News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US

[Rory McGreal]

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.
---