I was making a presentation on social software affordances in class the other night when my professor stopped me and said:I paused for a moment and collected my thoughts.
Chris, that’s great, but how do we know that using technology will positively impact student achievement? What does the research say about technology use and student achievement?
I considered citing the “no significant difference” research. Then, without thinking, my reptilian brain kicked in. I suggested that schooling is about more than achievement. If we focus solely on achievement we end up with measures that ignore critical social aspects of development. Schools are all about interaction. Teaching and learning is a focal point, but you can’t make students learn.
I spouted: “Are you saying that student achievement is only expressed through grades?”
This exchange left me feeling raw, yet I felt I needed to prove to him that technology can and does positively impact student achievement. I understood where my prof was coming from. He’s an empiricist; anything considered educative needs experiential proof that it positively impacts learning.
I went home feeling rather inept. I spent the next several hours looking through notes and online resources.
I discovered a paper on the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory site by Honey, Culp & Spielvogel (2005) titled “Critical Issue: Using Technology to Improve Student Achievement.”
The authors site several research reports that demonstrate positive gains in student achievement when instructors used discrete educational software like integrated learning systems, computer-assisted instruction, and computer-based instruction. These applications are widely available in schools today and, along with word-processing software, have been present in classrooms for more than 20 years.
Discrete educational software not only to supplements instruction but is also used “to introduce topics, provide means for self-study, and offer opportunities to learn concepts otherwise inaccessible to students. The software also manifests two key assumptions about how computers can assist learning. First, the user's ability to interact with the software is narrowly defined in ways designed specifically to promote learning with the tools. Second, computers are viewed as a medium for learning, rather than as tools that could support further learning (Murphy et al, 2001).”
I found this second point to be a critical one. Computers are more than tools; they serve as a medium, a vehicle, a channel, a mode, a method to engage learners through a variety of applications. Computing and software offer affordances that were previously unavailable to both the teacher and the learner. Similar to non-computer mediated learning environments, student achievement is really a matter of learning design and the level of engagement proffered within a particular environment.
This argument may or may not sway my professor, but the research evidence culled from the NCREL report might.
I encourage you to take a look and see what you think. If we are asked to defend technology in classroom settings, we need to have several good arguments available. The research suggests that it depends on how technology is used, the teacher, the learner, and the content.
Two other points worth noting from the NCREL report:
I am not suggesting that technology or social software is the answer to all of our educational needs. However, I am saying that if it is implemented carefully and thoughtfully, technology and software can have a positive impact on the teaching and learning experience.
The Complex Nature of Change
Another factor influencing the impact of technology on student achievement is that changes in classroom technologies correlate to changes in other educational factors as well. Originally the determination of student achievement was based on traditional methods of social scientific investigation: it asked whether there was a specific, causal relationship between one thing—technology—and another—student achievement. Because schools are complex social environments, however, it is impossible to change just one thing at a time (Glennan & Melmed, 1996; Hawkins, Panush, & Spielvogel, 1996; Newman, 1990). If a new technology is introduced into a classroom, other things also change. For example, teachers' perceptions of their students' capabilities can shift dramatically when technology is integrated into the classroom (Honey, Chang, Light, Moeller, in press). Also, teachers frequently find themselves acting more as coaches and less as lecturers (Henriquez & Riconscente, 1998). Another example is that use of technology tends to foster collaboration among students, which in turn may have a positive effect on student achievement (Tinzmann, 1998). Because the technology becomes part of a complex network of changes, its impact cannot be reduced to a simple cause-and-effect model that would provide a definitive answer to how it has improved student achievement.
Research on successfully developing, evaluating, studying, and implementing a wide range of technology-based educational programs suggests that the value of technology for students will not be realized unless attention is paid to several important considerations that support the effective use of technology (ISTE, 2002; Byrom & Bingham, 2001; Chang, Henriquez, Honey, Light, Moeller, & Ross, 1998; Cradler, 1997; Frederiksen & White, 1997; Hawkins, Panush, & Spielvogel, 1996; Honey, McMillan, Tsikalas, & Light, 1996; National Foundation for the Improvement of Education, 1996; Pea & Gomez, 1992). These considerations are:
1. Specific educational goals and a vision of learning through technology
2. Ongoing professional development
3. Structural changes in the school day
4. A robust technical infrastructure and technical support
5. Ongoing evaluation
Reference:
Honey, M., Culp, K.M. and Spielvogel, R. (2005). Critical Issue: Using Technology to Improve Student Achievement. Retrieved 14 February 2006 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te80
Keywords: academic achievement, discrete educational software, learning, social software, teaching, technology
Comments
When we put in a server based, SAT prep system that allowed me to aggregate and measure our weaknesses in the math and verbal section of the SAT - our school has seen over a 100 point jump on the old SAT.
Computer based systems can create remediation plans, evaluate student strengths and weaknesses, as well as provide feedback.
AS the professor this -- do you use a computer to assimilate the results of your research projects? Of course -- all researchers do. Can it be done by hand? Yes. But it is more expeditious and efficient to do it via computer because of the time savings for a scarce resource - the researcher and his/her staff.
It is the same thing in the classroom. Can we do things manually -- yes! It is more expeditious and efficient to involve the Internet and computing in our research, our assessment, and our instruction. It frees up the teacher to TEACH and do less grading. It involves the students.
Did researchers do research to see if they should aggregate their data using computers? Did people do research to see if they should give up their horse and buggy and drive cars? No! Efficiency gains are easily measurable and observable.
Coolcatteacher
Miles,
Thank you for your response and pointing me to the PISA article and Downes' response--quite helpful indeed.
Vicki,
Your comments point to the value of dicrete educational purposing of computers in the classroom. I'm glad to hear your students faired so well. I believe my professor still uses an abacus to calculate his research findings so I want to be careful what I point out to him!
Wendy,
I like the way you framed the debate-- student achievement has more to do with the way teaching and learning is designed and is only a part of the overall developmental process. Thank you for your thoughts.
-cds