NextGov - Tech Insiders: Studying PCs in Classrooms -- 10 Years Too Late

Contributors

Categories

Tech Insider
What's happening in the federal IT community

Studying PCs in Classrooms -- 10 Years Too Late
By Allan Holmes | Wednesday, November 21, 2007 | 10:39 AM

It’s been more than 10 years since President Bill Clinton described the 21st Century classroom as a place in which “computers are as much a part of the classroom as blackboards." Since then, schools -- and parents -- have spent millions of dollars on computers for students and their children under the assumption that the computers are directly related to improved learning and higher test scores. The problem is that no national study has proven those claims.

Now, more than a decade after the fact, the federal government wants to find out what the link is and has awarded a grant to education researchers at Indiana University to study how teachers and students use computers to learn. This seems a bit late.

For sure, the study could shed light on just what value computers give students in the classroom. But this fact has been debated for years. As Todd Oppenheimer pointed out in his article (subscription required) that appeared in the July 1997 issue of The Atlantic, computers’ value to education is questionable. An excerpt from the article:

… Alan Lesgold, a professor of psychology and the associate director of the Learning Research and Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh, calls the computer an "amplifier," because it encourages both enlightened study practices and thoughtless ones. There's a real risk, though, that the thoughtless practices will dominate, slowly dumbing down huge numbers of tomorrow's adults. As Sherry Turkle, a professor of the sociology of science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a longtime observer of children's use of computers, told me, "The possibilities of using this thing poorly so outweigh the chance of using it well, it makes people like us, who are fundamentally optimistic about computers, very reticent."

Oppenheimer compares the computers-in-the-classroom phenomenon to film-strip technology students used 40 years ago: “‘Computers in classrooms are the filmstrips of the 1990s,’ Clifford Stoll, the author of Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway (1995), told The New York Times last year, recalling his own school days in the 1960s. ‘We loved them because we didn't have to think for an hour, teachers loved them because they didn't have to teach, and parents loved them because it showed their schools were high-tech. But no learning happened.’”

There's no reason to believe that these arguments are outdated -- especially given the fact the federal government just issued a grant to find out if they are. Besides, the rush to introduce computers in the classroom before researching whether they would, indeed, increase performance is part of a long string of similar information technology investments that organizations of all kinds have made, an act of chasing the hottest technology under the assumption that technology, in and of itself, will allow us to work faster and be smarter. “It’s technology, after all," goes the argument. "It must provide value."

For years, IT managers in federal agencies and in the Office of Management and Budget have tried to head off such thinking before it gets too far down the IT investment road. OMB's requirement for agencies to write business cases are just one example of this. A technology may seem like it would create efficiencies and add value, but the results from an IT investment are typically hard to measure – if an organization ever measures them at all. Or, which is more likely, the added value many times falls far short of the expectations managers had when the technology idea was first dreamed up.

The computers-in-the-classroom policy seems to have followed this same line of reasoning, although, at first, some research showed computers raised achievement. Years ago supporters pointed to the study “Connecting K-12 Schools to the Information Superhighway,” conducted by McKinsey & Co. for a Clinton task force formed to study technology and education, as the reasons why the federal government should support a policy that made computers a big part of curriculums. It concluded:

Many schools have experienced significant improvements in student performance after introducing computer-assisted instruction. For example, the Carrollton City School District in Georgia established a computer lab, among other changes, to reduce the failure rate in 9th grade algebra from 38% to 3%. In New Jersey, the Christopher Columbus Middle School saw student performance rise from well below to above state averages on standardized tests in reading, language arts, and math after the school implemented reforms that included extensive use of networked computers. The academic literature confirms technology's role in these improvements: a review of 254 controlled studies concluded that appropriate use of computers in the classroom reduces the time needed to master certain types of knowledge by as much as 30%. Put another way, in three school years, students benefiting from computer-assisted instruction can learn almost a full year's worth of material more than students who do not have access to the technology.

But Oppenheimer, in his article, refutes many of these findings.

Back to today. Now Indiana University’s Center for Evaluation and Education Policy will try “to figure out how teachers use technology in lessons and how students learn from that technology,” according to the Indianapolis Star article. “There have been some larger efforts, but it's mostly been a study here, a study there,” Jonathan Plucker, director of the center, told the Star. “It's a critical question that has never been answered. That's just so exciting.”

It might have been a good thing to ask that "critical question" more than a decade ago before schools and parents spent billions of dollars on computers without knowing for sure if they do indeed raise student achievement or how the computers could be used to do so.

The study is due to be completed in April 2009.

Post a comment

Comments

My kids go to a Montessori school that is K-8 and there are no computers for student use. The kids are given practical, hands-on lessons and repeat the lessons on their own, at their own pace, until they master each. The teacher (directress) is more an observer than an intervenor, and the kids learn how to be self-reliant. In K and 1-3, there are 30 kids in a classroom with 1 teacher and 1 aid. They go outside, learn about the environment, help each other with lessons, practice graciousness... There are many studies showing the benefits of hands-on learning over a lecture environment. I have no qualms about my kids not having access to a computer at school. I'd rather them go to the library than Google :-)

Montessori Mom | Tuesday, November 27, 2007 | 11:02 AM

English literature and theoretical math are obsolete and useless? Glad to see such cultured and well-rounded citizens work for the Government.

Political Science/History Major | Tuesday, November 27, 2007 | 9:26 AM

I am wondering WHO requested the study and why they are unaware of the myriad of scholarly journals and articles on computers and learning. Instead of a study they would be better served conducting a meta analysis or literature review.

Educator | Monday, November 26, 2007 | 6:06 PM

The bottom line is that computers are tools -- nothing more, nothing less. If the individual wielding the tool has limited understanding of the tool's uses, benefits, and perils, then said individual is ill-served by the tool. Computers and the Internet do not provide the ability to learn any more than an automobile provides the ability to get from home to the supermarket -- it may make things quicker, easier, and flashier, but it is not the only way to achieve to objective.

Frank McNeil | Monday, November 26, 2007 | 3:09 PM

I am personally aware of instances of children with a problem caused by technology. These children are so used to using a computer to play games or to watching television that their concentration is nil. They go to class and cannot sit still and concentrate on what is being taught. This is not the fault of the computer or of the child. It is directly the fault of the parent for not supervising the child's time away from the classroom. The school system is only using a tool to assist in the learning process; however, I am firmly of the opinion that there is a grade below which the computer should not be located. I think that this is about fourth grade, just a gut feeling. By this level many of the study habits have been inculcated and the student is better able to work. Lest you think I am some crackpot (don't think I am an expert) I will tell you that my graduate education is in computer science and I have worked in industry and have taught computer applications in institutes of higher learning. the computer is in the same "box" as television was after WWII and in the 1950s, thought to be the ruination of our society. Well it is a tool, just as a pencil or slide rule or calculator is a tool. Properly used it enhances our endeavors.

Jim Bradley | Monday, November 26, 2007 | 11:31 AM

A computer is a tool. Used corectly it, and the internet, are great assets. My son is in the 3rd grade and is a great example. With proper parental involvement he finds answers to many questions and reads many new things every day that he could not otherwise have access to. The computer requires parental and/or teacher involvement to avoid the obvious video game and other potential pitfalls. Lets face it, the computer is here to stay and will be a major component of everyones life from this point on. The fault lies not in the technology, or its great potential, only in those entrusted with putting it to the best use. To compare it to a film strip is a bit out of touch....

a concerned parent | Monday, November 26, 2007 | 9:12 AM

Regardless of the outcome of this study, computers in the classroom and schools are essential if our young folks are going to be productive in today's society. The use of computers is now in all lines of work. I used to be annoyed by the cashier that could not make change without the use of their cash register. However, that cashier today can not even ring you out if the register is not working. This is the inventory control, time keeper and brains of the entire store. You now order food at the local gas station and fast food establishments through an interactive computer display. All of you who read this are sitting at a computer. We hope that all of our children will go onto higher education. That education involves extensive use of computers and many times exclusive use of computers. Believe it or not, we still have families in America that can not afford a computer for the home. The only exposure these children get is at school. The "critical question" is not if, but how we should integrate computers into our children's education.

Donna Betz | Monday, November 26, 2007 | 8:11 AM

Computers don't help that much in American K-12 classrooms. That is because our outdated and antiquated 19th century K-12 educational system doesn't emphasize modern science, technology or practical application, but is instead focused on impractical and useless subjects like English literature and theoretical math. A plain old textbook works just as well in those 19th century subjects. Computers are just taking up valuable space and wasting taxpayer dollars for those obsolete classes. Unless American education modernizes and revamps the curriculum, computers won't do much good in our 19th century K-12 classroom.

Johnnie Nichols | Monday, November 26, 2007 | 7:41 AM

Good grief, as if there haven't been scores of talented educational technologists and researchers in the last 10 years who are developing (and studying) ways for kids to learn by using the real power of the technology. There has been a revolution in our lives in terms of access to information, and teachers need to help kids learn how to take advantage of it, not to use the computer as a glorified film strip projector or static textbook. If that's how teachers are using it, then it's a professional development issue, not a problem with the use of computers per se. Did this author talk to ANY experts who might disagree with his thesis? Did he look at any other funded studies to see the depth and breadth of what has been done? A simple google search would show that the issue is much more complex than "raising test scores". Quoting articles that are 8 and 10 years old to support his antiuated position is really lame.

Get a grip and do some real research into what is happening at the MIT Media Lab, Harvard, the Colleges of Education at UC Berkeley and UCLA, and dozens of other institutions. Go get better informed, or shut up before someone mistakes YOU for an expert.

Liz Dorland | Wednesday, November 21, 2007 | 7:38 PM