This would be a good place to reveal my agenda regarding the Computers and Student Learning: Bivariate and Multivariate Evidence on the Availability and Use of Computers at Home and at School. I was pleased when I was forwarded the article from The Telegraph because I knew that somewhere someone was wringing their hands while others weeped silently, head down on their desks because there is a *research* study showing “Pupils make more progress in 3Rs ‘without aid of computers’”. What the hell are we going to do now?
The article doesn’t bother to mention that the initial billions of dollars spent on outfitting schools with computers has been done without any research or “evidence” that such expenditures would improve learning outcomes.

I cannot do justice to David Wiley’s critique of the claims of the article, and the importance in statistical analyses of not confusing correlation with causality. And Albert IP takes to task the assessment tool…what learning were the authors claiming to be impacted negatively by computers. The assessment tool is incredibly important to understanding the context of the study because truthfully, the researchers were not measuring big “A” achievement (graduation rates, grades, future job prospects, future job performance, happiness with life, earning lots of money, going to college, graduating from college)…they are simply measuring their ability to answer questions on one standardized test. I understand why they are using existing data and that having a consistent tool to measure “achievement” that is more internally consistent than, for example, grades. However, it would be helpful for the information in the paper to cover how the test scores analyzed were related to other measures of student achievement, for a more robust picture of achievement.

My issue is with the sweeping broad generalizations in the abstract and conclusions of the research article, which should be more thoroughly contextualized. Student achievement? I think that means we’re talking about the results of a test, but what test, written by whom and with what reliability and validity? That should be made explicit from the abstract and title. And why should I care about these “achievement” scores-what does the results of that test mean for the kids taking it in terms of the above-mentioned larger achievement issues …?

And you can guess what my next issue is…how do we get from a research study with a benign title of: Computers and Student Learning: Bivariate and Multivariate Evidence on the Availability and Use of Computers at Home and at School to “Pupils make more progress in 3Rs ‘without aid of computers” in the Telegraph article. First, how do we get from Student Learning in the title of the paper to “student achievement” in the abstract? Never mind that neither by themselves could be adequately dealt with in their entirety in a 30 page paper. Though these are clearly distinct phenomena, the authors use achievement and learning simultaneously, when in fact they are addressing neither in the data. They are addressing, as David Wiley and Albert IP both point out, the demonstrated achievement on a very specific pen and paper test, requiring fairly complex prerequisite knowledge. Further, when the “availability” of home computers is self-reported (again, noted by DW), and when there is no evidentially-based analysis of *how* computers are being used, this becomes similar to every digital divide study which counts up the number of computers in classrooms (regardless of age, memory, processor speed, Internet access speed) and says: “We have achieved access! Nothing more to do here.”

And then the press gets a hold of it, and suddenly students are “making more progress” in reading, writing and arithmetic, which suggests from the title that there is some sort of longitudinal diagnosis of students abilities, some sort of pre-test, post-test. The average reader, I’m guessing, is not going to look up the original study to figure out if their interpretation matches that of the newspaper. And I can imagine in a few days, John Tesh is going to come on “Intelligence for your Life” (I am purposely not linking) and say “How to make your kids smarter and help them do better in school…take away their computer! A study in the UK…blah blah blah.”

Most of the issues with the study have to do with the language the researchers are using. If they took more effort to clearly and specifically identify what can and cannot be interpreted from their numbers, I would have nothing to complain about. No researcher can ever expect to make the sweeping generalization about learning that they are trying to say with one study—research unfortunately is often a limited way to investigate phenomena because it must be so focused. The real damage could lie in the pop culture interpretation of the research, which could impact policy-making in inappropriate ways, because we are always looking for the easiest solution. Nobody wants to hear that for every dollar (or euro) spend on computer hardware and software, we should be spending an equal amount on training and development to support educators in using all the educational tools available in instruction.

I was sent this article a week ago by a friend, presenting the results of a study in the UK that determined that kids who used computers in school did more poorly on literacy tests. Just as a side note about the persistence of information in the web world, it is astounding how quickly and broadly this story spread. What has prompted me to comment at the moment David Wiley wrote about the likely disparity in teaching versus testing context and that the study was motivated by someone’s agenda. This post received a comment that suggested that DW is, in fact, the one with an agenda and somewhat patronizingly (maybe it was deserved?) —posted a link to the actual study.

Before I read the article and comment, I wanted to share what I thought when I read the story. I did not immediately ponder the researchers’ agenda. Everyone conducting research has an agenda, incidentally—it’s just not en vogue to openly address your research agenda in a quantitative study. But what I thought was that it makes a lot of sense that scores would be lower….why? Because if kids are using computers as cognitive tools, if they’re using computers not for drilling & skill building (which I don’t advocate, but basic literacy skills must exist prior to understanding more complex literacy contexts. When kids are doing assignments, there are a number of aids that make it easy for kids to shut their brains off to certain tasks while working. So if kids are being taught to distribute the mental load and share it with the computer, if they were given a test without the luxuries of spelling and grammar checks, they would be weaker in those areas. But those are cosmetic, surface level issues (spelling in particular—and how many of us that *did* learn to spell have gotten lazy because we know that Word’s dictionary will pick up the slack. And even worse, when people do use Word’s dictionary to check their spelling and grammar, and don’t have the tools to evaluate for themselves whether a word exists or not, or whether the grammar is correct or not—what does that say about the cultural impact that Microsoft has on our English language use. But this is completely tangential…back to the study).

So spelling is fairly cut and dry…why else might the scores be lower? How about because when computing technology is integrated in schools, though there are some examples of people doing great work with this, I see a lot of people using computers, not necessarily in ways to unload mental cognition such as spelling, but instead to meet technology learning requirements. Thus, if this is the case, using Powerpoint would be an end unto itself, and the whole process, the thought of how to organize and deliver a presentation comes second. Also, if kids are using Powerpoint to collect information and slap it together in a presentation, it is extremely easy to cut and paste other people’s ideas, without carefully reading and synthesizing the information. One final suggestion is that if computers are heavily integrated into the classroom and if they are being used instead of paper texts, it may be difficult for students to engage in deeper mental dialogue with the text because perhaps– now I’m suggesting something that may not be true for the younger generation– seeing information on a computer screen puts someone in the mindset that they can just sift through a text and skim and not engage with the text. This text vs. computer screen suggestion is not very different from DW’s comments.

My gut reaction is that all the focus on computing in schools focuses on “how much” not “how good.” The “how good” would be an exploration of the ways in which integrating computers *will* result in “better” results. That’s another issue, as a society, we haven’t really reached a consensus about what “better” means. The reason we don’t talk about the “how good” is the same reason why standardized tests are so popular at the moment—it’s EASIER not to get too complex. As my recent post about complex arguments indicates, we are quickly becoming a population that because of the constant media barrage from television, radio, and Internet pop up ads and websites, has a very short attention span and can’t, are incapable of, deconstructing complex messages. So maybe, it’s not even the computers in schools…maybe it’s who we’re becoming as we zip through information with attention deficit disorder, processing visual and textual stimuli for only seconds before moving on to something else.

Again, I have not examined the study, as I wanted to see if, after I read their methodology and conclusions, any of my guesses match the researchers’. I’ll post about that later.

Cognitive Dissonance and Mike Barbour comment more about creating a publication that really cracks open the brittleness of the existing academic publishing model.

But first we should explore what didn’t happen with David Wiley’s Pitch. Without adequate evaluation of what was missing a year ago, a new version of the same thing might face the same peril. Also how will the journal be received by tenure committees; Will it hold weight as a bona fide publication venue? (It *should* but that doesn’t mean it will.) And how will it be received by people new and fresh in the field, who write up their research results and have a choice of an online, not widely known journal or a more prestigious, 12 months to print journal that will not publish their work if it has appeared somewhere else. These are not criticisms of the idea at all, but issues to address in the formation of the journal to pre-empt doubt on the part of a would-be author by laying it out clearly what the advantages are.

Other than barriers about how to receive “credit” toward progress in the academy, it’s an awesome idea. I wonder if anyone has looked at First Monday, which is an existing peer-reviewed Internet journal. And in fact, they allow authors several copyright choices. The peer-review comments posted online though, would be a fantastic way to promote a real academic discussion. I recall also, that First Monday requires that authors write for an international audience, so authors need to write clearly and concisely. Something they don’t do well however, which no online journal does particularly well, is tailor content design for the Internet. By this I mean, taking advantage of hyperlinking, using visual images, and cutting the article into pages instead of an endless scroll—but that may be too much to think about for each article. However, some simple uses of hyperlinking for example, to reference previously published articles, to link concepts…I don’t know.

I guess the only thing about titles is that all of the suggestions by Nate suggest very different content emphasis for the journal. What kind of research would be published in this journal? If we just say any research related to Instructional Technology, that’s going to be just far too wide in scope. So at the moment, I don’t have any good naming suggestions, but I think that if there is a clearly defined mission for the journal beyond its mode of delivery and timeliness, and if the mission states what sort of information will be addressed, I think an appropriate name will present itself.

Never again , a post that I was connected to via The Protection Racket …brings up the ironic issue of copyright in academic publications. When I first learned that academic journals typically own the rights to work that they publish, rather than the author, I thought that was strange because if I published a work of fiction, I would own the copyright. But I had never considered questioning the system. Nor had I considered thumbing my nose at the system as Cognitive Dissonance aka Nate suggests. Why? Because when you’re starting out trying to understand a community of practice, it is better to play nicely so others will allow you to keep playing. (Which is how the whole thing gets perpetuated because after you went through all the pain and hassle, you tend to think others should have to also…and the whole thing becomes a cycle feeding into itself)

Having peer-reviewed publications is important because it is a necessary aspect of coming into the discourse of a community. But—the important part is the peer-review, not the publication. But there is an older generation of scholars, the ones who sit on tenure committees, who have it in their head what the “prestigious” publications in the field are, what the appropriate venues of publication are. These are the same people who in a Research & Theory meeting at AECT couldn’t understand why so many people were requesting roundtable over presentations…because after all having a presentation at a conference is more “prestigious.” But people are BORED OUT OF THEIR MINDS with endless concurrent sessions, a passive audience to someone’s canned delivery. The people that I want to hang out with at a conference want to discuss ideas, engage in discussion, and be pushed to think critically about problems by people outside their (un)comfortable circle at their home institution.

And that can happen online too….and it can be more rewarding than sending a paper for publication and then waiting for the 6-12 month turnaround on information that by the time it is published is more than 2 years old (at least). While thematically there are cycles and patterns to be derived from research—because I do believe that while the toys and gadgets change, many of the issues remain the same—nonetheless, information really does change too fast for this lengthy cycle.

So the question remains…for the field and for one of the oldest membership organizations for instructional technology, how do you effect change and a shift in perspective that really means something and provides a widely accepted process for a speedy but quality distribution of pertinent information. And while, yes, AECT has a long history—it also has some of the preminent scholars of systemic change, so it’s not like we’re short in theoretical strategies for figuring it out…if that’s really what people want.

What’s so threatening about what someone has said or might say? It’s just words, pieced together, the expression of thoughts. In this particular case, not a call for action, or a declaration of war, just a critique of a system that is in need of critique. Or if the system is so great, we shouldn’t feel threatened to hear it critiqued. But once the media, with its truncated, spun-round-and-round, memes of information gets a hold of a message, it doesn’t matter what was *actually* said. Because of the public’s ever shortening attention span, all anyone listens to is the opening adverbial clause before the media is off and running and spinning. [Transcript of Ward Churchill’s speech]

And what’s so important about what isn’t said? Why is it that when a couple of white kids in Colorado shot up their school, Clinton made a public expression of sorrow immediately…but a Native American in Minnesota shoots teachers and students in his school, and Bush can’t find time in his calendar to comment.

But these language actions and inactions are real and they are strongly felt. What does it say when a professor of Native American descent is being censored by the state University where he works and by other venues he was scheduled to speak. It says to me that when that State University puts “Equal Opportunity Employer” on their applications that it’s a bunch of bullshit. They don’t want discussion or debate or opinions unless it’s the “right kind” of opinions. And what does it say when a Native American student carries out the most bloody school shooting since Columbine and our president can’t be bothered to even make a public statement of solace. It says there are lives that are important in our country and worth media attention– but not these lives. This seems particularly callous since the President *can* be bothered to make a public statement on behalf of a woman who has been turned into a media object, dehumanizing her, ironically in a discussion of her humanity– the symbol of a twisted argument about who should get to play God—husband, parents, or the State. Nowhere in the discussion of Terry Schiavo has there been action to silence the opinions of either side of the discussion, nor has there been silence from the State. There’s plenty of “compassion” [if compassion means being converted from human being to object for public display] for a woman who is helpless to speak. But a Native American professor with a controversial view who might talk back—we turn a deaf ear; and a deadly shooting a community already rife with poverty and difficulty—we turn a blind eye and a silent tongue.

In a conversation tonight (F2F), someone mentioned that the reason grad students don’t talk about how hard grad school is…is because of fear of failure. Or fear of being perceived as a failure…because if you can’t cut it in grad school, and how’s that going to translate to career success.

But I’m not afraid of failure. I’m afraid of success. And I’m afraid of success because in the academic world, success translates to one thing: tenure-track at a Research 1 university. And being a graduate student at a Research 1 University, I have the privilege of watching professors in action. And this point in the year, mid- to late in the spring semester, a lot of them forget the reasons why they wanted to be professors in the first place. [Besides the ego trip, those who are in their jobs for that reason never forget that as a motivation.] And by the time summer has passed, they’re right back there in September thinking, “this year will be different.” But many who went into academia because they enjoyed teaching and working with students, and in the Research 1 world, that’s not the first priority—how many grants and how much money you’re bringing in come first. And if that means your ed school is turning out deliverables for Microsoft to help them market products, so be it, as long as the money’s coming in. (And if that’s not losing sight of what educators should be doing, I don’t know what is)

This is not a whine fest about how sad and hard academia is. Of course it’s invigorating, challenging, and on really good days collaborative and constructive. But as a researcher of gender equity in computer science and technical fields, I am acutely aware that women are underrepresented in the most prestigious academic programs, institutions, governmental positions–you name it, women are not there representing. And a professor I work with, from the very beginning has advised me to only shoot for the most prestigious job because, her argument is, you can always trade down later. But talking to her further, I found that the reason she advises this is because she really enjoys conducting academic research and prefers it to teaching. Does she prefer one over the other because of the prestige associated with research? I have no idea. Certainly, even “teaching” universities put a hefty amount of weight on research, making it challenging for professors applying for tenure because they have been required to spend the bulk of their time teaching, but still are magically supposed to identify time to write original research.

But as for academically socially constructed views of prestige, I’m here to say: NMP*. Women are less represented because either women are smarter or they’ve had difficulty finding a wife to take care of all the “little stuff” so they can concentrate on their career. But I vote for reconstructing a notion of success, which rewards a balanced set of priorities, which doesn’t necessitate affirmation from anyone else….being authentic to what is important to you is a reward unto itself.

*NMP=Not My Problem

Learning Rocks (and does it ever) brings up the difficulty of entering discourse via academic publications, particularly because the publishing process is so (1) slow and (2) costly. Thought-provoking. I wonder about the academic game sometimes. It *is* a game. Some people get very good at playing it, and rise up in the ranks, and would feel threatened by a sudden change in the rules.

But aren’t a lot of ideas and opportunities for discourse lost by a reliance purely on this process as a means of sharing information and research? It’s so Gutenberg-Era. (attempt at humor). AECT keeps asking, what should AECT be…if AECT provides a network of researchers, educators, designers, and thinkers who are willing to engage in dialogue and make each other think, it doesn’t matter what it is. People who want to not just think about, for example, what is learning* but really be engaged in a discussion about it.

But then the question is, how to foster and reward discussants for their time and effort….and how to make sure that everyone who wants to participate feels included?

(*Warning, entering into this series of blog-versations could lead to brain fatigue).

I am using the theoretical framework of cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) to guide discussion among a group participating in my dissertation study. I see cultural historical activity theory as a scaffold to guide the discourse and purpose of the group. For example, starting out with rules of discourse is immensely helpful in clearly articulating what we expect from each other. Articulating goals is instrumental in establishing our group’s purpose, as is articulating hoped for outcomes.

In talking with Mr DoE (off-blog discussion), I was posing the question—how is CHAT different from Instructional Design (ID) models. He suggested that ID is often prescriptive, as opposed to descriptive…

Then I suggested that if one is using a constructivist ID model, which is more fluid and more accommodating to the specific thing being designed….then what is the difference between ID and CHAT, at least philosophically? To flesh that out a big more, a constructivist ID model should have the following parts: Goals (objectives, learning goals), Audience (stakeholders, who is being designed for, how are they included in the design process), Materials (artifacts, supplies, etc), Methods (learning theories and strategies for using tools), and Evaluation (both formative & summative that can then inform future goals…)…Each part informs another part, in a fluid, rather than linear process.

Likewise, cultural historical activity theory…we have artifacts (analogous to materials), subjects acting on objects (I hate this part because often people are the “object” and I would prefer not to objectify other people, particularly in a model that strives to do just the opposite), outcomes (objectives–to inform the next iteration of the goal-setting process), goals (group objectives), rules of discourse (lacking in ID, in fact maybe a deficiency of the constructivist ID model since this is not address, at least not that I’ve seen), members of community (audience, but in a more participatory way)…The historical aspect of CHAT is analogous to the process in ID of looking backward over previous summative evaluation (assuming that organizations do that .

As I think “out loud” (quietly typing), CHAT may have advantages over modifying Instructional Design models to be constructivist in nature, because CHAT is designed to force a group to make visible expectations of discourse and to make visible the group’s collective goals.

That being said…please critique, poke holes, tell me how I’m misinterpreting either of these theories. Since I see both as trying to make human interaction more “systematic” –it may be that people who are familiar with studying systems, that all systematic theories have similar components.

aect

Testing, 1, 2 ,3 aect

Edu-Blogger posts about annotative possibilities of google maps combined with a GPS system. Edu-blogger links to a screencast: http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/gems/gmap2_flash.html which demonstrates the possibilites of merged GPS/Google mapping/video/digital photo fun. Except for the creepy last line about annotating the planet, it’s an interesting idea.

I have to admit, I haven’t graduated to google maps. Old habits die hard and I’ve always used yahoo. I am concerned about one thing though, and maybe it’s not important to anyone else. It seems “everyone” uses google. It’s the gold standards of web searching. But how many people, who accept that it’s the “best”–know why it’s the best, other than that’s what someone has told them. It certainly fractured the pre-existing system of multiple registration, fee-based priority, but in its own way it structures the reality of how most people search for information….and because it is, as nearly as I can tell, one of the ways the average person searches….that gives google an enormous stake in our perception of knowledge on the web…