Being an enormous proponent of classroom technology, I found the Schacter reading to be conflicted in a number of ways. As an example, Kulik’s Meta-Analysis Study's "negative" suggested that computers did not have positive effects in every area in which they were studied. (Schacter 1999) I find this remark to be incredulous in that the suggestion infers that anything less than a 100% rate of effectiveness could be construed somehow to be a negative. Does a student with a 98 average warrant academic remediation? Could it be that there may actually be areas of study in which we are yet to find effective applications to that specific realm?
In addition, Harold Wenglinsky’s National Study of Technology’s Impact on Mathematics Achievement found that Fourth-grade students who used technology to play learning games and develop higher order thinking performed only 3 to 5 weeks ahead of students who did not use technology. (Schacter 1999) Once again, are we to dismiss any academic gain based in technology regardless of volume? It seems to me that a positive gain is, without prejudice, a positive gain and not to the negative.
It seems apparent that human nature can, and sometimes does, dictates and perverts our "diverse" thinking into an illogical set of data. Never I have I felt as though technology in an form is the magical bullet and cures all ills, but my perception is that some must manufacture and create a crack in the wall to prove a "point".
Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology. Retrieved from http://www.mff.org/pubs/ME161.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment