Archives For Education

13 Study Tips: The Science of Better Studying

Dwayne Harapnuik —  March 4, 2021 — Leave a comment

Even though the authors of this video subtitled the video “The Science of Better Learning” the reality is most of these tips deal with memorization and studying and have much less to do with learning which is the making of meaningful connections.

I wish that educators would get the language right. Regardless if you are in a situation where you need to engage in information retrieval or you want to be honest with your learners and help them prepare for standardized testing then the following video will help your students improve their information retention and regurgitation.

In Education , , , ,
permalink

Highlights of The 100 Worst Ed-Tech Debacles of the Decade

Dwayne Harapnuik —  January 9, 2020 — Leave a comment

The start of a new year or new decade often brings prognostications and assessments of earlier predictions that may or may not have come to pass. I have been working in and around educational technology (Ed-Tech) for over three decades now, so Audrey Watters post The 100 Worst Ed-Tech Debacles of the Decade gave me the opportunity to think back on the past ten years and consider whether or not I fell prey any of the empty promises that are unfortunately a big part of the Ed-Tech world. Even though I often refer to myself as a delusional optimist when it comes to Ed-Tech I have learned to temper my optimism and be a realist. Watters confirmed many of my skepticisms in her post.

As I read through the piece I thought of many more Ed-Tech debacles that I would have included. The following list is a subset of Watters’s full list and it represents many of the skeptical thoughts I had when these issues originally came to light. Unfortunately, some of these debacles are ongoing and I predict that they may be included in Watter’s list in another decade—why does it take us so long to learn.

Regardless, the following list is what stood out to me and the following quote from the post is intended to provide a summary perspective. I encourage you to review the whole list and make your own summary.

96. Ning “…So many lessons here about controlling your own data and not relying on free ed-tech products.”

92. “The Flipped Classroom” “…the whole “flipped classroom” model is based on the practice of homework — a practice that is dubious at best and onerous at worst? As education author Alfie Kohn has long argued, homework represents a “second shift” for students, and there’s mixed evidence they get much out of it.”

90. “Ban Laptops” Op-Eds “…A “ban laptops” op-ed may be the greatest piece of ed-tech clickbait ever devised.”

89. Clickers “…The greatest trick the ed-tech devil ever played was convincing people that clicking was “active learning.”

86. Badges – “…Despite predictions that badges would be the “new credential” and that we were looking at a “Future Full of Badges,” it’s not clear that digital badges have provided us with a really meaningful way to assess skills or expertise.”

82. “The End of Library” Stories “…Libraries haven’t gone away — they’re still frequently visited, despite dramatic drops in public funding. More and more public libraries have started eliminating fines too because libraries, unlike Techcrunch writers, do care to alleviate inequality.”

69. Unbundling …They want the bundle. They don’t want “content loops.” They aren’t shopping for “content pathways.” They want to choose a school. They want a degree.”

57. Turnitin “…Rather than trusting students, rather than re-evaluating what assignments and assessments look like, schools have invested heavily in any number of technology “solutions” to cheating — keystroke locking, facial recognition, video monitoring, and the like, all designed to identify students with “low integrity.”

56. Brain Training “…another study published that same year in Neuropsychology Review found that most brain training programs had no peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating their efficacy.”

55. Montessori 2.0 “…I’d wager if you ask most Americans to describe “progressive education,” they’d cite one of two names in doing so: John Dewey and Maria Montessori. They’ve likely not read any Dewey — just see the phrases attributed to him on PowerPoint presentations and on edu-celebrity Twitter. And they know little about Montessori either, other than it’s a kind of preschool where kids play with wooden blocks. So not surprisingly, as tech executives sought to open their own, private schools, they have turned to a largely imagined legacy of progressive education, often referring to their experiments as “Montessori 2.0”

53. TED Talks “…very exploitation and inequality that the TED Talks promise, with their 18-minute-long sleight-of-hand, to disrupt.”

50. One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) “… a controlled study in Peru published in 2012 found no evidence that the OLPC tablets increased children’s math or language learning.”

48. The Hour of Code “…whether an hour of code or a “genius hour” — is hardly a sufficient commitment to changing education or, for that matter, to changing industry.”

44. YouTube, the New “Educational TV” “…Parents have long been criticized for letting television “raise their children,” But YouTube now means a much stranger and potentially more dangerous, data-driven viewing experience.”

38. Coding Bootcamps “…Google’s director of education echoed this sentiment: “Our experience has found that most graduates from these programs are not quite prepared for software engineering roles at Google without additional training or previous programming roles in the industry.”

36. “Personalized Learning” Software (and Facebook and Summit Public Schools) “…According to data obtained by Chalkbeat, “Since the platform was made available, 18% of schools using it in a given year had quit using it a year later.“

22. Automated Essay Grading “…Automated essay grading software can be fooled with gibberish, as MIT’s Les Perelman has shown again and again. ”

10. Google for Education “…Chromebooks now make up 60% of all laptops and tablets sold to K-12 schools, up from 5% in 2012….“It’s a private company very creatively using public resources — in this instance, teachers’ time and expertise — to build new markets at low cost,”

8. LAUSD’s iPad Initiative “…In 2013, the Los Angeles Unified School District awarded a $30 million contract for Apple, paving the way (supposedly) for an ambitious $1.3 billion plan to give every student in the district an iPad…In 2015, the school board voted on a $6.5 million settlement with Apple over the project. ”

7. ClassDojo and the New Behaviorism “…ClassDojo and other types of behavior management products claim that they help develop “correct behavior” and “right mindsets.” But what exactly does “correct behavior” entail? And what does it mean if schools entrust this definition to for-profit companies and their version of psychological expertise?”

6. “Everyone Should Learn to Code” “…Over and over and over this past decade, we were told that “everyone should learn to code.” We were told there is a massive “skills gap”: too few people have studied science, technology, engineering, or math; and employers cannot find enough skilled workers to fill jobs in those fields…But it’s a powerful myth, and one that isn’t terribly new, dating back at least to the launch of the Sputnik satellite in 1957 and subsequent hand-wringing over the Soviets’ technological capabilities and technical education as compared to the US system. ”

4. “The Year of the MOOC” “…The MOOC revolution simply wasn’t.”

In Education, Technology & Culture , , , , ,
permalink

Avoiding the Problem or Opportunity: A Time Honoured Tradition

Dwayne Harapnuik —  December 3, 2018 — Leave a comment

If you have spent any time working in or around our educational system at almost any level then you will recognize the following responses that are all too often offered by school board members, superintendents, principals, teachers, and parents when faced with challenging problems or responding to innovative opportunities:

1. Find a scapegoat. Teachers can blame administrators, administrators can blame teachers, both can blame parents, and everyone can blame the system.
2. Profess not to have the answer. That lets you out of having any answer.
3. Say that we must not move too rapidly. That avoids the necessity of getting started.
4. For every proposal set up an opposite and conclude that the “middle ground” (no motion whatever) represents the wisest course of action.
5. Point out that an attempt to reach a conclusion is only a futile “quest for certainty.” Doubt and indecision promote growth.
6. When in a tight place, say something that the group cannot understand.
7. Look slightly embarrassed when the problem is brought up. Hint that it is in bad taste, or too elementary for mature consideration, or that any discussion of it is likely to be misinterpreted by outsiders.
8. Say that the problem cannot be separated from other problems. Therefore, no problem can be solved until all other problems have been solved.
9. Carry the problem into other fields. Show that it exists everywhere; therefore it is of no concern.
10. Point out that those who see the problem do so because of personality traits. They see the problem because they are unhappy— not vice versa.
11. Ask what is meant by the question. When it is sufficiently clarified, there will be no time left for the answer.
12. Discover that there are all sorts of dangers in any specific formulation of conclusions; of exceeding authority or seeming to; asserting more than is definitely known; of misinterpretation by outsiders— and, of course, revealing the fact that no one has a conclusion to offer.
13. Look for some philosophical basis for approaching the problem, then a basis for that, then a basis for that, and so on back into Noah’s Ark.
14. Retreat from the problem into endless discussion of various ways to study it.
15. Put off recommendations until every related problem has been definitely settled by scientific research.
16. Retreat to general objectives on which everyone can agree. From this higher ground, you will either see that the problem has solved itself, or you will forget it.
17. Find a face-saving verbal formula like “in a Pickwickian sense.”
18. Rationalize the status quo; there is much to be said for it.
19. Introduce analogies and discuss them rather than the problem.
20. Explain and clarify over and over again what you have already said.
21. As soon as any proposal is made, say that you have been doing it for 10 years. Hence there can’t be possibly any merit in it.
22. Appoint a committee to weigh the pros and cons (these must always be weighed) and to reach tentative conclusions that can subsequently be used as bases for further discussions of an exploratory nature preliminary to arriving at initial postulates on which methods of approach to the pros and cons may be predicated.
23. Wait until some expert can be consulted. He will refer the question to other experts.
24. Say, “That is not on the agenda; we’ll take it up later.” This may be repeated ad infinitum.
25. Conclude that we have all clarified our thinking on the problem, even though no one has thought of a way to solve it.
26. Point out that some of the greatest minds have struggled with this problem, implying that it does us credit to have even thought of it.
27. Be thankful for the problem. It has stimulated our thinking and has thereby contributed to our growth. It should get a medal.

Other than the phrase “in a Pickwickian sense” which refers to Mr. Pickwick in Dickens’s Pickwick Papers and refers to being especially jovial in order to avoid offense, chances are you have heard one or many of these excuses used when challenging questions are asked, problems are being pointed out, or innovative opportunities are being promoted.

Perhaps the most sobering consideration about this list is that it was compiled by the progressive educator Paul Diederich in 1942. Deidrich was part of intense discussions with hundreds of teachers during summers in the late-1930s when the Eight-Year Study was being implemented in 30 high schools across the US. The study revealed that graduates of these more progressive schools which offered artistic, political, and social activities did as well academically as graduates from more traditional schools. Unfortunately, these reforms in the schools in the study demished within the next decade and by the 1950s there was a return to the fundamentals and a focus on the mechanics of spelling instead of a focus on the writing assignment as being part of a something authentic or part of the real world. As we face the challenges of moving our educational system from the industrial age to digital information age we must remember that this is a long-term challenge and we should heed Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr epigram:

The more things change, the more they stay the same

The educational historian Larry Cuban offers additional information and links in the post Educator Discussions That Avoid “The Problem” on his site from where I copied this list.

References
Cuban, L. (2018, November 30). Educator discussions that avoid “The Problem”. [Blog] Retrieved from: https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2018/11/

In Change, Education , , , ,
permalink

Why We Are Wasting EdTech Dollars?

Dwayne Harapnuik —  October 30, 2018 — Leave a comment

If you ever wondered how scarce educational dollars are all too often wasted on foolish technology purchases all you need to do is continue to not look at the research. As soon as you read above statement you immediately thought I made a mistake and should have stated that all you need to do is look at the research. You would be right from a grammatical perspective that I meant to say “look at the research” but the emphasis I am trying to make is that there is overwhelming evidence that almost 90% of educational leaders are making technology purchases without looking at the research.
Dr. Michael Kennedy, an associate professor at the University of Virginia along with a team of thirteen researchers at the Edtech Research Efficacy Symposium in 2017 asked 515 educational leaders from 17 states the following question:

When making purchasing and/or adoption decisions regarding a new technology-based product (assume for academic instruction) for your district or school, how important is the existence of peer-reviewed research to back the product?

It is important to note that the survey participants were categorized as, 24 percent district technology supervisors, 22 percent assistant superintendents, 7 percent superintendents, 27 percent teachers, and 10 percent principals. Equally important is that 75 percent of this group were directly responsible for EdTech purchases for their school or were consulted on purchase decisions.

Only 11 percent of these decision-makers listed research being in place to confirm the efficacy of the product they were planning to purchase. In contrast what was rated “extremely important” or “very important” were the prioritized factors of ‘fit’ for their school, price, functionality, and alignment with district initiatives. This should be extremely concerning to parents, most teachers, and taxpayers who are funding our educational system. If technology supervisors, superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals, and select teachers are making decisions on what technology to purchase that doesn’t include support for its effectiveness in the learning environment then they should be held accountable when it doesn’t work.

Unfortunately, the research which so many of these leaders are willing to ignore shows that that technology all too often doesn’t make a difference or worse it can hinder learning:

…students who use computers very frequently at school do a lot worse in most learning outcomes, even after accounting for social background and student demographics (OECD 2015, p. 5).

This not new research. On the contrary, we have known for a very long time that just adding technology to the classroom does not have any significant impact on learning. In the early 1990’s Thomas Russell and several other researchers pointed to the results of a meta-analysis of the research into technology use in distance education and found that there is no difference between technology-based instruction or classroom instruction (1999).

I must be very clear that I am not opposed to using computers, smartphones, tablets or any other technology to enhance learning. I would challenge you to find a bigger user and proponent of the effective use of technology to enhance learning. The key is to focus on the learning first and then look to technology to further enhance and amplify the learning environment and the learning experience. We also have to be careful that we don’t just try to bolt technology onto an antiquated classroom that emphasizes the 19th-century information transfer model of standardized curriculum and testing which research as also shows doesn’t enhance learning. That OECD (2015) report I referred to earlier also suggest that:

Technology can support new pedagogies that focus on learners as active participants with tools for inquiry-based pedagogies and collaborative workspaces. For example, technology can enhance experiential learning, foster project-based and inquiry-based learning pedagogies, facilitate hands-on activities and cooperative learning (p. 6)

The OECD (2015) report also pointed to John Hattie’s research into what contributes to student achievement and confirms that:

Computers were more effective when they are used to extend study time and practice, used to give students control over the learning situation (pacing of material) and when used to support collaborative learning (p. 163).

Technology is a potentially powerful tool that should be used to enhance creation, collaboration, inquiry, investigation, communication. Ideally we want to give our learners choice ownership, and voice through authentic learning opportunities. Technology helps us to do this more effectively. We need to make our technology purchases based on research and the research shows that we aren’t doing this.

The fact that most of our educational leaders are making technology purchases based on price, fit, or other factors that support their confirmation bias we should not be surprised when the Ed Tech industry ignores the research. They don’t need to support their product claims with evidence or research because it is clear that they can sell their products without it. All they need to do is have a well-tuned sales pitch and a good salesperson that will give these educational leaders just what they think is important or what want.

Are you part of the 11 percent that is using research to make informed decisions about your technology purchases that will enhance learning. Or are part of 89 percent that is ignoring the research and potentially ignoring the learning?

References
Kennedy, M. (2017) Role of federal funding and research findings on adoption and implementation of technology-based products and tools. Edtech Research Efficacy Symposium. Retrieved from http://symposium.curry.virginia.edu//wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The-Goals-and-Roles-of-Federal-Funding-for-EdTech-Research_FINAL-1.pdf

OECD (2015), Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en

Russell, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon: A comparative research annotated bibliography on technology for distance education: As reported in 355 research reports, summaries and papers. North Carolina State University.

In Education , , ,
permalink

Reconsider the Use of the SAMR Model

Dwayne Harapnuik —  December 4, 2017 — 1 Comment

SAMR Model
The four-stage Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition (SAMR) model introduced by Rueben Puentedura back in mid-2000 has not only grown in popularity there are people building upon this its unsubstantiated foundation. The SAMR model was initially intended to help K-12 teachers move the up the ladder of technology use by using tech for the creation of new tasks, tech for a significant redesign, tech as a direct substitute with functional improvement, and tech as a direct substitute, with no functional change. SAMR not only looks like an innocuous model of using technology it also seems to appeal to the way many people tend to approach the use of technology. If we look closely at the fundamental presupposition of its use then we will see that there are serious issues in how the model can enhance learning.

The first time I was introduced to the SAMR model was over a decade ago and I recall thinking that this model has a fundamental flaw that many people will tend to overlook. While using technology to simply make an activity or task more efficient or to explore ways to enhance or even redefine that activity or task may seem innocuous or even worthwhile the problem that we run into with this sort of thinking is that we are ignoring the validity of the original task that SAMR is being applied to. For example if you use SAMR to move your paper-based fill in the black worksheet to a digital model (substitution) and then add some branching questions in a google form (augmentation) and then add enabled voice responses (modification) and finally allow your class to create a video to answer the questions (redefinition) the problem is you are still asking your students to regurgitate content regardless how sophisticated the regurgitation becomes. I have also noticed in my time working with hundreds of teachers and faculty that there is a tendency for most people to NOT move beyond the substitution or argumentation level. This means many well-intentioned instructors are not heading Seymour Papert’s warning and are falling into the trap of bolting a jet engine onto a horse cart.

I agree that we should be using technology to become more administratively efficient and to help the guide our learners but we should be using technology to go well beyond the original teaching task and use technology to enhance the learning not just use technology to enhance the use of technology. I am not alone in this thinking. The following articles and sites point to many of the same concerns that I have and develop several others. Another major concern is that the SAMR model has not been well researched as you can see from one of few articles that looks at the model itself.

Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441.

Like the title indicates the article offers criticism of the SAMR model and recommendations for how it can be used effectively. This article can be downloaded from any academic library.

SAMR: A model without evidence – https://charlielove.org/?p=10025
A very fair assessment of the SAMR model that points to several related sources.

A Critical Review of Puentedura’s SAMR – http://eitcclips.blogspot.com/2015/03/picking-holes-in-samr-critical-review.html
Another fair assessment points to the lack of theoretical or foundational evidence for SAMR.

Through The Looking Glass by Lucy Santos Green – http://www.lucysantosgreen.com/uploads/6/8/3/3/6833178/through_the_looking_glass.pdf
A fair assessment of the SAMR and TPACK models and recommendations on how they can be used more appropriately.

Revised January 24, 2021

In EDLD 5305, Education , ,
permalink