Articles
Writers

Learning and Technology

Do Computers Improve Reading and Math Scores?

© Barbara Pytel

Apr 21, 2007
Chalk As Effective As Computers, ablestock.com
A new federal study gives us a surprising answer. Find out what the results were after a major two-year study using computer software for reading and math.

Federal Study

For two years, the federal government monitored 9,424 students. They were divided into these categories:

  • 1st grade early reading
  • 4th grade reading comprehension
  • 6th grade pre-algebra
  • 9th grade algebra

The Software

The products were chosen from more than 160 products and the companies are well known to those in education.

  • PLATO Inc.
  • Carnegie Learning Inc.
  • Houghton Mifflin Co.
  • Scholastic Inc.
  • iLearn
  • Leapfrog Schoolhouse
  • Autoskill International Inc.
  • Pearson PLC
  • Headsprout Inc.

Random Selection

Teachers volunteered for the study and were either asked to use the products or taught according to their own curriculum guides and tools. 439 teachers participated in 132 schools and 33 districts. Teachers that were selected to use the specified software used them in reading and math. The teachers in the control group taught as they normally would. [Andrew Trotter, Education Week, edweek.org, April 4, 2007]

Results

In the Report to Congress, the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, the following was stated:

  • Test scores were not significantly higher in classrooms using the reading and mathematics software products than those in control classrooms.
  • Although the study collected data on many school and classroom characteristics, only two characteristics were related to the variation in reading achievement. For first grade, effects were larger in schools that had smaller student-teacher ratios. For fourth grade, effects were larger when treatment teachers reported higher levels of use of the study product.

Complications

This, of course, will "complicate things for the advocates of technology in education who are lobbying the Bush administration and members of Congress to continue providing millions of dollars annually in support for classroom technology" [Education Week, April 10, 2007] The study did not evaluate each software product separately.

Use of Government Money

There are now many rumblings about the use of federal tax funding for grants that don't produce results. Several officials, including Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, have commented recently that the public has not seen much of a return on the federal government's investments of millions of dollars in grants to states and school districts for educational technology. [Education Week, April 10, 2007]

Conclusion

We learn again that --

  • There is no magic pill or bullet.
  • One-on-one relationships with students can not be replaced with computers.
  • Smaller classrooms yield better results.
  • Good teaching is as important (or more) than the latest technology.

However, technology is important in the future of every student. It is the wave of the future. And, whether students significantly improve with technology or without it, technology will be with us at a fast pace. Thomas Frey, of the DaVinci Institute, has a vision of how technology will change education in the future.

Related Articles: Free Virtual Classroom Adventures, "Off the Team" via MySpace

Read previous articles on Educational Issues.

Copyright article 2007 Barbara Pytel. All Rights Reserved.


The copyright of the article Learning and Technology in Curriculum Issues is owned by Barbara Pytel. Permission to republish Learning and Technology in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.


Chalk As Effective As Computers, ablestock.com
        


Post this Article to facebook Add this Article to del.icio.us! Digg this Article furl this Article Add this Article to Reddit Add this Article to Technorati Add this Article to Newsvine Add this Article to Windows Live Add this Article to Yahoo Add this Article to StumbleUpon Add this Article to BlinkLists Add this Article to Spurl Add this Article to Google Add this Article to Ask Add this Article to Squidoo

Comments
Dec 10, 2008 5:50 AM
Guest :
Personally I feel that this article really did not say to much about how computers are effective in the classroom or if they produce higher testing scores.
Dec 10, 2008 7:16 AM
Guest :
I think that was the point of the article. Results are not consistant. Probably not likely to get funding.
Feb 2, 2009 3:11 PM
Guest :
Leave it to the government to waste money funding an UNSCIENTIFIC study to support their resistance to provide funding where it could actually count.

Granted, it's very hard to eliminate variables and maintain a control in a "study" like this, but let's look at the flaws:

1) Teachers volunteered; already, this means it was not a random sample of teachers, but only a certain type of teacher.
2) Teachers were not given any training on how to use the software; they were simply told to "use technology" how they see fit. This nullifies any validity or point of the exercise, because previous studies have ALREADY proven that education technology ONLY works if the people implementing it know what they are doing and how to effectively use it. The word I'm thinking of here is "duh." Computers don't do magical things by themselves. Any more than books or calculators do.
3) Over 160 different programs were used? With no discrimination or elimination of variables whatsoever? That's ridiculous. What is some of the programs are effective and some aren't?
4) The sample was only 9,424 students? That is a tiny, non-representative sample.
5) What was the demographic of this population like? Homogenous? Heterogenous? Did classes of "control groups" have the same number of students, same race, same primary language, same socio-economic status as the variable groups?

This is the most unscientific argument and conclusion I have possibly ever read. [also, it does not agree with the fact that I have used technoogy to raise student lexile scores 100 points in less than 6 weeks of 3-hour-per-week sessions]

Paid professionals conducted this study?? Well, I guess now you know where are tax dollars go and why we have no money.
3 Comments
about us • Limelight Blog • freelance writing jobs • careers • press room • Site Map • Terms & Conditions • Privacy Policy