Educational Software Controversy

Several weeks ago the US Department of Education released a research report apparently critical of "educational software." The release highlights were quickly picked up by the media and the tongues began to wag.

From the headlines and 2-3 sentence descriptions that appeared in the medi -, both print and digital - in the days that followed, I sensed that there was probably a controversy brewing under the surface. After all, as American taxpayers, we have spent literally billions of dollars in the past 10 years to put computers and software into our classrooms. Indeed, when the Maine Learning Technology Initiative (MLTI) was proposed and then funded, there were many critics who projected that the technology would not raise test scores or improve student education.

So the many nay-sayers out there must have felt vindicated by the news that they were right.

Well, I took a quick look at the research report and was immediately not impressed with its design or results. I had planned - when I had the time - to write up a review of the report. But, I figured that since the research design was so flawed to begin with, and with billions of dollars riding on the potential outcomes of this research, I figured it would just be a matter of time before the other shoe dropped.

In the days following the initial story, there was a lot of activity on the education blogosphere criticizing the report on a number of different levels. Most correctly cited the fact that the report looked at "educational software" and not at the general integration of technology into the educational milieu. The report was talking about a couple of "teaching programs" that just weren't making a difference in kids' test scores.

Today eSchool News published a editorial critical of the report and summarizing some of the controversy. The editor Greg Downey goes on to criticize the media (both print and digital) including his own e-publication for simply over-reaching, over-reacting, and generally doing a lousy job at reporting.

But I have yet to see the more in depth analysis of what was fundamentally wrong with the research design. A good analysis would have looked back at the research over the past 55 years on the use of technology and its effect on learning outcomes. It should have started with B.F. Skinner and his "teaching machine" (here is the link to Skinner's original paper in Science Oct. 24,1958) and all of the manifestations that have emerged over the years as commercial entities have attempted to perfect a system that replaces human teachers. There is a nice summary of Skinner's method here by Nichole Wleklinski at the University of Illinois, and another summary and review by Christine Sevilla and Timothy Wells which discusses the use of technology in a constructivist methodology.

There is much more about pedagogy that is not included in this report from the DOE, and it would take volumes to do it justice. Suffice it to say, that this study does relatively little to increase our understanding of the effects of technology on our classrooms. So get back to work.

~John Brandt