at mac.com Sun Apr 8 05:24:48 2007 From: d.laurillard at mac.com (Diana Laurillard) Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 22:24:48 +0100 Subject: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US In-Reply-To: <0JG50BQHW3EKW4@local.athabascau.ca> References: <0JG50BQHW3EKW4@local.athabascau.ca> Message-ID: <42F5D1BA-4183-4346-ADE1-6AD9397CD4B5@mac.com> Studies of this kind surely do not help, but there are some good counter-arguments already laid out in the responses so far. The most fundamental problem we have, I suggest, is the origin of the study. Note that "Congress asked whether technology was effective" (Exec Sum, xv). There's our problem, right there. It's like asking whether books are effective, or whether paper is effective. It depends... it depends... There will always be dumb answers if the question is dumb. With that question, the methodology is necessarily experimental - are books effective? - let's test this by comparing classrooms with and without selected books, where those without may use "other technology products that may have been in their classrooms" (Exec Sum, xiv). Would that be a good research design? So I'd like to add to the critiques so far that: random selection of teachers means using teachers who have no experience of it; allowing control groups to use other educational technologies means we have no idea what is being compared; standard tests are designed to test what is learned in standard classrooms; and Congress is asking the wrong question. What would have been the right question to find out whether horseless carriages were worth investing in? It's a lot more complex than 'are they effective?'. There is to be an extension of this study, so a robust response ought to ensure that it's done in way that will not risk jeopardising the education of millions through a poor understanding of how to assess the value of new technologies. Diana Professor Diana Laurillard London Knowledge Lab Institute of Education 23-29 Emerald Street London WC1N 3QS 020 7763 2162 07789111965 www.lkl.ac.uk www.noe-kaleidoscope.org/pub/ On 7 Apr 2007, at 19:01, Rory McGreal wrote: > Bob, > Economists are still arguing about the cost-effectiveness and/or > social > impact of introducing railroads to the US in the 19th Century. Was the > horseless carriage really better than the horse and carriage? I > believe the > point is that if the whole world is using technology, why would we > allow our > schools to remain as technology-deprived anachronistic havens that our > children have to escape from in order to experience the modern world. > All the best. > Rory > > -----Original Message----- > From: discussion-bounces at g1to1.org [mailto:discussion- > bounces at g1to1.org] On > Behalf Of Robert Kozma > Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 10:02 AM > To: 'Sherry Hsi'; 'Tak-Wai Chan'; discussion at g1to1.org > Subject: RE: News of evaluating commercial educational software in > the US > > Sherry, > > A somewhat different tack is that it is not just the introduction of > technology but the institution of other significant structural > changes that > use technology in order for there to be a significant impact of > ICT. In > economic analyses, there was a five-year lag between the widespread > introduction of ICT in the US economy and its impact on productivity. > Despite the widespread use of ICT in the US in the early 90's, it > was not > until the late 90's when technology was used to restructure > businesses, such > as the retail sector (in what is sometimes unfortunately called "the > Wal-Mart Effect"), that US productivity dramatically increased. > > Clearly the IES study looked at the use of ICT that was merely > pasted on > existing education practices. It will take significant ICT-based > structural > reform in education (and probably more than the 5-year lag in > business) > before we see significant results. > > Bob > > > ____________________ > > Robert B. Kozma, Ph.D. > Emeritus Director and Principal Scientist > Center for Technology in Learning > SRI International > 2151 Filbert St. > San Francisco, CA 94123 > USA > > CTL Website: http://ctl.sri.com > Personal Website: http://robertkozma.com > > Phone +1 415 292 2471 > Mobile +1 415 623 4340 > -----Original Message----- > From: discussion-bounces at g1to1.org [mailto:discussion- > bounces at g1to1.org] On > Behalf Of Sherry Hsi > Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 6:21 AM > To: Tak-Wai Chan; discussion at g1to1.org > Subject: Re: News of evaluating commercial educational software in > the US > > Hi Tak-wai, > > Maybe we could write another response letter and post on our website. > (I am afraid to suggest this because I can't take the lead on this.) > > Here are some things to note: > --the length of the study was 1 year...pretty short if you expect > teachers to integrate and make into effective practices. > --the software they selected to evaluate were > practice-oriented/drill-kill packages with little to no immediate > student feedback nor student assessment (with exception to the > Andersonian cognitive tutor-one of the five packages in the study.) > --The teacher training was given by the developers in how to use the > software, not how to use the software effectively for pedagogy or > content learning. (But then again, you can't do much with limited > software.) > --The length of the intervention was on average 17 hours in one > year--not a big allocation of time. > > One could use this study as evidence to show that large-scale > adoption of poorly designed/shallow software with little professional > development to teachers shows no impact, thus better kinds of > designed software (e.g., like WISE, Molecular Workbench, GenScope, > SimCalc, Geometer's Sketchpad,...), more investment into research on > online assessment and meaningful feedback for learners, more > effective teacher professional development, and more allocation of > time in the curriculum are all needed to make real improvements. > > Or, one could also use this study as ammunition to say all computer > software and education technology in the classroom is evil and school > districts are better off investing in more textbooks. > > Who wants to take the pen? > > -Sherry > >> Hi, >> >> A colleague sent me this: >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/ >> AR200704040 > 2 >> 715.html >> >> In the article, Elliot expressed his worry. >> >> Do you think G1:1 community can help something? >> >> >> Regards, >> Tak-Wai >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org >> subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> >> http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > > _______________________________________________ > connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org > subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> > http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > > _______________________________________________ > connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org > subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> > http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > > > __ > This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to > whom it > is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or > privileged > information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the > intended > recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, > or take > action relying on it. Any communications received in error, or > subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed. > --- > _______________________________________________ > connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org > subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> http:// > mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mike.Sharples at nottingham.ac.uk Sun Apr 8 23:02:07 2007 From: Mike.Sharples at nottingham.ac.uk (Sharples Mike) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 16:02:07 +0100 Subject: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US References: <0JG50BQFX35DW4@local.athabascau.ca> <6.2.3.4.2.20070407141921.04267eb0@imap.media.mit.edu> Message-ID: I entirely agree with Mitchel that "The true power of new technology is that it allows us to rethink what students can and should learn". None of us should be surprised that a major comparative classroom study of technology effectiveness shows no significant result. In Auckland, Parr carried out a review of meta-studies of TEL in relation to literacy and numeracy (http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=5499&dat a=l ) and found "Overall, the effectiveness of computer-assisted learning has not been conclusively demonstrated. To date it has been shown to be less effective, on average, than other forms of intervention in education." She reported that most innovations in schools have an effect size of 0.4. The effect size of computer-assisted learning is between 0.25 and 0.6. The largest effect is in special needs education with an effect size of 0.6. There is a mean effect size of 0.4 at elementary level and 0.25-0.3 at secondary level. So the US Government could have saved itself a large expense by reading the Parr report, but at least the study has been conducted in US schools with the latest software. Now we know that the intervention of traditional software, in traditional classrooms, assessed through traditional methods shows no significant effect when compared to the use of "other technology products that may have been in the classrooms." So let's move on. Parr's report came to the wise concluson that "In considering the results of evaluative research in computer-assisted learning software, one has to avoid confounding the medium with the method. Generally, computer-assisted learning is under pinned by an older, neo-behaviourist theory of learning, one that has been displaced in the classroom by more social constructivist views of learning." Instead of looking at whether inappropriate technology has marginal effects on children's test scores, we should be exploring how children can learn differently in technology-enabled environments. This ranges from developing dynamic simulations of processes that can't be shown on the printed page, to redesigning classrooms and schools for collaborative and inquiry learning, to supporting children in learning across contexts (e.g. home and school) and life transitions (e.g. school-college-workplace). That's where 1:1 technology could make a substantial difference. For example, we have just gained funding for a major project, with the Open University, to support children in inquiry science learning between classrooms, homes, and outdoors. The aim is for the 1:1 technology to structure and guide their inquiry learning outside the school in ways that just aren't possible with printed media. I think that in any response to the study we should indicate that there's now both a need and an opportunity to move beyond the sterile debate of whether putting software into schools will raise test performance, and develop new technology-supported environments for learning based on our current understanding of best educational theory and practice. Mike -----Original Message----- From: discussion-bounces at g1to1.org [mailto:discussion-bounces at g1to1.org] On Behalf Of Mitchel Resnick Sent: 07 April 2007 19:37 To: Rory McGreal Cc: discussion at g1to1.org Subject: RE: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US I think it's useful to consider the oft-used analogy to the early days of cinema.... As most of you undoubtedly know, early movies were made by setting up cameras in front of theater productions. If you did a study of people who watched early movies, most probably would have said that they preferred going to the theater. These movies-of-theater-productions might have won over theater on economic grounds, since movies are easier to copy and disseminate than theater productions. But that misses the most important point: the real power of movies came when film-makers developed new forms of storytelling -- very different from putting a camera in front of a theater production. I think the situation is similar with the educational software tested in this study. Although I'm not familiar with the software in the study, my guess is that most of it teaches the same old stuff in the same old way (but uses the computer as a new delivery medium). It is possible that the new technology might win on economic grounds over textbooks, even if the learning is not better. But that misses the point. The true power of new technology is that it allows us to rethink what students can and should learn, and how they learn it (through new types of design activities, experimentation, etc.). If we don't use new technology to fundamentally rethink our approaches to learning and education, then I'm not very interested. I'd rather spend my time and energy arguing for new approaches to learning and education, not simply introduction of technology. M.... At 01:55 PM 4/7/2007, Rory McGreal wrote: >To ALL: >I am surprised that community members are surprised by this result. >From Clarke pointed out in 1983, that there is "there are no benefits >to be gained from employing different media in instruction" > >Clark, R. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review >of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459. > >Tom Russell 2001 compiled a bibliography of 355 studies showing "no >significant difference". >http://www.nosignificantdifference.org/ > >My view is that this report in fact supports our use of technology. Was >there a significant difference in learning when we went from writing on >bark to writing on slates? From slates to fountain pens with ink? From >fountain pens to biros? From blackboard to greenboards? > >'No significant difference" shows us that the traditional classroom >environment without technology is no better than any other. If >textbooks are no better than courseware AND they are more expensive, >then why wouldn't we make the transition. Why pay $150 per child (or >more) for texts when we can get high (or low) quality courseware that >is just as good for less. As > >Elliott points out some software did show better results and the >differences between the courseware packages used need to be studied. My >guess is that this is the same as some teachers in some classrooms >doing better than others. > >The really valid argument that pro-technologists can use successfully >with students and parents (not so much with teachers) is that the whole >world is embracing technology, technology is part of nearly ALL spheres >of human activity, that there can be no modern education without ICTs. > >As far as some of the drill and practice software is concerned, though >it would be better to put all the CDs in a big box, tie a chain around >it and use it as an anchor. (And rote drills in the classroom are no >better!) > >Elliott sees the study as a serious problem. I have no idea about >educational politics in the US, but my experience in Canada is that >schools and politicians (unfortunately) pay little if any attention to >educational studies. > >ALL social science studies are flawed to some degree. Only in the hard >sciences can we expect flawless studies. > >All the best. >Rory McGreal > >AVP Research >Athabasca University > > >Elliott Soloway: > >This is a VERY serious situation, I fear. >This study will be used to attack technology. >Whlie we can attack the methodology of the study, that isn't really >going to do much good. > >Sherry: > >Here are some things to note: >--the length of the study was 1 year...pretty short if you expect >teachers to integrate and make into effective practices. >--the software they selected to evaluate were >practice-oriented/drill-kill packages with little to no immediate >student feedback nor student assessment (with exception to the >Andersonian cognitive tutor-one of the five packages in the study.) >--The teacher training was given by the developers in how to use the >software, not how to use the software effectively for pedagogy or >content learning. (But then again, you can't do much with limited >software.) >--The length of the intervention was on average 17 hours in one >year--not a big allocation of time. > > > >__ > This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to whom it > is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or privileged > information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended > recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take > action relying on it. Any communications received in error, or > subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed. >--- >_______________________________________________ >connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org >subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> >http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion ------------------------------------- Mitchel Resnick mres at media.mit.edu http://www.media.mit.edu/~mres _______________________________________________ connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. From jeremy.roschelle at sri.com Tue Apr 10 07:14:33 2007 From: jeremy.roschelle at sri.com (Jeremy Roschelle) Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:14:33 -0700 Subject: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US In-Reply-To: <002201c778eb$d1355710$0101a8c0@Chanx60> References: <002201c778eb$d1355710$0101a8c0@Chanx60> Message-ID: <461AC8D9.1060901@sri.com> Friends, As may or may not be clear, SRI was intimately involved in this study. In particular, we did tons of classroom observations. We did not design the study or have control over how it was reported. Mathematica Policy Institute was the lead. I worry that our involvement will not make us particularly popular, but it also does offer an opportunity -- the community could respond based on detailed knowledge rather than newspaper impressions. Unfortunately, Barbara Means -- who was the PI for SRI -- is away on vacation this week (on a boat, with no communication) -- bad timing! When she returns, I will see if it is possible to arrange a special briefing for the G1on1 community. We also have very nice experimental results from our SimCalc research, which contrast with these findings but are also not yet published (in peer review!). I could perhaps brief folks on those results over WebEx or something too. jeremy Tak-Wai Chan wrote: > Hi, > > A colleague sent me this: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402 > 715.html > > In the article, Elliot expressed his worry. > > Do you think G1:1 community can help something? > > > Regards, > Tak-Wai > > > _______________________________________________ > connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org > subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > -- jeremy Jeremy Roschelle Director, Center for Technology in Learning SRI International 333 Ravenswood Ave, BN-376 Menlo Park CA 94025 (650) 859-3049 (phone) (650) 859-4605 (fax) http://www.ctl.sri.com/people/displayPerson.jsp?Nick=jroschelle From Nicolas.Balacheff at imag.fr Sat Apr 14 23:42:40 2007 From: Nicolas.Balacheff at imag.fr (Nicolas Balacheff) Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:42:40 +0200 Subject: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070414173920.04878e78@imag.fr> At 10:07 07/04/2007, Tak-Wai Chan wrote: > Hi, > >A colleague sent me this: >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402715.html > Dear Tak Wai, and G1:1 colleagues it took me a while to react, but in the end I did look at http://www.noe-kaleidoscope.org/people/balacheff/blog/ I think that report is less terrible than the first reading of the WP article suggest the main problem is that such a study can be manipulated The only way I see: strengthen the scientific character of what we do Best Nicolas From jchernia at nsf.gov Mon Apr 16 01:30:05 2007 From: jchernia at nsf.gov (Cherniavsky, John C.) Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 13:30:05 -0400 Subject: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070414173920.04878e78@imag.fr> Message-ID: <8BC366E077C50C4D99A2C515A4CDE5290CDF63@NSF-BE-04.ad.nsf.gov> At AERA Russ Whitehurst presented the results of the study. You should look at the original study on the ED Web Page for IES - there are some interesting features. The results are discouraging, but you have to look carefully at the software being studied - mainly tutoring programs - and look carefully at the study design. Whitehurst stated that the study was bullet-proof and couldn't be challenged. I'm not convinced without getting access to a lot more detail. -----Original Message----- From: discussion-bounces at g1to1.org on behalf of Nicolas Balacheff Sent: Sat 4/14/2007 11:42 AM To: Tak-Wai Chan; discussion at g1to1.org Subject: Re: News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US At 10:07 07/04/2007, Tak-Wai Chan wrote: > Hi, > >A colleague sent me this: >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040402715.html > Dear Tak Wai, and G1:1 colleagues it took me a while to react, but in the end I did look at http://www.noe-kaleidoscope.org/people/balacheff/blog/ I think that report is less terrible than the first reading of the WP article suggest the main problem is that such a study can be manipulated The only way I see: strengthen the scientific character of what we do Best Nicolas _______________________________________________ connect with G1:1 community -> discussion at g1to1.org subscribe/unsubscribe G1:1 discussion mailing list -> http://mail.g1to1.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mike.Sharples at nottingham.ac.uk Mon Apr 16 13:41:05 2007 From: Mike.Sharples at nottingham.ac.uk (Sharples Mike) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 06:41:05 +0100 Subject: M-Learning page on Wikipedia Message-ID: A number of people have commented that the m-Learning page on Wikipedia is out of date, and doesn't reflect the diversity of the global mobile learning community. So, along with a couple of colleagues (Bob Harrison and John Traxler) I've made a substantial revision to the page, to bring it more up to date and set out a structure that should give scope for development. Now it's over to you to make revisions and additions. Don't mail me to complain or suggest - just edit the page! Mike This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mike.Sharples at nottingham.ac.uk Fri Apr 20 02:53:28 2007 From: Mike.Sharples at nottingham.ac.uk (Sharples Mike) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:53:28 +0100 Subject: Mobile learning page on wikipedia Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The mobile learning entry on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-learning) has been something of an embarrassment [from the Discussion page: "I think it is far from satisfactory at the moment! (Comment: Leonard Low 22 August 2006)" "I agree - this article is terrible"]. Along with a couple of colleagues I recently wrote a revised entry which, while not comprehensive, at least reflects better the range and international scope of mobile learning. Unfortunately, it has already been extended by a commercial company to advertise its products (in the History, and Technology sections). Since Wikipedia only works by consensus amongs the community of readers and editors, I hope that some of you will take the opportunity to revise the Wikipedia entry - both to alter my entry to better reflect the consensus, and also to make sure it isn't dominated by advertising. It is important - since Wikipedia is now the first port of call for many people looking for an introduction or reference to a topic area. Mike ------------- Mike Sharples Professor of Learning Sciences Director, Learning Sciences Research Institute University of Nottingham Exchange Building Jubilee Campus Wollaton Road Nottingham NG8 1BB UK Email: mike.sharples at nottingham.ac.uk Tel: 0115 9513716 URL: www.nottingham.ac.uk/lsri/msh Deputy Scientific Manager, Kaleidoscope Network www.noe-kaleidoscope.org Co-Chair ALT-C 2007 Conference, Nottingham, Sept. 4-6 This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation. From zhangjw at kf.oise.utoronto.ca Sat Apr 21 04:37:58 2007 From: zhangjw at kf.oise.utoronto.ca (Jianwei Zhang) Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 16:37:58 -0400 Subject: School boards in Toronto ban cellphones and personal devices In-Reply-To: <8BC366E077C50C4D99A2C515A4CDE5290CDF63@NSF-BE-04.ad.nsf.gov> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20070414173920.04878e78@imag.fr> <8BC366E077C50C4D99A2C515A4CDE5290CDF63@NSF-BE-04.ad.nsf.gov> Message-ID: <6219957c1b095b47f885a899191e6fa7@kf.oise.utoronto.ca> Dear G1:1 folks, I want to share with you this news because I believe it presents a big challenge that the G1to1 community needs to deal with. On Wednesday evening, Toronto District School Board, the largest school board in Canada, voted?overwhelmingly in favour of a motion to force students to turn off their cellphones and other personal electronic devices such as BlackBerrys, once they walk through the school doors. Another smaller school board has already passed a similar ban in February. They also have a plan to ban other devices, like iPod in schools. Major concerns about these devices include: --cellphones caused disruptions in class, distracted students; -- cheating by accessing the internet on their phones or receiving answers via text message; -- Safety and privacy issues as the result of the video and picture functions. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/04/19/toronto- cellphones.html This is apparently not good news for technology developers like Apple, who is envisioning the next generation computing based on cellphones! This is another example of the conflict between technology as an "invading species", using Yong Zhao's term, and the school ecology; and the tension between the educational and "childcare" functions of schools. Solid research and design work needs to be done to demonstrate what mobile devices can do for teaching and learning in order to win these schools back. In term of technology per se, I'm thinking whether there should be cellphones and other handhold devices specially designed for school students that can help address schools' concerns in some way. Jianwei ================================= Jianwei Zhang Institute for Knowledge Innovation and Technology OISE/University of Toronto -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1929 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fllee at cuhk.edu.hk Mon Apr 23 22:41:13 2007 From: fllee at cuhk.edu.hk (Lee Fong-Lok) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:41:13 +0800 Subject: Fwd: DIMEA 2007 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ DIMEA 2007: Second International Conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts 19th - 21st September 2007, Perth, Western Australia www.dimea.org (We apologize if you receive more than one copy of this email) The DIMEA 2007: Second International Conference on Digital Interactive Media in Entertainment and Arts will be held on the 19th - 21st September 2007 in Perth, Western Australia. DIMEA 2007 is organised jointly by Murdoch University and ACM SIG CHI (Singapore Chapter). DIMEA 2007 is a cross-disciplinary conference that will bring together researchers from the areas related to digital interactive media in entertainment and arts. The conference will accept different submission types that present new scientific ideas, improvements to existing techniques or provide a new way of examining, designing and using digital interactive media. Details at www.dimea.org The paper submissions must use the exact ACM SIG templates. Please find the template at http://www.acm.org/sigs/pubs/proceed/template.html. Please use the style "Strict Adherence to SIGS style - (Sheridan Printing)" on that page. There are also word and word perfect templates linked on the template page. Important Dates: Regular paper: Max 8 pages Abstract paper: Max 2 pages Demo: Max 1 page Full Paper Submission Due: 31 May 2007 Abstract Paper Submission Due: 31 May 2007 Demo / Art work / Game Submission Due: 31 May 2007 To register your interest, please send an email to k.wong at murdoch.edu.au For more details and updated information, go to: www.dimea.org -- Fong-Lok Lee ??? Centre for the Advancement of IT in Education Faculty of Education The Chinese University of Hong Kong Phone: 852 26096977 Centre URL: http://caite.fed.cuhk.edu.hk Personal URL: http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/fllee From robert.kozma at sri.com Sun Apr 29 10:46:32 2007 From: robert.kozma at sri.com (Robert Kozma) Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 19:46:32 -0700 Subject: This week's Economist Message-ID: <002801c78a08$99a7a220$0a00a8c0@BobKozma> Hi all, There's a very interesting special section of this week's Economist on wireless technology: A World of Connections. http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9032088 Here is a sample of the articles: Marconi's Brainwave: Wireless technology is advancing by leaps and bounds and there is much more to come. On the Radio: Wireless takes many forms Overcoming Hang-Ups: Mobile operators have more high-speed networks than they know what to do with. The Hidden Revolution: What you don't see will need careful watching. Regards, Bob ____________________ Robert B. Kozma, Ph.D. Emeritus Director and Principal Scientist Center for Technology in Learning SRI International 2151 Filbert St. San Francisco, CA 94123 USA CTL Website: http://ctl.sri.com Personal Website: http://robertkozma.com Phone +1 415 292 2471 Mobile +1 415 623 4340 Fax: +1 415 651 9954 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: