Webb’s Media

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.