I will admit, somewhat reluctantly, that while taking classes to become certified to teach, I looked at most of the information as a lot of “fluff”. With phrases used, like “every student can learn and succeed”, I said to myself, “Yeah, yeah, give me something I can use”. I don’t know if I have reached a turning point, but some of the information I now read, which is related to improving my strategies and techniques, is beginning to make more sense.
Two points resonated with me as I taught classes the 2 days after the first class of CEdo525. Those are: 1) the best way to improve student understanding of material is to show similarities and differences to what they already know. 2) communicate not only what the goals are for the entire class, but from day to day.
With so many great ideas to consider of how to introduce myself to students and what to do the first day, I wish I had read the article the week before school started instead of the week after.
Quite often - in years past - after being done with a class I have “taught” I felt like I went through the motions. This year I am becoming more cognizant of what I need to improve upon. It seems so obvious in hind sight that I haven’t shared the daily goal often enough with my students.
After reading the Meta-Analysis (and before reading the intro to Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works):
Keep in mind upon reading the following that the book intro explains some of my misunderstanding below:
If reading this article and posting a response was a means to “find a cynic”, here I am. I prefer the term "skeptic", however.
From the abstract:
“…The mean of the study-weighted effect sizes averaging across all outcomes was .410 (p < .001), with a 95-percent confidence interval (CI) of .175 to .644. This result indicates that teaching and learning with technology has a small, positive, significant (p < .001) effect on student outcomes when compared to traditional instruction.”
and
“On the other hand, the mean study-weighted effect size for the 3 studies that contained behavioral outcomes was -.091, indicating that technology had a small, negative effect on students’ behavioral outcomes.”
What is the study-weighted effect size, what does it measure?
I get the feeling spending all the money that districts do on computers isn’t justified if the results show just a “small” positive significant effect. I wonder what spending the money to hire more teachers, thus, changing the class sizes would do in comparison? And just what does a small, negative effect on students’ behavioral outcomes mean?
What was measured?
The article also states:
“Swan and Mitrani (1993), for example, compared the classroom interactions between high school students and teachers involved in (a) computer-based instruction and (b) traditional instruction. They found that student-teacher interactions were more student-centered and individualized during computer-based teaching and learning than in traditional teaching and learning.”
Am I missing something? The preceding sentences from the article state something that is as obvious as the following. Let’s say you only eat food with a knife and fork. The more you use the fork, the less you will use the knife…
Am I cutting my own throat here?
A couple of things I had to research and/or look up: Meta-analyses is a big study made up of a bunch of little studies (which by the way, the article says originally 200 little studies were retrieved and only 42 of them were used, the others were thrown out for various somewhat ambiguous reasons). Effect size is the output of a meta-analyses. It involves a weighted average based on sample sizes of the smaller studies. (How is the weighted average set up? Who decides how to weigh things? Or is there some agreed upon way? And what about those studies that were "thrown out"?)
The last paragraph of the conclusion is:
“There are, of course, many unanswered questions about the effects of teaching and learning with technology on students’ outcomes. We maintain, however, that research can play a critical role in answering some of these questions. Policymakers, however, will need to invest more money on research in technology. The findings from this research synthesis suggest that more and better research needs to be funded and conducted by researchers in this area. Although recognition of the uniqueness of each school and classroom situation will always need to be considered, the accumulation of research evidence over time and across studies may provide consistent findings that enhance our understandings of the role of teaching and learning with technology.”
What I read between the lines:
unanswered questions = disclaimer so if part of our study is disproved, we are not responsible
Policymakers will need to invest more money = We need a new study cause this one is over and we’re out of grant money (kinda getting hungry)
…findings from this research synthesis suggest that more and better research needs to be funded… = We don’t want to eat at anything less than a 4 star restaurant.
Having been an analytical chemist, I know how to use statistics to prove something. I am well aware of what the 95% confidence interval means, that is, within ±2 standard deviations of the mean (95 out of 100 times the next bit of data will fall within that interval). I have no idea, since I didn’t see it specified in the meta-analysis, of how it is justified that technology integrated in the classroom is better than without. After all, how are students from the
I do, however, believe students can achieve more with technology, but how much technology? Yet another study...
I read your comment about the amount of computers and the supposed positive change in student performance. I know that using computers for some students does make it easier for them to not only understand but to complete the work that is assigned them. But I wonder if just piling computers into classrooms of teachers who don't know how to use them other than gaming machines and baby sitters is the answer. To state that your school is 1-to-1 seems to be a badge of honor lately, but is there that much more learning that is going on? Perhaps a blend of more face-to-face time with students integrated into a curriculum that is heavy in the use of technology used as a tool rather than technology taking the place of the teacher is in order. But we do live in a technological society - faster, smaller, more efficient is the only way to go. Sometimes it might be better to get back to the basics.
ReplyDeleteThe one drawback to studies needing to show positive outcomes of technology in the classroom is that the studies are based on product - what content knowledge is learned. Technology can be used for content, but it is better used for those skills that aren't measured: collaboration, communication, critical thinking and problem solving, and creativity (see Partnership for 21st Century skills). Until people start understanding that concept, we will continue to have debates about whether or not technology boosts academics. Also, as a side note, I don't think policy makers need to spend more money researching technology -- they need to spend more money buying technology. It's not too difficult to figure out what kids use for themselves and then adapt it to the classroom AND web 2.0 stuff for the most part is free. I say, "Get me the tools, then do your research!"
ReplyDeleteI would like to agree with what Denise said, "I wonder if just piling computers into classrooms of teachers who don't know how to use them other than gaming machines and baby sitters is the answer." A collection of computers is not really beneficial if the teacher doesn't know what to do with them. In my research, staff development is key to teachers integrating technology. The staff development has to be ongoing, relevant, and occur in the context of a normal workday (and possibly classroom) to be most effective. Most administrators are not willing to provide this type of staff development, so they are losing out on the teachers that may integrate if they just knew what to do and how to do it.
ReplyDelete