"Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products": A US-Based Study Published in 2007
- Satrih
- Oct 12, 2020
- 3 min read
U.S. Department of Education has clearly defined educational technology as a process where technology is used for the purpose of teaching and learning and is designed for a public scale impact. It also has defined clearly that effective use of technology can only be observed through an experimental study with a sample population should be those who have never used technology in school context due to socioeconomic or other issues. It also suggested paying attention to any observable changes ranging from moderate to large ones. The first and the second year study did follow the mandated rules from the department as a standard for a national study.
Findings from the first year study suggested that there is no significant achievement in student scores of both math and reading subject. However, it also found that there is a correlation between overall test scores with student-teacher ratio and with the amount of time the technology (reading products, not math products) were used. Based on this finding, I think the surprising difference in result between the two subjects, reading and math, might be a result of various factors. Two of the factors that I can mention are the level of student interest in the two subjects and the level of the technology performance to provide support for learning the two subjects. As mandated by the U.S. Department of Education, the study should not just look at the effectiveness of the use of technology itself, but more importantly the condition and practices that may or may not contribute to the effectiveness. I think student interest is very important. As an example, based on my personal experience, despite the much easier to learn a foreign language vocabulary via mobile dictionary or any language learning applications in students' devices today, only those who are interested enough in the subject, will take benefits of these advanced technologies. The quality of the technology performance is also important. Curious students may ask for more.
Other important findings of the first year study also suggested that teacher training or professional development is important, which I certainly agree. In most cases, a teacher is always expected to lead by example. Students naturally believe that their teachers are experts, so it is more than just important to make sure that teachers are capable of integrating technology into their instruction, which will, in turn, be learned and followed by the students. One more important finding is that students became more independent in learning as they tend to be more engaged in their technology experience, which at the same time, turned teachers to be facilitators, rather than just lecturers. These two findings are certainly encouraging. I believe that any similar study, on all scales, local or national, must pay attention specifically to teachers professional development to have a more accurate conclusion about the study findings.
With modifications in 5 areas that include products dropping, no classrooms observation, random sampling, direct test scores from some districts, and some school records collection, findings of the second year study did not serve better than the first. The only positive finding related to student score achievement came from Algebra class. As the author summarized, this study with all its limitations should be evaluated from various aspects and perspectives related, which means, as a completed study it can be one of the references for considerations as a guidance for other more developed studies in future. There are always lessons that can be learned from past failures as well as successfulness to guide our present efforts for a better future.
Comments