Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Our subject is Technology and learning
  • We will look at research supporting and refuting the effectiveness of technology in k-12 education today
  • Research on the technology is challenging because technology is constantly changing. Often, by the time the effectiveness of a method, a machine, or a particular software product can be studied and analyzed, technology as leapt ahead to the next iteration. Moreover, in this era of heightened scrutiny and changing expectations of teachers, students and schools the question to be studied will have changed. Nonetheless in the next few minutes Barbara and I hope to Convey enough understanding of the current research to pique your curiosity To give you some idea of the issues that are out there and To start you on your way to forming your own opinions about the role of tech in k-12 education.
  • The Question is does tech help or hinder education as described here? We found that the answer is not yes or no. Among researchers read, there is a general acceptance that technology in education is here to stay; that under funded programs, overworked and under trained teachers are part of the American educational milieu; that technology is uniquely positioned to transform education at a time when transformation is desperately needed; and that that transformation cannot take place without able educators. Nearly every study read, whether ultimately classified as positive or as negative, sees both the drawbacks of, and the huge potential in, technology – And so, on to the search for “adequate evidence”
  • Early research focused on technology and education : access to computers; frequency of use and exemplary (but ultimately unscaleable) programs More recently, scholars have focused On student achievement On HOW technology is used by teachers and On WHAT teachers are using technology to teach This 2003 study be Barron et al is a hybrid: To the left shows the frequency of use by discipline and to the right shows what teachers are using technology to teach by discipline This study found, as hoped, that higher-order skills – problem solving, communication, research and productivity -- were being taught, but also found that National Educational Technology Standard of uniform integration and uniform teaching of those skills varied by discipline with science generally leading the way followed by social studies, math, and language arts/ English
  • Because of the variation in use across disciplines it is instructive to look at the research by discipline as well , we will also look at 2 studies that were not discipline-specific and one that looked at 21 st century students’ expectations and recommendations
  • In Language Arts, this Canadian study documented students’ high level of engagement, more active participation and deeper understanding of the subject when computer aided instruction was available REGARDLESS OF THE TEACHERS’ ATTITUDE. In math Wenglinsky’s 1998 study is considered landmark because it looked at the impact of various uses of computers as well as at their effect on scores. He found that the key inequities in computer use between socio economic groups, ethnicities and urban/suburban and rural settings were not in how often computers were used, but in the purpose for which they were used. Regardless of setting computers used to teach for the same higher-order skills had the same impact on students’ scores. Further, he found that using computers to teach lower order skills had a negative impact on academic achievement.
  • A “Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology” grant to the University of Michigan-Dearborn funded a program to identify effective types of educational technology and ways of using it in social studies Most important, was teachers’ ability to use tech to reach students’ with a range of learning styles. Professional development went beyond improving tech skills to improve teaching skills in general. Teacher’s level of confidence was as important as their technological abilities Attitude of course has a huge impact on learning. Studying high school science students, Kaya found that science research project with imbedded IT positively affected students attitudes toward science. Previous studies had established the positive influence of authentic research on achievement, but the results of similar studies on attitudes where technology was not imbedded showed mixed results. The students in this study also demonstrated significantly increased interest in careers in science, engineering, and technology – very important at a time of decreasing science class enrollment and declining American dominance in STEM fields.
  • Independent of disciplines, Technology has been found to have positive effect on teaching methods, learning practices and the use of assessments. This 2008 study showed that over a one-year period, a laptop program, coupled with professional development led to a significant shift toward student-centered teaching emphasizing project-based learning, collaborative learning and impendent inquiry. As you know, student-centered teaching is strongly correlated to engagement which in turn is correlated with student achievement and, most importantly, fosters critical and analytical thinking Tool-based teaching – using laptops as learning tools – supports critical thinking activities. Not all classroom practices changed, notably organization and assessment, and the most significant changes were observed in those areas where the professional development program placed emphasized.
  • Millennial learners learn differently than their predecessors it and It makes sense that they would study differently as well. Debevec’s study (which charmingly considered using a class website and downloading ppts to be innovative study methods) found that student who were high on either innovative study methods or traditional methods scored equally well on exams. Interestingly, those high on both traditional and innovative did not do as well – perhaps b/c they also attended class less regularly. As mentioned above, assessment practices were among the last to change. Zappe’s 2002 study of jr high students found, however, that giving them ready assess to performance measure positively affected their motivation and subsequently their performance. Parent communication improved as well.
  • Finally, a Pew study in 2002, eloquently articulated the needs and expectations of 21 st century students. The Internet is just part of their lives; they expect it (and other technologies) to be part of their educational experience. At the time of the study, students used the internet for educational purposes, but largely outside of school Even these teenagers, could see the need to increaser the quality of the technology available to them in the classroom; the need for faculty professional development and for media literacy training for students
  • Research that contradicts the positive evidence of technology in education tends to focus on a direct cost to benefit ratio. This area of research questions the validity of funding levels for technology in education. It also claims that improvements in the quality of education that have been predicted by proponents of increased technology programs have simply not come to pass.
  • Researchers Joshua Angrist and Victor Lavy studied the effects of increased computer use in both 4 th and 8 th grade classrooms in Israel. The money from the 1994 Israeli State Lottery was used to install more computers in both elementary and middle school classrooms across the country. Additionally, emphasis was placed on computer-aided instruction. Angrist and Lavy ultimately found that CAI had almost no effect on test scores, leading them to conclude that the investment in computers for educational use was less valuable than investments that had proven positive effects, such as a reduction in class-size or increased teacher training.
  • A study of California public schools, also in 2002, mirrors the findings in the previous study. Goolsbee and Guryan studied all grade levels and all school districts across the state to determine whether or not government subsidies and specifically e-rate programs providing increased computer hardware and Internet connectivity to schools would result in higher performance for those schools with the most dramatic increase in technology access. The results of the study showed that large increases in Internet connectivity and the number of computers per student in a school did not lead to increases in student scores.
  • Larry Cuban conducted a study of preschools, kindergartens, high schools and universities in Silicon Valley. He found that while Silicon Valley schools are generally highly-saturated with technology. However, “technological wealth” did not mean that all of the schools studied were wealthy in other areas. According to the results of his study, technology has failed to transform instructional practice in Silicon Valley, leading Cuban to predict that technology will not improve or transform the way teaching a learning occurs in America.
  • Case studies comparing traditional methods to computer aided methods in achieving a specific academic goal are more difficult to find. Sonya Brown’s study is a small scale study of only 48 students. This study involved comparing the usefulness of physical or concrete manipulatives to virtual manipulatives with two sixth grade classes. Brown’s hypotheses predicted that students using virtual manipulatives would have significantly higher test scores than students using concrete manipulatives. The actual results of her study showed the opposite.
  • Technology And Learning Kinast & Swan Smith [B]

    1. 1. Technology and Learning Barbara Kinast Susan Swan Smith George Washington University Educ – 246 Spring 2010
    2. 2. Outline <ul><li>I. Objective </li></ul><ul><li>II. Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>III. Research Supporting Technology’s Effectiveness </li></ul><ul><li>IV. Research Refuting Technology’s Effectiveness </li></ul><ul><li>V. Resources </li></ul>
    3. 3. I. Objectives <ul><li>Convey a high-level understanding of recent research on technology’s effectiveness in K-12 education </li></ul><ul><li>Spur consideration of technology-related issues that will face you as administrators </li></ul><ul><li>Provide context for each of you to decide what the role of technology in K-12 education should be </li></ul>
    4. 4. II. Introduction <ul><li>Education is rich and intellectually rewarding, </li></ul><ul><li>entailing the posing of questions, </li></ul><ul><li>the examination of issues and </li></ul><ul><li>the search for adequate evidence. </li></ul><ul><li> - John Dewey (1933) </li></ul><ul><li> How We Think </li></ul><ul><li>The Question is: </li></ul><ul><li>Does technology help or hinder </li></ul><ul><li>education as Dewey characterizes it? </li></ul>
    5. 5. II. Introduction (Barron, 2003)
    6. 6. <ul><li>Supportive Research </li></ul><ul><li>Our doubts are traitors, </li></ul><ul><li>And make us lose the good we oft might win </li></ul><ul><li>By fearing to attempt. </li></ul><ul><li>- Shakespeare </li></ul><ul><li>Measure for Measure (1.4) </li></ul><ul><li>Studies by Discipline </li></ul><ul><li>Studies on Teaching and Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Studies on 21 st Century Students’ </li></ul><ul><li>Expectations & Suggestions </li></ul>
    7. 7. III. Supportive Research, cont. <ul><li>Language Arts/English: </li></ul><ul><li>When students had computer assistance in Canadian literacy classes they demonstrated: </li></ul><ul><li>a higher level of engagement, </li></ul><ul><li>more active participation in class, </li></ul><ul><li>a deeper level of understanding. </li></ul><ul><li>Regardless of teacher knowledge or attitude. </li></ul><ul><li>(Davis, 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>Mathematics: </li></ul><ul><li>Key inequities in computer use are not in how often they are used, but how they are used. </li></ul><ul><li>Computer use to teach higher-order thinking skills, had a significant positive impact on eighth graders’ scores. </li></ul><ul><li>(Wenglinsky, 1998) </li></ul>
    8. 8. III. Supportive Research, cont. <ul><li>Social Studies & History : </li></ul><ul><li>Students scores increase when technology is used because: </li></ul><ul><li>They have greater interest in doing research after exploring electronic resources, </li></ul><ul><li>Access to primary sources brings history alive for them, and </li></ul><ul><li>Their diverse learning styles were addressed. </li></ul><ul><li>Professional development improved </li></ul><ul><li>Teachers’ technology skills, </li></ul><ul><li>Their teaching skills, and </li></ul><ul><li>Their confidence in using technology. </li></ul><ul><li>(Taylor, 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Science: </li></ul><ul><li>Long-term, authentic research projects using information technology improved students’: </li></ul><ul><li>Attitudes toward, </li></ul><ul><li>Perceptions of, and </li></ul><ul><li>Self-confidence in science. </li></ul><ul><li>Previous studies without the imbedded IT component were inconclusive. </li></ul><ul><li>(Kaya, 2007) </li></ul>
    9. 9. III. Supportive Research, cont. <ul><li>Teaching Practices: </li></ul><ul><li>When one-to-on laptop program & professional development implemented: </li></ul><ul><li>increased student-centered teaching, </li></ul><ul><li>increased tool-based teaching, and </li></ul><ul><li>increased meaningful use of technology. </li></ul><ul><li>Some classroom practices did not change: </li></ul><ul><li>classroom organization, and </li></ul><ul><li>assessment practices. </li></ul><ul><li>The most significant changes were observed in areas where the professional development program had placed emphasis. </li></ul><ul><li>(Dawson, Cavanaugh and Ritzhaupt, 2008) </li></ul>
    10. 10. III. Supportive Research, cont. <ul><li>Learning: </li></ul><ul><li>Students who use technologically innovative study methods or traditional study methods do well on exams and attend class regularly. </li></ul><ul><li>Students who do both do not score as well or attend class as regularly; possibly because they do not feel they need to attend class and therefore miss important interpersonal interactions. </li></ul><ul><li>Students who do neither (no surprise) do more poorly than either of the other groups. </li></ul><ul><li>(Debevec, Shih and Kashyap, 2006) </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment: </li></ul><ul><li>Students who use 24/7 (web-based) access to performance measures regularly: </li></ul><ul><li>Are more motivated, </li></ul><ul><li>Perform better, and </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstrate self-regulating behavior. </li></ul><ul><li>Parents who have access to performance measures feel: </li></ul><ul><li>More included in educational process, and </li></ul><ul><li>Better informed by teachers. </li></ul><ul><li>(Zappe, 2002) </li></ul>
    11. 11. III. Supportive Research, cont. <ul><li>Student Expectations: </li></ul><ul><li>View the internet as integral to learning, </li></ul><ul><li>See internet as combination virtual textbook, tutor, study group, guidance counselor and backpack, </li></ul><ul><li>Use internet educationally outside the school day, and </li></ul><ul><li>Think not-so-engaging uses of technology are predominant in their classes. </li></ul><ul><li>Student Recommendations: </li></ul><ul><li>Better align classroom activities with how they use the Internet outside of class, </li></ul><ul><li>Increase the quality of technology and information available to them, </li></ul><ul><li>Put more emphasis on professional development for teachers and on media literacy skills for themselves, and, they caution, </li></ul><ul><li>The digital divide is a reality to be taken seriously. </li></ul><ul><li>(Pew, 2002) </li></ul>
    12. 12. IV. Contradictory Evidence <ul><li>Once a new technology rolls over you, </li></ul><ul><li> if you’re not part of the steamroller, </li></ul><ul><li>you’re part of the road. </li></ul><ul><li>- Stewart Brand </li></ul><ul><li>Is technology worth the money spent? </li></ul><ul><li>Does technology produce higher achievement? </li></ul>
    13. 13. IV. Contradictory Research, cont. <ul><li>Cost v. Benefit of Technology: </li></ul><ul><li>Computer-Aided Instruction (CAI): </li></ul><ul><li>requires a large investment of funds </li></ul><ul><li>leads to a decrease in funding of other programs </li></ul><ul><li>Results of study: </li></ul><ul><li>No evidence that increased use of computers raised scores </li></ul><ul><li>In some cases, students with increased computer use experienced a decrease in scores. </li></ul><ul><li>(Joshua Angrist and Victor Lavy, 2002) </li></ul>
    14. 14. IV. Contradictory Research, cont. <ul><li>Cost v. Benefit of Technology: </li></ul><ul><li>U.S. government subsidies for technology/E-rate: </li></ul><ul><li>Designed to decrease the perceived “digital divide” </li></ul><ul><li>Urban, low-income schools with high minority populations are most likely to take advantage of E-rate programs. </li></ul><ul><li>Significantly increased the number of computers and the level of Internet access available to schools </li></ul><ul><li>Results of study: </li></ul><ul><li>A 66% increase in Internet access did not result in any measurable increase in school performance. </li></ul><ul><li>( Austan Goolsbee and Jonathan Guryan, 2002) </li></ul>
    15. 15. IV. Contradictory Research, cont. <ul><li>Cost v. Benefit of Technology: </li></ul><ul><li>Silicon Valley, California: </li></ul><ul><li>has more “Technological wealth” than most other areas in California and in the U.S. </li></ul><ul><li>does not show more innovative use of computers for instructional purposes than the rest of the state or country </li></ul><ul><li>Results of study: </li></ul><ul><li>Using a variety of surveys, Cuban found that higher levels of access to computers, Internet connectivity and computer literacy did not lead to changes in instructional practice. </li></ul><ul><li>( Larry Cuban, 2001) </li></ul>
    16. 16. IV. Contradictory Research, cont. <ul><li>Traditional v. Virtual Methods: </li></ul><ul><li>A study of concrete manipulatives v. virtual manipulatives: </li></ul><ul><li>Given equal instruction on equivalent fractions, students who used concrete manipulatives performed better than students using virtual manipulatives. </li></ul><ul><li>Results of study: </li></ul><ul><li>Students responded positively to both types of manipulatives. </li></ul><ul><li>Students performed better on posttests after interacting with concrete manipulatives. </li></ul><ul><li>( Sonya Brown, 2007) </li></ul>
    17. 17. V. Resources <ul><li>Angrist, J., Lavy, V. (2002, October). New Evidence on Classroom Computers and Pupil Learning. The Economic Journal, 112, 735-765. Retrieved from . </li></ul><ul><li>Barron, A. E., Kemker, K., Harmes, C., Kalaydijian, K. (2003). Large-Scale Research Study in K-12 Schools: Technology Integration as It Relates to the National Educational Technology Standards. Journal of Research on Technology on Education , 35(4), 489-507. Retrieved from . </li></ul><ul><li>Brown, S. (2007). Counting Blocks or Keyboards? A Comparative Analysis of Concrete versus Virtual Manipulatives in Elementary School Mathematics Concepts. Retrieved from . (ED499231) </li></ul><ul><li>Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. </li></ul><ul><li>Davis, J. M. (2009, April 20). Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) in Language Arts: Investigating the Influence of Teacher Knowledge and Attitudes on the Learning Environment. Retrieved from . (ED505173) </li></ul><ul><li>Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Ritzhaupt, a. D. (2009) Florida’s EETT Leveraging Laptops Initiative and Its Impact on Teaching Practices. Journal of Research on Technology on Education , 41(2), 143-159. Retrieved from . Debevec, K., Shih, M, & Kashyap, V. (2006). Learning Strategies and Performance in a Technology Integrated Classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 293-307. Retrieved from . (EJ728906) </li></ul><ul><li>Debevec, K., Shih, M, & Kashyap, V. (2006). Learning Strategies and Performance in a Technology Integrated Classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 293-307. Retrieved from . (EJ728906) </li></ul>
    18. 18. V. Resources <ul><li>Dawson, K., Cavanaugh, C., & Ritzhaupt, a. D. (2009) Florida’s EETT Leveraging Laptops Initiative and Its Impact on Teaching Practices. Journal of Research on Technology on Education , 41(2), 143-159. Retrieved from . Debevec, K., Shih, M, & Kashyap, V. (2006). Learning Strategies and Performance in a Technology Integrated Classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 293-307. Retrieved from . (EJ728906) </li></ul><ul><li>Debevec, K., Shih, M, & Kashyap, V. (2006). Learning Strategies and Performance in a Technology Integrated Classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(3), 293-307. Retrieved from . (EJ728906) </li></ul><ul><li>Goolsbee, A., Guryan, J. (2002, August). The Impact of Internet Subsidies in Public Schools. NBER Working Paper Series. Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from . (ED468062) </li></ul><ul><li>Kaya, O. N., Ebenezer, J. (2007, April). High School Students' Affective Dispositions in Science: Scientific Inquiry with Information Technologies . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association . Chicago, IL. Retrieved from . (ED500737) </li></ul>
    19. 19. V. Resources <ul><li>Kingsley, K. V., Boone, R. (2009). Effects of Multimedia Software on Achievement of Middle School Students in an American History Class. Journal of Research on Technology on Education , 41(2), 203-221. Retrieved from . </li></ul><ul><li>Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does It Compute? The Relationship between Educational Technology and Student Achievement in Mathematics . Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from . (ED425191) </li></ul><ul><li>Zappe, S. M.; Sonak, B. C.; Hunter, M. W.; & Suen, H. K. (2002, April). The Effects of a Web-Based Information Feedback System on Academic Achievement Motivation and Performance of Junior High School Students . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association . New Orleans. Retrieved from . (ED468915) </li></ul>