Interactive Learning Fails Reading Test

motivator_bob writes to tell us the Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that the latest craze of interactive computer software is actually hurting the education level rather than helping it. From the article: "Parents have also bought into the enthusiasm for technology, spending millions on educational computer games for their young. However, research published in the journal Education 3 to 13 has found that pupils who use interactive programs cannot remember stories they have just read because they are distracted by cartoons and sound effects."

Comments

accelerated reader

[Donniedarkness]

When I was in middle school, my county had just bought some software called "accelerated reader". This had tests for basically every book you could find (...but you had to pay up the ass for each 10-question test). The school pressured the reading teachers into totally relying on this, and grading completely on our AR tests.

AR had you take a test at the beginning of the year to determine your "reading level", and it had a "reading level" for practically every book out there. Kids were intentionally doing poorly on the test so that they could read 2nd-grade level books. Because the kids were only graded on what they could take an AR test on, these kids were given high grades for reading books that did them absolutely no good (whereas only one other student and I were actually reading above the 7th grade level).

Sometimes, educational software (and software in the schools) can be useful, but the biggest problem is that it seems like we use computers for the sake of using computers, and not for the sake of learning. Despite the fact that AR was KILLING our reading classes, the administration demanded that we continue to use it simply so they could brag about their computer software.

Re:accelerated reader

[Bing Tsher E]

I attended an 'experimental school' from fourth to sixth grade, back in 1967-70 (aprox.). It was an 'unstructured' 'classroom without walls' approach. We were using all the latest techniques, and the SRA learning modules. There was a great science cart with all kinds of stuff to experiment with. I got into electronics about that time, though mostly from my own exposure and exploration at home.

What they found out over a few years time was that the average performance of the pupils was about the same. But, looking closer, they discovered that motivated kids were learning MORE and the average kid was learning LESS. I remember spending long classroom hours making clay log cabins and such. The experience set me back severely in some areas but raced me forward in others. Within a few years of the time I attended the school, walls and much more structure had been added. It was viewed a failure.

I wish, in a way, that I had been given a regular education, though it's always hard to say what difference it might have made.

Re:accelerated reader

[jgc7]

Despite the fact that AR was KILLING our reading classes, the administration demanded that we continue to use it simply so they could brag about their computer software.
I went through the same "accelerated reader" program except that the administrators my school did what the program suggested and required each student accumulate a certain number of points. The harder books rewarded students with more points requiring them to read fewer, and the slower students had to read more easy books forcing them to catch up. The scoring system created healty competition and without that program I surely would have never read Anna Karina in middle school. (It had the highest point value of any of the books on the list.)

Entertainment can be Educating, however.

[artificialnews.com]

That's what the History Channel is all about. I watch it as much as I can (which isn't much, b/c I don't have cable or anything at my house) just because I love learning new things.

But it's one of those things that depend on the activity and subject. If you teach something in videos or whatever, there are tons of history or language or geometry things that would go along with it. But reading isn't one of those automated-type activities. Reading is learned simply because you see the use for it and have the desire for it.

Kids don't learn to read because they want a good score. They learn to read because they want attention that only another person can give. I'm sure that there are teachers that can work with this program to help their kids, but without that teacher giving their own individual attention to the kids, no computer program can help a kid read.

Re:Education is not Entertainment

[Copid]

As one of my wisest college professors said when students were grubmling about having to learn formal definitions for a mathematics class, "I don't know where people get the idea that learning is supposed to be fun. Learning can be fun, but it can also be really tough--even downright miserable. Knowing is fun."

I'm all for making learning fun when it can be, but we often sacrifice too much in order to achieve those ends. Sometimes you just have to sit down and memorize your multiplication tables, read your textbooks, and do your problem sets. Sadly, no amount of fun will get you there faster than that.

Re:Hear, Hear!

[b17bmbr]

I'm going to politely disagree. I am a high school teacher (seven years junior high 3 years high school) and have yet to find a piece of software that is effective and better than a more traditional approach. In finihing my master's, I did a great deal of research and found that there is no evidence to prove that technology (i.e. computers) improves learning, and in fact, there is much research to conclude the opposite, that computers hinder learning. Todd Oppenheimer's great book is a worthy read.

That being said, there are some great tools that students can use for science, but they are not necessarily "educational", just happen to be good in schools. I know the ed software business is big business, educators, administrators, and parents get all warm and fuzzy over "kids and computers", but nothing beats a good book, and even more than that, nothing replaces the writing process. Kids today barely read at all, and their writing is awful. I rather suspect the inundation of computers and whiz-bang technology has jaded their outlooks. But, there is no substitute for reading a book. The problem with most ed software I've seen is that it is rather limited in developing critical thinking and analysis. Students tend to stay on the low end of Bloom's taxonomy. For example, how do you get them (in my discipline, history) to see cause and effect?

I use Keynote on my iBook all the time, but a teacher using a computer to present material is a far cry from kids playing on the computer. But that's just my experience. 10 years worth.

I'm not buying it....

[Belial6]

I know that I went from being a terrible speller to being very good as a direct result of computers. I got my first spell checker in the 7th grade. Every teacher, as well as my parents were absolutely sure that spell checkers just make kids lazy. They were sure that I would never learn to spell if I used a spell checker. The fact was that the spell checker would immediately tell me when I misspelled a word, and would also give me the correct spelling. This was opposed to the "traditional" approach, consisting of the student turning in their writing, and a week later getting a paper back with red circles all over it. The typical student would then toss the paper in the trash, never seeing what their mistake actually was, and never finding out the correct spelling.

The funny thing is that prior to my first word processor, I don't believe I ever received a single grade higher than a C on any writing assignment. Immediately following my family getting a word processor, I started getting As. I still attribute some of that to lazy teachers who graded on how pretty your handwriting was, but a lot of it was that changing a single word in the middle of a paper didn't require an extra half of an hour to rewrite the paper.

Maybe I was the exception, but I'm not buying that immediate feedback and shifting effort to the actual task (as opposed to busywork) does not improve the learning process for kids. I also call BS on the "nothing beats a book" line. I can't count the number of times I've heard it. There is only one thing that reading a book gets you that watching TV doesn't. You learn to read better. Now, I am not saying that reading well is not a good thing, but that is all reading has on TV.

Re:I'm not buying it....

[Anonymous Coward]

"You learn to read better. Now, I am not saying that reading well is not a good thing, but that is all reading has on TV."

Try to get a job as an engineer, lawyer, doctor, or other 'knowledge worker' type job, based on TV skills or other immediate gratification skills (i.e., 'edutainment'). Communication and social interaction is so fundamental to the future of our non-manufacturing economy, that I'd even say that playing team sports trumps both reading and TV for learning how to deal with the politics and give-and-take of being a 'knowledge worker'. Of course, reading/riting/rithmatic are absolutely critical, but it seems much of our education system actually encourages anti-social behavior in pursuing those subjects (individual accomplishment, single-player 'edutainment', etc.).