Computers do not raise pupil results

[sparkeh]

Inreresting read:Computers 'do not improve' pupil results, says OECD - BBC News

 

Though the real message seems to be that moderate computer use does have a benefit.

[timbo343]

Just read this myself, would be interesting to see what everyone's opinions on this.

 

What happens when the hardware is so old that the software wont run smoothly. At the moment its like trying to get blood out of a stone or have i got the wrong end of the stick?

 

Maybe 'they' need to look at the bigger picture, what about students using phones in school, we cannot control the data networks.

 

I have seen in the past IT rooms been used as 'easy lesson' rooms.

Edited September 15, 2015 by timbo343

[Davit2005]

I can see this where the attitude of some is to just ask students to research with no real target or aim. I'm sure half the laptops that I used to repair were the sign of bored students.

[CAM]

I think we are going to reach a point where teacher are encouraged to create class time free from computers instead of using them for everything. Computer skills are so easily picked up these days, they pervade everyday life and the world seems reliant on autocorrect and spell check (even I have started blindly accepting American spellings dropping my u's and substituting z for s because of auto-correct....)

 

If I was a sixth form teacher, they'd be handwriting their assignments. At least if they blindly copy they have to write it out and learn something. (Plus my hand was in agony by the end of my A2 Psychology paper with all the long-winded writing I had to do).

[localzuk]

I agree with it, but with some conditions - computers can and are a benefit for education if and only if they are properly integrated into the curriculum, and then with well trained and knowledgeable teaching staff monitoring their use.

 

As it stands, we rarely have all those boxes ticked. We have far too many teachers who use computers as an easy lesson instead. So, the end result is they can and do damage education instead.

Edited September 15, 2015 by localzuk

[synaesthesia]

Computers are not here to raise results. They are here as tools, one of many ways of getting something done. The students are not supposed to be using them purely to "raise grades" for the same reason. They are here to use them in everyday situations, to learn about them, to prepare them for work.

[strawberry]

Depends on how they are used, I bet the schools that have IT to hand all day long shoe horn it into the curriculum and don't have the teacher skills to maintain a decent level of delivery. Whilst those who only use it when they need it deliver decent confident lessons that fit in well.

[pcstru]

Technology being linked to improved outcomes was a myth sold by the likes of the e-leaning foundation which promotes 1:1 schemes in England. Of course it was possible to find plenty of schools who did a scheme and could show outcomes improving and the data itself was reasonably robust (outcomes did improve). What they didn't seem to recognise in the analysis was that the schemes themselves involved large amount of cultural change within the schools teaching and learning environment. A lot of effort would go into teacher training and ensuring that teachers knew how to make effective use of the devices in the context of their lessons within the schools - that effort would often be cross curriculum, with good awareness by teachers of what was going on in other lessons. What the data and analysis failed to do was decouple that from the technology. If you put the same effort into the cultural change but introduced 1:1 paper pads and pencils, I'd guess you would see improved outcomes. They have little to do with technology itself and much more to do with 'culture'.

 

That said, computers should play a part in education. We need to teach students about them, how to use them (in every sense from basic end application use to building applications) and we need to make sure they are used indirectly in subjects where they are just another tool (not the primary learning outcome). But we should never expect them to have any effect without good teaching and learning being delivered by teachers. Even the best use of computers in Education to deliver distance learning (EdX, OU) in the end comes down to excellent teachers producing quality content.

[CyberNerd]

Technology being linked to improved outcomes was a myth sold by the likes of the e-leaning foundation which promotes 1:1 schemes in England. Of course it was possible to find plenty of schools who did a scheme and could show outcomes improving and the data itself was reasonably robust (outcomes did improve). What they didn't seem to recognise in the analysis was that the schemes themselves involved large amount of cultural change within the schools teaching and learning environment. A lot of effort would go into teacher training and ensuring that teachers knew how to make effective use of the devices in the context of their lessons within the schools - that effort would often be cross curriculum, with good awareness by teachers of what was going on in other lessons. What the data and analysis failed to do was decouple that from the technology. If you put the same effort into the cultural change but introduced 1:1 paper pads and pencils, I'd guess you would see improved outcomes. They have little to do with technology itself and much more to do with 'culture'.

 

Sometimes the introduction of IT (learning) systems is the driver of that change in culture in schools.

[Ephelyon]

I agree broadly with all that's been said, though when the article started saying things like "there is no single country in which the internet [sic] is used frequently at school by a majority of students and where students' performance improved", I must admit I was reminded of this:

 

Spurious Correlations

[mthomas08]

Inreresting read:Computers 'do not improve' pupil results, says OECD - BBC News

 

Though the real message seems to be that moderate computer use does have a benefit.

 

Other half's youngest sister went to a School, one of those that got voted one of the best Schools in Kent. They don't go mad over technology and certainly don't do any kind of a "Scheme".

 

People have forgotten what technology is about, to make life easier. I personally believe with what I've seen - it's about BALANCE. If you buy technology and need to ask "What can we use it for" that's where you should not be using it. Some technology you have no choice but to use, e.g. teaching the kids how to code, use office + software packages. I agree that Students do tend to pay more attention when technology is being used but is that because Teachers have become a bit less lazy and a lot less strict? We are currently going through a phase of zero tolerance on Uniform and we have already noticed an impact on behaviour.

 

I do think Schools need to think about "Going back to basics" and not buying technology just because the Teacher wants it but perhaps what's best for the kids. They are our customers at the end of the day.

 

So do I think they do or don't improve grades? I think it's a tool to be used when it needs to be not just for the sake of it. Which is why I am always pushing to replace old equipment that needs to be replaced not something that the Teacher simply wants e.g. IWBs which I still hold a huge question mark over..

[Ephelyon]

Mostly agree, but the "tail wagging the dog" method is actually a very common approach to genuine innovation at the end of the day (the Linux kernel, for example). Too much of it is a problem and there's no point spending the money before you've even looked at how you could use it, but sometimes we do make purchases based around the potential of something which we suspect is not yet fully tapped... though we have at least seen something in it before we do. Edited September 15, 2015 by Ephelyon

[Quackers]

Its not about if IT raises results or not, its more that IT is now the tool.

 

When i was at school in the 90s and we wanted to look something up it would be an Encyclopedia Britannica job (maybe Encarta towards the end in Year 11 if we were lucky!), today its the internet.

 

The whole world is geared now around computer technology from your banking to your car tax. Its about making sure the tools the kids have access to are relevant to world they are living in, and then allowing the teacher to use those tools to deliver great lessons.

 

Below are our GCSE results since 2007. 2005 was the year we started going mental with technology in our school, doubled our IT suites and put 150 laptops out in 4 laptop trollies, and 2009 is when we went 1:1 with netbooks then later iPads. I don't believe the technology did this, but it did give the teachers the ability to deliver more engaging, more enjoyable lessons.

 

[GrumbleDook]

I love articles like this. The Journo version of the report takes out what they see as key facts (aka the facts that will grab attention most and that *they* think is most relevant) and they it gets put in front of others who may not have seen the full report and the responses are then selected for sound bites suitable to the piece.

 

What actually goes on is that the report comes out, people quickly read the abstract and the summary/conclusions and correlations are picked out as the report gets skimmed over.

 

The report is 204 pages long (including the fiddly bits) Students, Computers and Learning | OECD READ edition and the executive summary is what most folk will have looked at.

 

The first thing to note is that this is based on PISA scores, and you will get some who question the value of that as the basis.

 

The next thing is the report talks a lot about 'browsing the internet' and similar phrases where the internet is mentioned. When you rid into the tasks they actually looked at, there is no weighting applied to the relevance or importance of certain tasks. I know few teachers who would say that 'Chat on line at school" has the same impact as 'Use school computers for group work end communication with other students", though given half a chance most students *will* do the former.

 

The paper is awash with stats and that means people will pick and choose how they want to report it. No doubt, this will get used by some politicians for justification (again) about why some QANGOs were cut, but they will fail to mention that the report also says that we are not realising the full potential of technology.

 

The Exec Summary has a few choice lines in it, but people should read the full summary so that you understand the context.

 

As these results show, the connections amongst students, computers and learning are neither simple nor hard-wired; and the real contributions ICT can make to teaching and learning have yet to be fully realised and exploited. But as long as computers and the Internet continue to have a central role in our personal and professional lives, students who have not acquired basic skills in reading, writing and navigating through the digital landscape will find themselves unable to participate fully in the economic, social and cultural life around them.

 

ICT is linked to better student performance only in certain contexts, such as when computer software and internet connections help to increase study time or practice.

I think this one covers it for me ... Have a reason for using it as a tool and make sure that the way you are using it is beneficial. That is no different from any other tool in the hands of good teachers.

 

In the end, technology can amplify great teaching, but great technology cannot replace poor teaching.

 

The same can be said about pretty much any tool ... the one place where I would disagree with this, is where technology allows poor teaching to be replaced by great teaching. Whether through MOOCs or similar, the old CB network of teaching in Australia, there are good research examples where great teaching is amplified and spread via tech ... I would have preferred the phrase "... but great technology cannot fix poor teaching."

[Ephelyon]

A further few interesting comments on this, this time from El Reg's take on it:

 

The organisation reached those conclusions after looking at results of the 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a multi-country effort to measure student performance in 59 nations. PISA 2012 saw over 500,000 15 year-olds tested on a range of skills. Many also took an “ICT familiarity questionnaire” that required them to “… use a keyboard and mouse to navigate texts by using tools like hyperlinks, browser button or scrolling, in order to access information, as well as make a chart from data or use on-screen calculators.”

 

Well... if that's what they're measuring...

 

The USA and UK skipped the digital literacy test and therefore created some statistical kinks that required ironing out, likely giving critics a useful starting point for alternative analyses.

 

Or, in fact, a basis for saying we're not sure how exactly it applies to this country anyway?

 

The study and report weren't intended to discover how access to technology impacts prowess and progress in the so-called STEM subjects – science, technology, engineering and maths – so appears not to be a stick with which to beat, or defend, coding-in-schools advocates.

 

So, again: maybe measure by those standards instead and you might see a different picture, whereas if the focus is more literacy/numeracy-based as it seems to be, then I'm not all that surprised...

Edited September 15, 2015 by Ephelyon

[Grey-gear]

Just having the computers being in use would not improve the learning alone. As many people have already said a computer is a tool, and to use a tool effectively one would needed the correct training (or common sense) . How may times have you seen a student do something on a computer and when questioned they say "it's how I do it at home". Edited September 15, 2015 by Grey-gear

[jdoyle]

prefer the article on the side panel of the page

 

Viewpoint: Should we all be looking for marginal gains? - BBC News

[Patrick]

In regards to primary schools, does anyone else think that they could benefit from having the same setup they have for music teachers? They don't expect staff to learn an instrument to teach the kids. They often (in a few of my schools) have someone come in and do it on a bi-weekly (?) basis. Would primary school kids benefit from doing this with computing? Someone coming in and teaching the curriculum IT lessons? Such as programming in scratch, Kodu etc. I know so many older members off staff who have woeful IT skills and this potentially hurts the kids development in IT. Just a thought. Edited September 15, 2015 by Patrick

[Ephelyon]

The only trouble with that is that many such schools - often woefully underfunded - would seize the opportunity to add this role to a peripatetic Technician's already long list of duties... :/

[Patrick]

I agree that could potentially happen. Imagine a free-lance IT teacher in primaries. The right person could spark so much interest in kids when it comes to computing, instead of a teacher reading out a step by step boring task or just writing a few paragraphs in word. Not saying all teachers are like this at all. But some of the older members off staff just don't want to get involved in learning new tech.

[Ephelyon]

Again, you're right, but I doubt most primaries would see it that way when, from their perspective, they already pay an hourly/monthly/annual fee for an in-house expert.

[DanHamilton]

Standard written classroom teaching shouldn't be replaced by computers completely at all however for the younger students, learning via a computer / interactive tasks can be very beneficial and I do agree with the use of both computers and written tasks.

 

Everyone needs to be able to work with or without a computer, its very difficult to find the correct combination and balance of this and I think only time will show this.

[LosOjos]

@GrumbleDook's response really needs more visibility, he's spot on.

 

As usual, the article based on a research paper is misinterpreted/misunderstood drivel. Also doesn't help the research paper is based on an abstraction of data from some other research. Also, they're talking about "browsing the Internet", not "spending time on a computer" which can be two wildly different things.

 

1 hour on social media != 1 hour using Wolfram Alpha (for example)