Stephen Downes writes about a study done stating “Computers can harm learning” These studies usually end up pointing people in the wrong direction. At first glance it might appear that removing technology from schools would be a good thing. It seems that’s the message that’s being promoted.
Todd Oppenheimer wrote a book called The Flickering Mind in which he tries to make the point that technology is largely a waste of money. I wrote a paper on his premise last year and found that he didn’t do an especially good job of getting to the real issue. We all know that computers and technology on their own do nothing to support learning. We get that and we also know that teachers are working hard for the most part to use technology in effective ways.
Read Jamie Mckenzie’s review of The Flickering Mind. Also NPR has an archived broadcast of an interview with Tood Oppenheimer.
I’m trying to figure out the motive behind these studies. Again if it’s trying to stay that teachers need to be more effective in their use of technology, few would argue. If it’s to say let’s cut back on the use of technology in learning…I have a big problem with that!
I don’t think it’s a huge stretch to see these studies as a backlash against what many see as relentless optimism by those in the IDT world for technology in the schools. The truth of the matter is that the large-scale studies showing any return on the huge computer infrastructure expenditures over the last few years is very few and very far between, and the results aren’t at all conclusive.
I personally don’t believe the problem is that computers in the classrooms are harmful; clearly they bring a powerful tool for pedagogical transformation. The lack of obvious results (esp. given the amount of money spent) does point to an egregious disconnect between research and practice in the EdTech community. If an intervention can’t work unless the researcher is standing right there all the time (e.g., the teachers can’t or won’t implement on their own), it’s just plain a shitty intervention.
In a country with limited educational budgets, it not enough to ask if the computer expenditures have had (or should have had) a positive effect. We need to ask if it was a better deal than, say, 1/2-time teacher’s aides, or better textbooks, or longer schoolyears.
I don’t think it’s anti-technology in particular. The study I criticized (and you can find the lengthy report if you Google ‘Understanding PISA’) is based on an OECD study – it is an extension of this study.
The study itself oonly deals with computers a little bit. Most of what the study finds is that there ought to be more private schools and non-governmental decision-making with respect to learning. This is typical of OECD studies, which tend to favour that sort of outcome. OECD has an agenda, after all.
It is pretty clear from the outset the the study was rigged. If you read my paper you’ll note that samples were skewed, tested competencies were not based on curricular outcomes, and unwarranted extrapolations were made by the authors. Test methodology, as David Wiley points out, was also skewed.
A large investment in public education – of which computers would be a reasonably hefty chunk – means a smaller investment in private schools. Hence, OECD comes out against computers in learning, and is not above sham research in order to advance its agenda.