Now that the titans of the tech industry, in alliance with the U.S. Department of Education, are committed to increasing the use of technology and ignoring the loss and shortage of teachers, they would be well-advised to read this OECD study.
It found that students who use computers in school moderately perform better than those who use computers rarely. Those who use computers heavily perform worse than both of the other groups, even after demographics and social background are taken into account. A heavy investment in technology has no appreciable effect on academic performance.
Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates should read this study. They both promote “personalized education,” which means every child using a computer with his/her own adaptive testing. This is machine-testing, not personalized education.
At the very least, this study should give pause as entrepreneurs push harder to invest in technology and discount the importance of teachers and human interaction between students and teachers.
Personalized education should involve interactions between two persons,not interaction between a student and a computer. That’s impersonated education.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
Those online stuff is truly awful. I know from personal experience working with a high-school students who was told to take an online Algebra I course. It was a total NIGHTMARE. My husband, a physicist, astronomer, and mathematician couldn’t even make sense of the questions. Plus what was being taught was really obtuse.
Interesting! My experience with “online learning” is that students are enrolled in courses of low quality (from a seriously watered down content perspective). Many of these courses are designed for student to pass, without really learning the material. In the suburbs over on my side of town, these online courses are starting to be implemented for students in “credit recovery”.
Sad thing is, besides being delivered a low quality course, I’ve known students who’ve found ways to “cheat” the system. They’d tell you how, too! For example, students could take the quiz at the end of the lesson four times before having to repeat the lesson. Students figured out that if they answered the first three quizzes just by clicking through the quiz, they’d get the answers automatically (with explanations). The fourth quiz was mostly, if not all, the same questions the previous three quizzes were. They were the same exact questions, regardless of the subject! This is true learning at its finest.
Not to mention that you can “google” all the answers!
Thought this study was a nice commentary on the above, namely that children need human interaction AND music:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151214185800.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29
Isaac Asimov predicted this in his 1950’s short story “The Last Question.”
Again, I must caution: beware of accepting the terms of the debate selectively. If you accept “test scores” as significant here, why don’t we have to accept them where we don’t like them? I’d like to name this the Schadenfreude Fallacy: allowing the pleasure we take in seeing someone hoist by his own petard to let us forget that we don’t accept the same terms when applied differently. And then WE are likely to be hoist by that petard down the road apiece.
I have worked hard not to fall into this trap: I don’t buy the very idea of standardized tests as meaningful in any context other than as indicators of one’s ability to do well on a particular standardized test. Thus, neither good, bad, nor neutral results reflect upon the success or failure of anything much.
Without a hell of a lot of analysis of data on HOW computers are being used, even if we bought the notion that test results mattered, we wouldn’t really be able to draw strong conclusions about the usefulness of computers. Kids use them all sorts of ways, in and out of the classroom. Absent close individual supervision, it’s hard to conclude that kids given computer time in class are using the computers for school-related tasks.
If we gave newspapers to students and they spent most of the time reading the comics, horoscopes, and sports pages, would we conclude that reading newspaper articles does not help students get a better sense of contemporary political, economic, or other “social-studies-related” information?
Amen Mr. Goldenberg. Almost every study I see trying to quantify whether technology use affects achievement relies on test scores. We know test scores can’t measure teacher performance nor are they true measures of student performance. Seems like as you say, they are only good when used in technology studies.
You are missing the logic here.
Test scores are the metric of the corporate reform movement.
They claim that personalized/computer based learning will improve student “outcomes” (i.e. test scores). This study simply refutes THEIR contention – not that of the testing Resistance.
MPG,
Since the goal of computerized instruction is to raise test scores, it is reasonable to judge by that measure
Diane, while raising test scores may be the goal of computerized instruction. It should not nor does it have to be the goal of appropriate technology use in learning.
There are many teachers doing innovative things with tablets, computers, graphing calculators, etc.
Sadly, top down implementation on;y pushes “computerized instruction”
Agree in principle, but this is a catch 22.
Scores function as proxies for values and as surrogates for technical details of little interest to many. They are part of the larger apparatus of “accountability” in education semi-detached from the (imagined) strict rules of balancing the books, looking at assets and liabilities and so on in financial accounting
Test scores have become two-edged weapons in a media environment where score-related news is almost always a guaranteed attention getter.
In education, we can see a proliferation of scoring and rating schemes, reports issued as score-cards, elaborate rubrics, simplified classifications, even exotic formulas that translate standard deviations calculated from test scores into “gains in days of learning,” or “losses in days of learning”—no definition or empirical support for what counts as “a day of learning.”
I think there is also a lot of athleticism and machismo driving the culture of education toward the creation of league tables, stack ratings, “rigor” in everything, excessive use of “great” attached to teachers, schools, and…. not least in politics with Trump’s Make America Great Again.”
Corporate education rheephormsters frequently fail at meeting their own narrowly defined and misleading metric of success aka standardized test scores.
So frequently that they must massage and torture all manner of numbers & stats just to make themselves and their policies look tolerably acceptable.
Contrast their sham results that prove failure by their own self-serving standards with their sterling achievements in securing themselves $tudent $ucce$$ at the expense of public school staffs and students and parents and their associated communities—
And you have a smash-and-grab explanation that makes sense to the general public.
For example, just contrast rheephorm sales hype with this posting and the previous two on this blog: “Ohio: Where Theft of Public Money is OK” and “David Berliner: Why It is Wrong to Evaluate Teachers by Student Test Scores.”
If they provide so much ammunition against themselves, shame on us if we don’t oblige them by using it to skewer their self-serving and toxic words and deeds!
As a very dead and very old and very French guy put it:
“Ridicule dishonors a man more than dishonor does.” [François de la Rochefoucauld]
And how powerful is that? Some homegrown talent reminds us:
“Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand.” [Mark Twain]
So let’s not leave them a leg to stand on. That’s how I see it…
😎
So, maybe teacher-proof robocation is not a good idea.
Robocation sounds kinky to me! Maybe you’re on to something with profit potential.
Is robocation the same as robofication? That could be even kinkier
Heard the RHCP’s “Californication” earlier, it must have influenced the spelling.
Could moderate use equate to appropriate use?
Heavy use would seem to include test prep and data collection as well the “here are the computers’ now do something with them.”
The problem is that technology used appropriately, can change what and how we teach in positive ways. Teachers, however, are seldom given the time, resources or support to develop and implement appropriate use.
They’re already well beyond “test prep” in the Obama Administration. They’re promoting policy and products that teach basic skills with “embedded” assessments. The assessments are one of the main selling points. It’s under “Learning” and “Assessment” in the “national plan”:
http://tech.ed.gov/netp/
I intended test prep to include all that. Isn’t it all about the assessments?
“embedded assessment”
I don’t even want to know what that is.
I think embedded assessment came fromnChiari. Maybe a reporter stuck inside an iPad?
Peter,
I am sorry to say that the term “embedded assessment” is tossed around by education officials, meaning: online instruction has the test questions built in, changing to adjust to student’s ability level. It is also adaptive testing, that gets harder or easier to meet student ability. The student doesn’t know she is being assessed. She is probably being data mined too.
New York’s Questar assessments will be embedded.
I think it means that the corporations will embed chips in the back of our necks attached to our spinal cord to monitor every thought we have and every thing we know and learn. That will include the ability to erase, edit and revise memories so we only remember what they want us to remember.
“online instruction has the test questions built in”
Oh, thank goodness.
I thought maybe it meant you had Arne Duncan in your bedroom.
I just hope local school districts resist the hype and don’t pour money into this recklessly, in response to pressure from federal and state ed reformers. Most public schools have lost funding since 2008. They cannot afford another expensive experiment. There is downside risk.
“Plus/and!” is a slogan that the President and his Sec of Ed repeat. It’s not reality. It’s meaningless. Schools have budgets and investing in one area often means not investing or maintaining in another. That’s just reality.
Let’s compare/contrast with another industry. The companies who make processed food have whole divisions devoted to selling processed food products to children. Ask yourself if that marketing has benefited children. No, it has not. Why? Because those companies are in the business of selling processed food, not in the business of what is healthy for children to eat. Ed tech is a product like any other. It should be evaluated as a product and not as a “vision” or intrinsically worthwhile investment.
“Peter Smyth
December 16, 2015 at 11:44 am
I intended test prep to include all that. Isn’t it all about the assessments?”
Well, it’s about 2 things. It’s about using the online programs for “basic skills” thereby (supposedly) freeing up teachers for higher-level “collaborative” work and it’s about embedding constant assessment in those programs so the assessments will be “invisible” to children- part of the lesson.
I think they’re not giving children enough credit there. I think they’ll know they are being “assessed” every 5 minutes particularly because “competency based learning” relies completely on their scores in the embedded assessments.
I’m relieved to be close to retirement. I love my students, and I dearly love to teach. But, what I am finding is that my students ask to be on their laptops almost constantly….and it is so hard to get across my teaching in the way that I so successfully did from 1985 up until about 4 or 5 years ago. Their attention spans are so low, and I have to divide my instructional time up into chunks. I will teach for about 30 minutes, then I enrich it with an online activity for about 15 minutes…and then we go back to the Smart Board and my instruction for about 15 minutes more. It is like pulling teeth sometimes to get my concepts across to a majority of my students…..Teaching has changed so much for this generation. I think the cell phone, texting, the Internet…..has changed everything in the classroom. My students 10 years ago had a much, much better attention span. Teaching has gotten harder in every way. I try very hard in my classroom every day….and that’s all we can do.
I am so grateful for Diane and her blog. I also appreciate all of your comments. Merry Christmas! Happy New Year – 2016!
You are describing exactly what so many of us are experiencing in the trenches. The degree to which student inattention and indifference is impacting our day to day work in the classroom would be hard for anyone else to fathom. I too am getting worn down by class after class of glazed over eyes and a disturbing acceptance by students of their own ignorance. I am finding that the “smart phone” generation is anything but.
I have seen evidence of poor performance in my own school. Initially, I thought using programs to teach reading and math was a great idea. After all, kids love computers and computer games. What’s better than putting learning right into the students digital wheelhouse? However, what we observed was astonishing. The behavior in the classes that relied on these programs was atrocious. Students would finish at different rates claiming to be done with their course of study, leaving a time vacuum for teachers to fill. They were completely uninterested and tuned out.
I can say, anecdotally, that when students using these programs in their literacy class came to my class, I noticed the level of writing proficiency and reading and writing stamina actually decline. The connection to a real person teaching and monitoring their students class to class, moment to moment, and adjusting in real time just wasn’t there.
Kids respond best to substantial, meaningful instruction. My sense is that they lose all respect for any “instructional” program that simply plops the in front of a screen and expects them to teach themselves the material with virtually no human interaction that matters. It is an insulting approach in the eyes of many kids – and they are right to reject it.
Unfortunately, our leaders are not following research. They are following the money! These billionaires buy influence so they can sell more products. I know that my district spent its Title 1 money responsibly using the bulk of it for direct instruction from certified and qualified teachers. As a retired ESL teacher, I know for a fact that with the right kind of instruction, most ELLs can develop into independent contributors to our society and economy. I also know that when they arrive, most of them are years behind our educational system, and that’s not even including the fact they have to master a new language, which as we know, takes five to seven years on average. These students are in are in a race against the clock as are their teachers. It disturbs me that ESSA targeted them for some off brand intervention in the name of “innovation,” which we know will likely be wasting time in front of a computer screen. Beyond academics, these students are often trauma survivors. I have had students that witnessed the murder of their entire families. They require relationships with caring adults that will listen to them, help them through a tough transition and encourage them to move forward. That I still connect to several former students is a testimony to the power of connections. No technology can do this!
Teachers, human beings, are the biggest expense public schools have, by far. Nothing else even comes close.
It is naive to the point of irresponsible to believe that state politicians won’t see the obvious benefits of replacing live classes with online courses, particularly in the current anti-public school climate.
The schools that will suffer the most if that happens are poor and middle income districts. Frankly, I don’t think they see the downside risk of the policy they promote because they’re not directly affected by it. It’s easy to be a bold risk taker if you’re not around for the downside. That’s a luxury.
That is why technology is being sold as the innovative “big idea.” So called “personalized learning” would significantly reduce budgets. There is an incentive, especially with Gates having his finger in the pie, to pursue this route without investigation or basis in fact. Computers are best used as a teacher’s tool to supplement, not supplant, instruction. The fact that this is being presented as a viable plan is a testimony to the corporate control of our country.
The corporate public education demolition derby will ignore the OECD report or cherry pick it to death to rationalize it away, because paying attention to it will mean lost profits, and less wealth and power for the few (less than 1% of the population) at the top of the economic pyramid where enough is never enough.
Florida has published simulation grades for the 2014-15 testing. Isn’t it convenient that Florida Virtual Academy didn’t meet the 95% tested in order to get simulated grades. A 32 equates to a “D” and a 42, 47, 48 or 49 equates to a “C”.
(Percent of Total Possible Points)
FLORIDA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT BROWARD COUNTY ( 47 )
FLORIDA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT DUVAL COUNTY ( 42 )
FLORIDA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ( 49 )
FLORIDA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT PALM BEACH COUNTY ( 47 )
FLORIDA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT PASCO ( 32 )
FLORIDA VIRTUAL ACADEMY AT PINELLAS CHARTER SCHOOL ( 48 )
When I was visiting my daughter in Texas, a number of commercials were running praising the flexibility and personalized, self pacing program of the Texas Virtual School as well. I hope parents don’t fall for the hype.
“Personalized education should involve interactions between two persons”
Or, as we do it in public school, between 1 person and 35 people.
I think one of the problems with computer-based instruction is that so often it is used to circumvent creating classes for needy students. My daughter is a fourth grader having some good and bad experiences with computers. I have good feelings about some things and bad about others. The problems happens when we spend computer money instead of money for fair wages to staff. Education is expensive and technology is not going to get us out of it.
This is exactly what I fear will happen in the new ESSA law, particularly for special education and ELLs, two groups targeted for alternative approaches, and “Pay for Success” schemes. The wording sounds like a license to exploit two very needy groups.
I hope you are incorrect. Our society needs many of the people whom we now underserve, even if they do not often act like they it. Your pessimism or wary look at anything coming out of Washington right now is more than justified.
“Heavy Computer Use in Class Associated with Lower Scores”
I know a mainframe is very heavy and probably even a desktop — and not many students use those any more anyway (especially not the mainframe), but would a laptop be considered heavy?
How about a tablet?
Is this an argument for smartphones in the classroom?
Maybe kids can use a light saber to cut through all the common core crap.
The biggest iPad, the Pro is 1.57 lb; Air is about 1 lb. that’s sort of heavy for kids’ moms to carry for them.
Seriously, I would not advocate for replacing teachers, but tablet can replace books – if the books take advantage of the technology.
I’m a retired elementary school teacher with 31 years experience behind me. Admittedly I love technology, but there is a time and a place for it. Allowing it in schools to the extent it is, especially at the elementary level, is a grave mistake. We are dumbing down our students. Instead of teaching them how to think, we are teaching them how to push buttons to reach an answer. Learning multiplication tables, the relationship between multiplication and division, cursive writing and penmanship, and a host of other skills makes the child use his/her brain, and the brain must be exercised to develop. Cursive writing and penmanship also helps to develop fine motor skills. And if they can’t write cursive, how will they read it? Every study shows that using the brain helps stave off dementia. If the education system keeps going the way it is, I predict a future with more dementia at earlier ages. We have to get back to basics and teach our kids how to think, not just how to use a keyboard or calculator. I fear for the future of our society if we continue the way we are going. Listen to the song “In the Year 2525” by Zager and Evans.
I’m a retired elementary school teacher with 31 years experience behind me. Admittedly I love technology, but there is a time and a place for it. Allowing it in schools to the extent it is, especially at the elementary level, is a grave mistake. We are dumbing down our students. Instead of teaching them how to think, we are teaching them how to push buttons to reach an answer. Learning multiplication tables, the relationship between multiplication and division, cursive writing and penmanship, and a host of other skills makes the child use his/her brain, and the brain must be exercised to develop. Cursive writing and penmanship help to develop fine motor skills. And if they can’t write cursive, how will they read it? Every study shows that using the brain helps stave off dementia. If the education system keeps going the way it is, I predict a future with more dementia at earlier ages.