News of evaluating commercial educational software in the US

Sun Apr 8 02:37:15 CST 2007

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 