The key to improve the learning achivement of students is notonly the software

[Kindersite Joel]

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 Ramírez Verdugo and Isabel 
Alonso Belmonte, Universidad Autónoma 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 (黃國禎)" <gjhwang at mail.nutn.edu.tw>
To: "Deborah Tatar" <tatar at cs.vt.edu>; <discussion at g1to1.org>
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(黃國禎)
> 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" <tatar at cs.vt.edu>
> To: <discussion at g1to1.org>
> 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
>