No state has invested so much in technology as Florida. Jeb Bush has made educational technology his signature issue, and his Foundation for Educational Excellence has received generous support from the technology industry. Jeb has encouraged states to require students to take online courses as a graduation requirement.
But the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development reports that use of technology is associated with lower test scores.
This story, from Florida’s NPR state Impact describes 5 things we learned from the OECD report.
This research matters in Florida, writes John O’Connor, because:
“State law requires schools spend half of the instructional budget on digital lessons. School districts have spent the past few years adding Internet bandwidth, improving networks and adding high-tech teaching tools.
“Here’s five things we learned from their study:
“The more technology, the worse the performance on tests — This was the big conclusion. The students who spent the most time using computers or on the Internet in school did worse than expected on international tests.
“The students who ranked in the middle for technology use — what the OECD called moderate use — did the best on international tests.
“That’s pretty sobering for us,” said Andreas Schleicher, who leads the OECD’s education efforts. “We all hope that integrating more and more technology in school is going to help us actually to enhance learning environments. Make learning more interactive…but it doesn’t seem to be working like this.”
“The OECD noted that east Asian nations, such as China and Singapore, intentionally limited students use of technology. They also used more traditional techniques teaching math — and have the best-performing students on math exams.
“Basically, you can say the less computers are used in mathematics lessons,” Schleicher said, “the better students perform.”
“The OECD couldn’t pinpoint why students who use technology more didn’t do as well on tests, but suggested a number of explanations: Reading online is a different skill than reading on paper; technology can be a distraction; and schools aren’t making the best use of technology.
“Teachers who use technology get better results — The OECD found that nations that emphasized training teachers to use technology performed better on tests. That meant allowing teachers to connect by video conferencing, observing other teachers, sharing lessons and ideas and just chatting with other teachers.
“Again, it was east Asian nations which encouraged teachers to connect via technology that also had the best-performing students on exams.
“For the most part, Florida policy has focused on connecting students to technology. Plenty of teachers are advocates of high-tech lessons, but the OECD study suggests the state and districts might want to consider emphasizing training for teachers to get the most out of all the new gadgets in classrooms.
“Slow down and get it right — Right now, the way schools are using technology isn’t working for students. Schleicher said schools might want to take a step back, look at what’s working and focus on those areas.
“In Florida, schools are moving ahead with the state’s digital instruction mandate and lawmakers are considering setting aside money in the state budget each year for new technology….
“Digital skills are important — Right now, students aren’t getting good results from technology in schools. But Schleicher said computer and Internet skills are important job skills.
“And other research shows that most workers never use Algebra 2, Caluculus or other high-level math courses in their work — but most jobs require some digital skills. Teaching students how to use computers and the Internet is still time well-spent.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
…or the skills they learn using technology are not well measured using standardized tests and it’s simply untrue that higher math scores will translate into better college/employment numbers?
“Technology has not improved student learning, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Stanford professor Larry Cuban and higher ed blogger David Glance have weighed in: Cuban writes that the “three-legged stool” of justification for buying new technologies—academic improvement, the transformation of teaching, and an information-driven market—is wobbling.”
https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2015/09/20/lack-of-computers-in-schools-may-be-a-blessing-oecd-report-part-1/
I recommend Larry Cuban’s discussion of the OCED report, and an essay from Seymour Papert, MIT.
“The context for human development is always a culture, never an isolated technology. In the presence of computers, cultures might change and with them people’s ways of learning and thinking. But if you want to understand (or influence) the change, you have to center your attention on the culture — not on the computer.” …..
”Computer stereotypes are as much cultural constructs as are stereotypes of women or blacks, and will be as hard to extirpate”….”Combating technocentrism involves more than thinking about technology. It leads to fundamental re-examination of assumptions about the area of application of technology with which one is concerned: if we are interested in eliminating technocentrism from thinking about computers in education, we may find ourselves having to re-examine assumptions about education that were made long before the advent of computers. (One could even argue that the principal contribution to education made thus far by the computer presence has been to force us to think through issues that themselves have nothing to do with computers.)”
I also think readers may enjoy this 1998 report on the marketing hype in Texas. http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jun/15/business/fi-60068
So, a MIT guy, authoritatively struts out, citing in graduate school level vocabulary, what teachers and parents have known viscerally and intellectually for some time? Someone should send Papert a “duh” memo. Since the reformy movement is about money, Papert’s epiphany will have as much impact as telling a soft drink company, that owns a banana republic, its sugary colas sold exclusively in school cafeterias, aren’t as nutritional as H20. Pomposity of message doesn’t mean the messenger won’t be shot or ignored.
The Jeb Bush crowd and the rest of the corporate education deformers might change the language of their media propaganda and talking points but nothing else will change—full speed ahead to make as much money as possible, destroy the public schools and crush the teaching profession.
We are now living history as it happens when a civilization’s leaders deliberately destroy their own culture and civilization because of greed for power and money but without common sense.
This must be how the Roman Empire eventually vanished.
I thought Rome’s decline and fall was from watching too many reality shows in the Colosseum.
What a mind! How cleverly stated.
:o)
That too. And who produced those reality shows—the 1% to keep the 99% distracted from all the corruption and greed the 1% were up to.
Yes. From bread and circuses to Big Macs and Springer. I’d fiddle while Pax Americana burns but they are cutting music programs in our state.
“The OECD couldn’t pinpoint why students who use technology more didn’t do as well on tests, but suggested a number of explanations: Reading online is a different skill than reading on paper; technology can be a distraction; and schools aren’t making the best use of technology.”
Did they control for the fact that poor kids, who score poorly on tests, are the ones most likely to be parked in front of computers for extended time each day, not to use computers as tools to explore the world, but to use them to be drilled with “adaptive”/”individualized” learning?
A lot of these types of studies are just junk. Mathturbation.
As with VAM (which also uses standardized test performance as a “measure’ of learning and is based on correlation), there are so many factors involved — and “controlling for”, or even knowing about, them all is a virtual impossibility — that it is not wise to draw any sort of definitive conclusions. And certainly unwise to base policy on them.
Besides, anything coming out of the “Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development” should be taken with a large block of salt. These are the PISA pushers.
When I say “controlling for’ above, I mean “accounting for”
Gee, I wonder if the Rocketship people are paying attention?
Rocketship is too busy cherry picking numbers and facts that will make them look like the winner to pay attention. In fact, they are doing exactly what all the corporate Charters are doing—-deliberate lying to fool the public.
I am sure they are preparing talking points that debunk the report just in case someone asks some uncomfortable questions. Otherwise, they will do their best to pretend this report does not exist.
The latest OECD report will help you get a greater insight on the problem caused by this country’s belief in technology as the current “Silver” bullet…
Let’s remember this is an observational study and correlation doesn’t imply causation.
It’s not an experiment, and there’s no randomization.
How do we know that students who used technology the most would score lower anyway.
So maybe we shouldn’t get too excited here.
Fair points but our policymakers tend to view technology as a panacea for so many things. Technology has its place in the classroom and in everyday life. The question is this: at what point does it have diminishing returns?
I use technology regularly in my class. We are about to be a 1:1 school and I’m looking forward to the flexibility that will provide my classes. But my class will still be driven by human interactions (mostly student collaborations) rather than human isolation which technology provides.
I work in a Florida middle school that received a STEAM grant that puts an apple lap top in every students hand. While it is really nice, and we can do a lot with it, we also constantly have problems with students wandering off on the internet. I always felt it was not the one issue that would solve our problems.
Just give me a piece of chalk and a board, and I can teach fne.
Absolutely!
So much for Jeb Bush’s reform.
This is ridiculous and reeks of lobbyist influence:
“State law requires schools spend half of the instructional budget on digital lessons”
If it has value schools will adopt it and if they aren’t going fast enough for the vendors then that’s probably wise, because what the vendors want isn’t necessarily the best approach. There’s nothing wrong with admitting tech is a market like any other. There’s nothing special about it in terms of sales and making money. It doesn’t mean they’re bad people. It means they create product and market it and then the people who aren’t making money on it decide the value. The State of Florida shouldn’t be doing the job of the vendor. We have a private sector. The State of Florida has a different role.
The old simplistic fallacy that education means transferring information into learner’s minds is the problem. Giving learners predigested conclusions via teacher talk, textbook or Internet has little impact. Learners must construct their own meaning by either confronting reality directly or “unprocessed” evidence that requires real thought to develop understanding. The greater the active involvement of the learner in developing meaning, the more effective the learning process becomes. Thus, they are better off without computers (and better off even without conventional textbooks).
BEAUTIFULLY STATED!!!
I had not read this when I posted my own observation below.
“The students who spent the most time using computers or on the Internet in school did worse than expected on international tests.”
What international tests?! Are the standardized tests that our students in the US take
also international?!!!!! No wonder over half of our students in the US fail. We haven’t yet managed to completely clone them to act and think alike. Since when diid the Common Core become international? Who is the genius behind the thrust to make every people zombies. Life would be so boring if everyone acted like robots.
TRUTH is sought by people, not by technological inventions, forgotten by the reformers. Glimmers of TRUTH are not found in technological inventions but by humankind’s best minds, by scholarly, in depth research. Whether test scores improve or not with technology, what is in that technology is what is most pertinent. Government propaganda, corporate beliefs, whatever; garbage in, garbage out unless it is recognized that education is the SEARCH for TRUTH, not what politicians or anyone else necessarily believes is TRUE..
Read this nearly 20 years ago.
Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway
Clifford Stoll
In Silicon Snake Oil, Clifford Stoll, the best-selling author of The Cuckoo’s Egg and one of the pioneers of the Internet, turns his attention to the much-heralded information highway, revealing that it is not all it’s cracked up to be
Look at the complaints – “students wandering over the internet” etc. This is all about what they’re doing on the computer, not that computers are present. How about letting kids build their own video game in Scratch (without access to internet), and see how they learn about variables while coding a score function for their game.
But that shouldn’t involve a huge investment in tech, should it? It shouldn’t need a state law that mandates that schools have to spend half the budget on “digital lessons”?
I’m just asking for some active resistance to what is marketing, hype and lobbying in state capitols.
Exactly. It’s about how students are using technology.
For example, classroom websites are great for students to get resources and supplements, and for teachers/students to create video lessons of material for supplemental use (or for absent students who missed the in-class lesson). But, besides accessing, students are not necessarily learning how to use this technology.
In a true algebra 2 course, when learning about optimization, students can be taught different functions in Excel and even learn how to optimize problems using Excel (and by hand, of course). This is a good use of technology.
In Chemistry/sciences, students can type lab reports with proper formatting in Word. Of course this can be done in English, too.
The problem I saw when teaching school is that many teachers “used technology”, like using Twitter, LMSs, remind.com. These are all great resources, but aren’t necessarily teaching students technology skills.
Technology is great in schools, but students need to be taught how to actually use technology and acquire proficiency in Microsoft Office, programming, CAD, etc.
And, instead of the teacher coding/designing their website (or using whatever webpage builder), host a “club” after school with students who are interested in learning about coding and maintaining the course website and materials. There is always a student interested in learning these skills.
The problem is that technology has been the tail wagging the dog. Every discussion about technology begins with the assumption that it is the solution…now what is the problem? A classic “solution in search of a problem”. Not a good way to think about education. Too often, we’re not thinking about education, we’re thinking about technology. I relish the prospect of tech being knocked off its pedestal. It’s wasted too much of our time and energy and money already.
Just as charters and testing have siphoned off money, time and energy from real educational improvment, so has technology. Since I began my career twenty years ago, technology, along with NCLB testing, have been THE organizing principles of schools. Almost every professional development workshop has revolved around tech or testing. I see not a shred of evidence that either of these has improved education and I strongly suspect it has, because of its high opportunity cost, harmed it. Error reigns!
We have spent a lot of time explaining why standardized testing should not be dominating all the aspects of education. I am not challenging the assertion about more technology produces less learning…..but I am nervous how convenient it seems to be to point to standardized testing results to prove the point.
International student tests, build on the silly propaganda that, disparate work cohorts can be, uniformly trained, via test, to advance individualized community needs and wants. In truth, standardized tests are nothing more than a grandiose scheme, to create markets for corporate curriculum and tests,with the goal of subverting public education.
On a superficial, microcosmic level, McDonald’s displayed something similar when they implemented training to make Russian hamburger flippers, smile, thereby demonstrating to their fellow countrymen that McDonald’s workers were crazed.
Do you have any experience in oversees education, as a student or a teacher?
The richest 0.2% band together to pass laws for favored tax treatment, like carried interest, and to allow corporations to maintain offshore profits. The oligarchs should be asked what experience in and right they have to design an educational system for the children of the 99%, which is inconsistent with the schooling they select for their children and for which, they won’t pay.
Instead, the oligarchs know that the masses will quibble among themselves for diminishing resources.
These oligarchs went through the school system here, too
There should be more teacher driven grants for technology. Too often technology and terrible curriculum is forced on teachers who don’t know how to use it effectively (with extra time wasted on teaching them to use something they don’t want) while they may be perfectly good teachers without it. And then there are those who do want to use technology but don’t have access to it. For the last 2 weeks my students have been working on a bridge design project in science. It culminated in a presentation of their research, design and testing. I gave them 2 days to build the presentation (since they had just learned presentation skills in another class) and Google Apps (which our district just got) have helped them collaborate. It’s been great to see them effectively split up the presentation work and then get down to business, using the chromebook’s built-in webcam to take pictures and videos of their project. I can easily track their progress and give them feedback. They’ve shown me some features I didn’t know how to use. They asked me to put examples from previous classes on their classroom page, so I did, and it was easier for me and for them. And on Monday after their presentations are over, we’ll go back to regular old physics with a whiteboard and simple tech like stopwatches for a while, but I’ve really enjoyed being able to use tech in a way that I wanted to use (not that anyone told me I had to use) and in a way that is authentic and useful.
@Kate that is a great use of technology. We should be teaching students to use technology to solve problems and/or create something. All too often technology gets hijacked by the corporations who have something to sell.
My school has Chromebooks and we use Google Apps. Many teachers were trained to use technology to connect with other students around the world, do research and create projects. Instead of the problem solving or creating we trained for, our technology use is being hijacked by corporations. We keep falling for the next greatest tech program: We have the company that promises to bring Special Ed students to grade level, the company that promises to rewrite articles on the students levels and then raise their non-fiction reading scores and the company that gives math practice. Each of these companies sells a license for each student to use their product. The licenses are a fortune.
All our students do is go from one program to the next at least once or twice a week sometimes more. There were some unfortunate classes who were doing the same program 3 times a day. This because they had three different teachers for Literacy and Tutorial and each teacher has to use the program for their SLO.
I covered their class once and asked them if they liked the program. They immediately told me they hated it. They told me how they game the system. So I asked them if they would rather read a book or do the program. They surprised me by saying they would rather do the program. When I asked why, they told me it was because you really had to read a book, but with the program they didn’t have to read the articles.
It’s a shame that something that seemed so promising is being used incorrectly.
You do realize, of course, that most of these programs are bought because TEACHERS are lured to work shops where this stuff is demonstrated, right?
It’s not the technology department where these decisions come from.
In all the time I worked in public schools, workshops were after the fact operations in which teachers were being told or encouraged to use a product the school (district) had already purchased. Now we have tech directors to hunt for “cool” aps. Of course, any savvy salesman is going to figure out how to get a district to develop a committee of eager tech devotees, but I would hardly call the process teacher driven. Your critique is slightly simplistic although I suppose there are districts that leave their common sense at the door when it comes to the way they develop a tech budget and allocate those funds. The tech industry certainly tries to develop a lot of hoopla around the “latest and the greatest” program just as educational publishers did with all of their literacy kits or math instructional systems.
Baloney – unless the tech director used to be a teacher. As part of our tech department, it was my job to evaluate software. Too often, that was after it was purchased. A new reading software was purchased, signatures placed – and then I was accidentally in a meeting where they mentioned the purchase – and were shocked that it would not work without putting an $8000 server in all our buildings – almost a QUARTER OF A MILLION dollars.
The purchasers? Teachers. The curriculum specialist? A former teacher. The curriculum director? A former teacher.
So don’t get this nonsense started that tech directors make decisions like that!
They are the ones expected to make it work after dumb decisions are made.
TWO THOUSAND man-hours in proving that the technology part of a previous reading software did not work as advertised.
One man’s baloney is another man’s salami. Perhaps you could agree that it is possible that we could have different experiences? I don’t claim my experience is that of the country nor should you. Teachers do not make budget decisions in my district. Tech purchases/decisions without vetting by the tech people do not happen. Major tech proposals are presented to the board for approval and a pilot project is conducted before any final proposal is presented to the board including a full cost analysis from the tech department. There would be some people with very short job tenures if so little care was paid to cost as you indicate is typical in your district.
It would be amazing for us to even GET the time for true pilots. And yes, I understand that not all districts work the same.
But saying that tech directors are responsible for disasters w/technology was an incorrect statement.
I communicate with other districts in our state (and three neighboring states) so I know of what I speak.
I’m not a teacher, but work with many teachers on a number of different levels. So there, too, I know of what I speak.
But I am capable to look at problems from multiple perspectives, which does not seem to happen here. My job is to find solutions to problems, and that never works when two disagreeing parties only highlight the negatives of opposing positions.
“But saying that tech directors are responsible for disasters w/technology was an incorrect statement.”
I can see now why you were offended now. I am sorry. I did not intend to imply that tech directors are the cause of all disasters. Our tech directors have done an admirable job. I am not at all happy with industry marketing driving expensive panaceas. There is such a push to be “innovative” and “21st century ready” that I want to gag. My own district has managed to be quite conservative in their adoption of computer/technology tools although I am not sure they are not getting caught up in the marketing rhetoric now.
I noticed that no one commented on the possibility that one reason might be that the test is written in an analog format that is not designed to benefit from the technology skills that our digital students develop.
I have come to the conclusion that until the analog dinosaurs like us become extinct and we let digital natives create their own measures of success we really won’t see the advancements that our students could be making.
Sounds like early Gates/Silicon Valley PR, sans the human capital pipeline reference. FYI, the new message is, “feelings and respect matter, because children matter”. The reformy people, whose sole objective is making money, mouth new words, with no belief required.
A have a blended classroom and I have taught online classes for years. It has bee my belief since I started doing this that many advocates of online learning and blended classrooms see the technology as a panacea that will cure all our educational problems, especially in light of how much children enjoy using technology and how good they are at it. There is no such thing as a panacea. The technology is a tool and is only as effective as the person wielding it. I was a carpenter’s apprentice once upon a time but the only nail I could hit was on my foreman’s thumb. Needless to say I was not effective using that technology and the work I did revealed that (fortunately I only was allowed to make the pre-fab stuff that was used to pour concrete around the elevator shafts, which was removed and recycled once the elevator shaft was finished). A bad lesson online (and a large part of the online lessons I have seen have not been very good) is a bad lesson and as ineffective as a bad lesson in the conventional classroom. Also, our students may enjoy the technology, but they use it for entertainment, not as a tool and they are no more thrilled by doing a lesson they do not enjoy online than they are in the conventional classroom. Students learn because of the hard work teachers put into teaching students to learn, no matter the platform or the nature of the classroom. If I cannot engage students in the classroom I probably will not engage them online. In my online classes I spend a great deal of time interacting with students and guiding them through lessons, just as I do in the conventional classroom. There is nothing magic about the technology that is going to do for educators what educators must do for themselves. And educators will not be able to do what they need to do if they are being forced to do things that are nonsensical in an educational context, whether that something is a silly test upon which a student’s (and the student’s teachers’) educational future depends or a silly bit of technological glitz that for all its show and flash is still silly.
Cordially,
J. D. Wilson, Jr.