Tag Archives: EdTech

Does Anyone Have Data That Supports Technology As Having a Net Positive Effect on Student Achievement?

As I work my way through the first months of changes in my life from “not working in a school” for the first time in a decade and a half, I am the first to feel ruffled feathers by this question as I most recently left a position of “Director of Digital Learning.” 

Shouldn’t I know?  I always just assumed Edtech offered a net benefit because it did and does for me…but absent the need to feed the status quo, I’m free to follow my questions wherever the answers lead me.

I think it’s important to say from the outset that I am a supporter of digital learning- at least as I understand it. I have endless anecdotes from my own (tech) classes and coaching about students who (I think/they claimed) benefited greatly from exposure to technology in one form or another whether assistive, academic, etc.. What I am not so sure of is the correlations between Edtech and digital learning being made today as much of the Edtech that gets talked about and implemented in the majority of schools I would term “digital teaching”, not digital learning. 

What I hope to come to a better understanding of in this space, is whether or not we’ve all allowed ourselves to slide into believing something about technology as it’s used in schools as to be something it’s really not. So since we don’t learn from experience, we learn from reflection on experience, that’s what this column and perhaps 2-3 posts after it are about- reflecting on over a decade and a half in the classroom and a handful of years at the end as a leadership team member at an international school. 

Interestingly to note, some of the struggles I had as a teacher, a coach and integrationist became clearer once privy to the inner sanctum banter of a school leadership team. No question there are schools with cutting edge technology initiatives and fantastically capable and enthusiastic staff leading them, but unfortunately I think it’s safe to say there is more often than not a dearth of accountable leadership for digital anything in less ambitiously “21st century” schools. This lack of focus results in friction losses at the interfaces, poor infrastructure provisioning, lack of management and mentoring of IT staff, etc., the list goes on…

You may even have to resort to leading a technology integration program from a position of influence only, as instead of every aspect of the digital ecosystem being considered, there is a lot of “default setting” implementation happening and don’t even get me started on the gube roldbergian dumpster fires created and sanctioned as “technology integration” programs and policies. It’s an unthinking approach, proceeding mechanically, disregarding information and clues (“Okay, so now we’ve had about 3 minutes for constrained “discussion” about tech in the staff meetings this quarter, so moving on…So, regarding who peed on the boys bathroom floor…if anyone has any…)

At one point I was fortunate to be at a school that employed digital learning integration support and even put a “tech” person on the leadership team, but even still, there was much less team support for digital learning initiatives as there were for traditional “teaching and learning” shibboleths.  And it makes sense, as even the best generalist administrators are not well versed in any kind of depth of insight regarding technology integration. That’s okay– it’s just important to point out because there is a lot of decision making going on and diagnosing of issues happening with very little training or experience behind it.

Why this matters is because digital learning, digital teaching, edtech and IT, etc., are all thrown around interchangeably and they are not the same. A digital “Kleenex” if you will. There is an “Edtechochamber” of tech industry types, evangelists and a small percentage of heavily tech invested coaches, admin and teachers who support the use of “Edtech” and everything gets megaphoned together.

It’s repeated in a lot of school marketing as all having to do with improving student learning. Combined like this, marketed with fervor, one presumes that there is true “game changing” technology being implemented and integrated, but a curious thing is- you don’t often see any data supporting these claims about Edtech’s ROI, or certainly not ROI in terms of student achievement/learning for which it’s being claimed to be in the service of. 

So my question is simple:

Where is the evidence that Edtech, (regardless of what it’s called) provides a net benefit for student learning?  

John Hattie’s visible learning studies, (if of course you believe them at all as more and more with the chops to say so, do not), purport to show that in the last 50 years, technology’s effect size on student performance puts it in Hattie’s category of “strategies to ignore.” Does anyone have anything; a link, a PDF, a study suggesting otherwise they can point to? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I would so love to see a deluge of studies come forward that I have simply missed. I want to see the data that shows that the kind of integration that’s being done in classrooms today around the world is a net benefit for “student learning”.  Anecdotes on a small number of classrooms in a school/district or stats on improved teacher efficiency, (Gaining time doesn’t mean the teachers repurpose the time on students of course!) aren’t what I’m looking for.  

If we can’t measure the positive effects of “Edtech” on student learning, (or maybe we shouldn’t if it’s digital teaching, not digital learning?) then what exactly are we doing to students in schools with technology?  How do we know?  I’m not convinced we’re getting what we think we’re getting, and I am open to hearing about what I have not yet seen.

In order to ask and wonder “What is needed next as we grapple with which types of digital learning positively impact students and how and when they should be integrated?”, my next posts will summarize my review of Sonny Magana’s 2017 book (that leans heavily on Hattie’s Visible Learning research) laying out what he calls the “T3 Framework for Innovation in Education”.

On his research, Magana says “I’ve been researching the “Wicked Problem” of low-impact technology use in schools for four decades and have recently discovered a sequence of learning strategies that unlock students’ limitless learning capacity. I call it the T3 Framework for Innovation. The T3 strategy sequence was shown to reliably double student learning and achievement.” As well, Magana invites readers “…to learn how to work less and teach better…” and finally, to “Rock and Roll!”

See you next time for more on that.

Problem Solving with Technology: A List of Topics and Standards

tiefourimage

By Tony DePrato | Follow me on Twitter @tdeprato

Core Concepts and Definitions

Digital Native is a term that refers to children who have been born after the advent of the modern personal computer and affordable personal laptop. There is a belief that these children have a very high aptitude with technology. This curriculum plan completely disagrees with this belief and reaffirms that all children need a solid foundation in problem solving in, and creating with, technology. The normal life of the average Digital Native is one of a consumer and user of things others have created.

Computer Science is not programming, although programming is required to practice the discipline. Computer Science is a field of study which seeks to automate processes using algorithms, and to solve problems using algorithmic based strategies. Computer Science often involves simulating outcomes using data-sets, after creating a hypothesis. A person who studies computer science may not be able to creatively express themselves through the mediums of web design, multimedia, game design, etc.

Programming (Coding) is a generic term used to categorize the actions taken to make computers, devices, websites, games, etc. function. Programming is not a single knowledge base. Programming is comprised of vast options which are explored based-on the type of outcome needed and the type of system that is being engaged. A programmer may have aptitude to perform computer science related work, or, they may not. Students can learn to program hardware that they set free to interact with the world. Machines of all types can be programmed. Limiting exposure to programming mediums limits opportunity.

Cloud-based educational technology resources refer to environments such as Google Apps for Education and Office 365 for Education.

Portfolios and Project Tracking

In an ideal world, at the end of each semester student work should be submitted to the school following this model:

  • Each student must submit three pieces of work (good, average, and below average) per year they have created, even if that work is only documentation. The work must be original and comply with all copyright laws.
  • The school will submit the work to a network/district wide repository that utilizes standard tagging and search techniques found in cloud-based environments. Think #hashtags.
  • Each school/district can then evaluate what students are doing.
  • Students participating in third-party curricula, such as the IB Program, will be required to produce work for internal and external assessments. The final marking of these assessments can be compared to previous projects to help internally moderate scores and performance indicators.
  • Students from Year 11 should have a personal repository to share their portfolio work outside of the school community. This public repository should be maintained for two years after graduation.

Problem Solving with Technology by Year Level

Year 3 (8-9 Years Old) :

  • Object Based Drag-and-Drop Trial and Error Systems (An Example would be SCRATCH)
  • Arduino Based Manipulatives (An Example would be Makey Makey)

See Standards

Year 4 :

  • Object Based Drag-and-Drop Trial and Error Systems
  • Arduino Based Manipulatives
  • Programmable Robotics (An Example would be Lego, VEX, or similar)
  • Mechanical Skills Challenge Based Competitive Robotics

See Standards
Year 5 :

  • Arduino Based Manipulatives
  • Programmable Robotics
  • Challenge Based Competitive Robotics
  • Mathematic Basics with Javascript.
  • Hyperlinking Concepts using Cloud-based Resources
  • Asynchronous Communication Concepts using Cloud-based Resources

See Standards
Year 6 :

  • Arduino Based Manipulatives
  • Programmable Robotics
  • Operating System Manipulation
  • Mathematics, Arrays, Functions, and External Referencing with Javascript.
  • Hyperlinking Concepts using Cloud-based Resources
  • Asynchronous Communication Concepts using Cloud-based Resources
  • Peer Review Concepts using Cloud-based Resources

See Standards
Year 7 :

  • Arduino Based Manipulatives
  • Operating System Manipulation
  • Computer-to-Computer Communication without the Internet
  • Mathematics, Arrays, Functions, and External Referencing- Language Choices Flexible
  • Peer Review Concepts using Cloud-based Resources
  • Team Base Projects Using Arduino, Robotics, or Client Side Programming, with Documentation
  • Story Boarding Concepts for Media and Games

See Standards
Year 8 :

  • Computer-to-Computer Communication without “The Internet” (This refers to learning simple protocols)
  • Game Programming with Story Boards – Language Choices Flexible
  • Tutorial and Documentation Development for Primary School Learners
  • Team Base Projects Using Arduino, Robotics, or Client Side Programming, with Documentation
  • Local Server Concepts with Pre-Configured Servers Hosting WordPress (An Example would be MAMP or XAMP)

See Standards
Year 9 :

  • Game Programming with Story Boards – Language Choices Flexible
  • Tutorial and Documentation Development for Primary School Learners
  • Local Server with WordPress and Customisations
  • Local Server to Live Server Migration with WordPress
  • Math and Program Control Basics with Java, Javascript, PHP, or Python

See Standards
Year 10 :

  • Robotics or Automation without the GUI
  • Java or Python Core Programming Libraries
  • SQL Basics with Java, Javascript, PHP, or Python
  • Math Concepts: Game Theory and Probability (To be Simulated with Programming)

See Standards
Years 11 & 12 :

  • IB Computer Science
  • IB IGCSE
  • Public Website Design and Development
  • Mobile Game Development or Flash Game Development
  • Design Technology- CAD and 3D Printing

See Standards