Left Lane Ends

Darren Wilson and I recently presented a session on Inspired Classrooms at the Texas Computer Education Convention (see my post below about the conference and/or read a brief review of our session). Towards the end of the presentation and during the time for questions, it was asked if we had any research to prove that Inspired Classrooms is correlated with an increase in test scores. Oh, SNAP. No you di’n't!

Folks, a computer is just a tool. That’s it! It isn’t magical, it doesn’t make people smarter or dumber and it sure as hell does not, in and of itself, increase standardized test scores! Beyond that whole thorn in my side, I am FLAT OUT TIRED of the Potemkin village that is ‘research based decision making’. But, I get ahead of myself. (BTW, I first heard the phrase ‘Potemkin village’ from Bernie Dodge. It creates such great imagery, and you might enjoy his quick post that describes his application of the word)
Let’s come back to the pencil. The pencil, according to Wikipedia:

The archetypal pencil may have been the ancient Roman stylus, which was a thin metal stick, often made of lead and used for scratching on papyrus. The word pencil comes from the Latin word penicillus which means “little tail.”

Some time prior to 1565 (some sources say as early as 1500), an enormous deposit of graphite was discovered at the site of Seathwaite Fell near Borrowdale, Cumbria, England. The locals found that it was very useful for marking sheep.

WHAT?! Marking sheep? Ahh… the irony. But, let’s continue - lest I get sidetracked down a different road.
This is my standard response to those that go and throw the question of laptop/computer research in my face:

‘The pencil is a tool, just like the computer is a tool. Just because a student receives a pencil to use in class, does not mean that they will score higher on a standardized test. Granted, they will be able to TAKE the test, but their score will only be impacted by the learning processes that they undergo while at home and at school. The same holds true for a laptop. It has no ‘provable’ impact on student achievement, only the teacher and how he/she teaches will do that. The difference that the laptop/computer offers (as a tool in a classroom) is that a teacher can now design LESSONS where students can output products never before imaginable, where students can locate information never before accessible and where students can develop social networks of knowledge never before possible. BUT, it isn’t the laptop that does that - it all comes down to HOW the laptop is used. It all comes down to the teaching.’

If it all comes down to (imagine this)… …THE TEACHING, then surely there is research out there that shows that TEACHING BETTER equates to HIGHER TEST SCORES. Now, I know by this point that you are shaking in your boots with anticipation that such a revelation may be, well, REVEALED to you - and I do not plan on letting you down! There is actually a little bit of quality research out there that does support the notion that teaching better DOES increase test scores. Take this excerpt, for example:

In data validated unanimously by the Program Evaluation Panel of the National Diffusion Network, HOTS (Higher Order Thinking Skills Program) students achieved spring to spring gains on standardized test scores that were 67% higher in reading and 123% higher in mathematics than national averages. These results were generated with an earlier, less refined version of the model. Second-year gains were also greater than national averages. These continued gains indicate that the results were not Hawthorne effects. Since then, we have not been able to do another systematic study, but schools are now reporting results that substantially exceed the best gains reported in the earlier study. Students in one site gained 5.6 years on the Stanford Diagnostic Reading test (fall to spring) in the first year, and 20% of the 5th and 6th grade Chapter 1 students posttested beyond the high school level. Tapes of these students reveal them to be highly articulate and sophisticated learners, an indication that the extent of the gains was not a statistical fluke. (1992, p. 88)

By now, I expect that you are standing, applauding and nodding your head while you continue to read. Please keep doing so - the standing ovation, that is, and while you continue to applaude, I would like you to consider the major point of that excerpt - teaching ‘better‘ means teaching kids to THINK. Teaching kids to think, means designing lessons that move students up through ALL of the different levels of Blooms Taxonomy. Designing lessons at ALL levels in Blooms Taxonomy is what we believe Inspired Classrooms should be all about - and the computer as a tool in that environment is simply an enabler, or catalyst, for a teacher who is GOOD at teaching. So, stop asking the wrong questions, and start asking the right one. It is a simple question, really:

‘How do we teach more effectively?’

While there is a plethora of research out there on the topic above, I feel the need to make you aware of one final thorn in my side: ‘Research based decision making’ has been to the education world what ‘Inside Edition‘ or ‘E! TV‘ is to pop culture - a shallow way to justify popular fetishes at the state, regional and local levels. There, I said it. Growing up with a father who taught Statistics (picture me as a 4th grader getting upset with my teachers for not knowing what APA was), I feel comfortable looking at published research and making a decision as to what is good and what is not. Even with good research, it is more than easy to make it say what you want it to say (after all, I found the above research excerpt in just around a minute or so!). Far too often, I see decisions made, and then the research is found to support it, OR the ‘research’ that led to the decision is nothing close to valid (in the news, at the state/local educational levels, etc). Be wise in your quest and let us throw in the unimaginable as we make our selves better teachers in this world today: common sense. When we combine common sense with qualified and validated research, it is easy to realize what is best for kids - when are we going to do it?

I must say that I was pleased with my response to the person that posed the question at the end of our presentation. Darren told me that I did a nice job of withholding the sarcasm that you may/may not have felt from the above. I did, however, hold my ground and tell that person that asking for research to prove the effectiveness of computers in the classroom is the wrong question to ask. Next time, I’ll be sure to have an arsenal of research at the ready that does support quality teaching, which is what I want to see in both Inspired Classrooms and 1:1 laptop programs. Until then, I wait with baited breath…

Well, it appears that I am becoming all too familiar with the ‘rant’ writing style these days, which may be a clue to a variety of things. Never-the-less: DO NOT take the pop culture interstate as you journey through life and through teaching others. It is boring, filled with predictability and gives you no way of getting out into the exciting places where the left lane ends.

OH - AND DON’T GO THROWING LAPTOP RESEARCH IN MY FACE!!!

(are you looking for a good tool that cross references Bloom’s Taxonomy with Technology Integration? Check out LoTI.)

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 20th, 2007 at 11:55 am and is filed under engaged learning, TCEA2007, research, engagement, tcea, edtech, LoTI, 1:1. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.