Tunxis New Media

This article at the Hartford Courant sent me off on a search for the referred to report, as mentioned in this quote:

WASHINGTON — Educational software, a $2 billion-a-year industry that has become the darling of school systems across the country, has no significant effect on student performance, according to a study by the U.S. Department of Education.

The long-awaited report amounts to a rebuke of educational technology, a business whose growth has been spurred by schools desperate for ways to meet the testing mandates of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law.

I got tired of looking for the actual report. Had no luck at USDE. Regardless, from a new media perspective, I’d argue that the premise of the study, the underlying question that drives it, is somewhat (”somewhat” is shorthand for a grimmer reality) faulty. Educational software is better than what exactly?

In reality, from a new media perspective, educational software provides a different experience for people than a conventional classroom. It’s not a qualitative difference. People who claim that quality of education will increase because of software use, I would claim, are missing an important point. “Quality of education” compared to what?

Simply put, people will use a false schema to determine quality: “Over this period of time since we started using software, our test scores have either remained level or have gone down.” I hope I’m incorrect. The report would be handy. The article proceeds:

The study, mandated by Congress when it passed No Child Left Behind in 2002, evaluated 15 reading and math products used by 9,424 students in 132 schools across the country during the 2004-05 school year. It is the largest study that has compared students who received the technology with those who did not, as measured by their scores on standardized tests. There were no statistically significant differences between students who used software and those who did not.

In classrooms, the programs - such as “iLearn Math” and “Achieve Now” - are used in different ways, depending on teachers. Some educators use the software as a supplemental tool to drill students in particular lessons; others use it instead of textbooks to teach entire lessons.

How was the software evaluated? The article suggests by control-group score comparison. “No statistical difference.” What difference would have proven the worth of software? Technically speaking, if the software-group performed 10% better on the test this proves nothing, unless the study really controlled its variables, such as teachers using the software “in different ways.” And that’s just one problem.

Eduware will claim that it “enhances learning.” Try to define that. If you think that “enhance” is equivalent to “improve” (and then try to define improve) then I’d suggest you take Advil to cure your cold. This is all bunk. (A blackboard, my friends, is a technology.)

The new media perspective is this: hypertext novels are not better than paper-made books. They are different.

Content providers will try to sell us the wonders of digital signals. Digital film, it’s the new wave. Now argue that a story filmed digitally is of better quality in terms of its content than say, hm, Casablanca.

Any takers? Sure, I dare you.