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

I'll say

[RedNovember]

I tried this out when I was a OOH SHINY!

Re:I'll say

[bunratty]

RTFA. The program that read the story didn't cause problems. It was the program with the gratuituous animations that had nothing to do with the story that distracted kids from the story and caused a drop in comprehension.

I know from experience at a company that makes a very successful literacy program that a computer reading a stories to children and providing exercises in phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension can help children's reading and writing skills immensely. At that company, competing "edutainment" programs were dismissed as inferior, and this study proves that the "entertainment" portion just distracts kids away from the education part of the activity.

Re:I'll say

[Mr. Roadkill]

I tried this out when I was a OOH SHINY!

You're missing the fundamental point of the article, which is OOH SHINY!

Sorry, the point of the article is "We've got to sell papers by scaring you, and this is going to get your attention for the thirty seconds we've conditioned you to spend on a newspaper article that can't possibly do justice to the topic at hand."

On a serious note, ration access to the things. "Interactive" is not necessarily a good thing. You thought TV was bad for attention spans? You thought old-style video games were bad? Heh... use the right things at the right time, and in the right proportions. The problem is, many parents who wouldn't dream of letting their kids veg out in front of the television simply substitute one electronic babysitter for another.

Read to your kids, encourage them to read, let them play interactive titles like the Broderbund stuff assessed, and let them watch TV and DVDs. They all complement each other.

Reading to kids exposes them to material they wouldn't be able to access themselves because of the reading level required, but which they may well be able to understand - kids can generally listen and speak several years ahead of their reading level, and if they gain knowledge that there's all this interesting stuff in books and see adults reading they'll get interested in gaining the skills needed to read it themselves.

Interactive stuff makes for good reading-drills - it gets their attention and gets them practicing the skill, and they don't even know that they're doing it. Just don't expect them to be able to absorb a whole story in a single sitting. They're just not designed that way. They're frequently either non-linear, or have an overall linear progression that allows diversions along the way - that's deliberate, and is meant to enhance the long-term playability and make it easier to get the kids to repeat the practice reading exercises hidden as sets of directions or comments on objects or people. They're good for picking up related facts, but picking a narrative out of them could be difficult because the reader/player partially directs how things unfold rather than passively following a narrative that already exists. If they're related to other dead-tree materials, like the Little Monster title is, it could be a good way to get an interest in the related books too.

TV, videos and DVDs also allow some complex ideas to be presented if done right, and can encourage imagination and thought. I'm not talking about reruns of Magilla Gorilla... I think we all know what kind of crap has been on television... but there is a lot of stuff out there that can stretch the imagination, get kids thinking about moral and behavioural issues at an early age etc. Care Bears, good targetted kids sci-fi of the kind that our national broadcaster seems to show from time to time, kiddy documentary-style series and the like can help provide an interest in what's right and wrong and an interest in people and the world. We don't sit around reading the bible and Pears Cyclopedia to the family by gaslight any more, so the old "do unto others" and "things are interesting out there" messages aren't quite so common in everyday family activities these days - education is in some ways all about programming your kids to be the best people they can be, and their flexible and absorbent little minds will be shaped by what you expose them to, so look at this as an opportunity to expose them to new, interesting and challenging material rather than a way to keep them out of your hair while you watch the news.

As for purely entertaining interactive titles, like video games, they're not necessarily bad either. Reasoning, imagination, memory skills, attention to detail, cause-and-effect and the like are all things that their gameplay can rely on. They're all important life skills too.

Just because kids couldn't remember what they saw in the program the previous day is no reason to assume the technology is evil

Re:I'll say

[wmajik]

I tried this out when I was a OOH SHINY! Somewhere in the Army, someone is just now figuring out that chrome on the grenade pin might have been a bad idea...

Re:I'll say

[Thangodin]

If you want your kids to read, make reading a comfort activity. Snuggle up with the kids and read to them and with them. Get them to associate books with contentment, and with love, and they'll be readers all their lives. They will learn to read because they want to. If they never feel that desire, they'll never bother to make the effort, and their reading skills will be poor.

What's missing in all of these educational products is a human being. This is why I don't believe that video games have any more than a marginal effect on behaviour; they simply don't have the emotional influence of another human being, especially of a parent. In order for any of these things to have a deeply significant impact, the child would have to be starved of human contact, and the damage caused by this would probably outweigh all other influences combined.

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.)

A couple of points

[BertieBaggio]

From TFA, emphasis mine:

The other half used an interactive program which, in addition to telling the story, encourages pupils to click the computer mouse on page illustrations, triggering almost 300 animations and sound effects.

Only two-thirds of the pop-up cartoons were relevant to the storyline.

-----

Firstly and seriously, of course children will be distracted by animations and sound effects. Knowing this, and if they are irrelevent, why did the writers of the software put them there? Why not add some animations that explained part of the story? Fair enough no kid's book should read like a tech manual (and vice versa), but putting in distractions will distract the reader - child or otherwise.

Secondly and less seriously... they're surprised 'only' two thirds of the popups are relevent? Put the kids on the net instead of using that software and we'll see how many 'relevent' popups they get.

Actually, that might not be such a good idea...

Re:So what?

[AKAImBatman]

This is the song that doesn't end...

Yes, it goes on and on my friend!

Some people started singing it
not knowing what they'd done,
and they'll continue singing it
forever just because...

This is the song that doesn't end...

(EVERYONE!)

Will it work itself out?

[246o1]

The human mind, while extremely adaptable, has some limitations that your rhetorical style overlooks. When you say that "the human mind" will adapt, what you are really saying is that human minds are able to deal with this level of distraction right now.

There is no time for evolution to help the human mind adapt, we're basically stuck at this point in evolution. There's a limit to what our hunter/gatherer/tinkerer primate brains can handle and still work efficiently, and that we can't pass our progress on to our children genetically to help them get past that limit.

I'd be inclined to argue that we, doing more at one time with our minds than people a century ago, are very likely functioning less efficiently in many ways, though the progress of technological tools to aid us has more than made up the difference, so far.

Re:Computers should supplement learning

[Elwood P Dowd]

You have completely misunderstood the point of the article. They are not discussing the utility of computers in teaching general subjects. They are discussing the utility of computers in teaching reading.

Not "book learning". Literacy.

In summary, learn to fucking read.

The Rise of MS English

[G4from128k]

I'd also fault spelling and grammar checkers in the continuing decline of proper language skills/skill's. Too/to/two many people play loose/lose with their/there/they're word processor's/processors checking facilities. If the text passes the checker, then they're/there/their convinced it's/its fine.

I'm no speeling or grammar fiend but even I am horrified by the basic language errors that now appear in supposedly edited works (e.g., the New York Times and in books). Some people claim the trend is due to e-mail/IM, but I'd argue that a well trained person doesn't make such basic mistakes even on a fast first draft.

Does Zork count?

[PIPBoy3000]

When I was a kid, educational software like Zork really helped, typing and spelling especially. Plus I learned never to go into a dark room lest I be eaten by a grue.

Phony test

[chriss]

Man, do I hate those studies. What the hell were they measuring? Two groups of six years old listening to a story while the text ist displayed on a computer screen.

Group A Will only have the posibility to listen to the story while the currently read line is highlightened on the screen. Group B Will additionaly be encouraged to click on illustrations, triggering almost 300 animations and sound effects. 100 of these have nothing to do with the story whatsoever

When asked about the story, 90% of group A will remember it correctly, but only 30% of group B. So what is the conclusion? Maybe that distractions, especially those that are not related to what you are currently doing will harm your concentration and therefore you will remember not as well as if you were left alone? No, the conclusion is:

Interactive learning fails reading test

WTF?

• Maybe I would have bought it if they did not add 33% of noise to the experiment.
• Maybe I would have bought it if the animations were designed to give an insight into the story. (Were they? They don't say. Animations and sound effects may be "Hit the monkey, win an iPod" flash banners displayed because the story is about a monkey).
• Maybe I would have bought it if they had tested for some positive reaction to the added interactive component (Were the children that did not follow the linear story able to tell the story in a nonlinear context? Could they seperate the single elements of the story more easily? Did anybody care to check?)

I don't claim that it is impossible that interactive learning is the wrong educational tool for six years old. I don't believe it, but I just can't prove it. But I'm annoyed by all these stupid studies making statements based on unprecise conditions, which will not allow to deduce verifyable conclusions, but will be picked up by the press (and slashdot) nonetheless.

They're just like those studies that claim over and over again that playing counterstrike will turn kids into brutal killers. Proven wrong again and again, but nobody cares.

Chriss

--
memomo.net - free online language training

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.

Finally

[Mr. Freeman]

It's about time that people noticed this. Ever since the first "leapfrog" system came out, education has taken a backseat to marketing.

Parents are willing to spend an arm and a leg "for their child's education", but would be appalled at buying that child an equally-priced "toy".

It seems that all any company has to do anymore is design something that has more than a few words and numbers in it, call it a "learning device" or "educational system" and it sells like you wouldn't believe.

The newest leapfrog toy, "the fly", seems like a really useful invention again passed of as an educational device without any real educational content.
It can mimic a $5 pocket calculator, a $3 pocket dictionary, and a $0.50 pen all while taking up way too much space and being much to loud/obnoxious/distracting.

The potential of this technology is immensely great, but of course, what does that matter if it won't sell and make the company lots and lots of money? Best to strip it down, paint it bright colors, have it make noise, and say it helps kids learn.

The Pedants are Revolting...

[kale77in]

> Anna Karina

So would you say your recollection of Anna Kar-en-ina was at all affected by the reading program?

(And where's my -1 Pedant mod, hmmm? It's 2006 already, and still no Pedant mod...)

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.

Re:Computers Considered Harmful

[adrianmonk]

I really agree with this synthesis. Computers per se can't teach you the most critical skills - including reading, writing or mathematics. The interaction with a teacher is so much more richer than with any machine yet devised.

I would have to mostly disagree. Even though I think computers in education are the most wasteful, overhyped thing in decades, I think a properly made computer program probably could teach you to read. And I know you can learn math from a computer: in college, I took M311 (Linear Algebra and Matrix Theory) by correspondence, and I did just fine in it and got an "A", despite not being that great at math (for example, I failed second-semester calculus the first 4 times I took it).

In fact, that Linear Algebra experience taught me just how superfluous the teacher can be. I just had a book and a guide that told me what to read and what problems to work, and I did fine. I had the same experience with the other correspondence course I took, which was US History. All I did was read the book and mail in an essay for each chapter to be graded. I got an A in that too, and I still remember what the prof wrote on one of my essays: "I have rarely seen this kind of insight from an undergraduate."

Now, this might all have more to do with my learning style than anything. But the point is that I was able to learn just fine without ever even meeting the teacher and just reading a book. Obviously, any content you can put in a book, you can put on a computer, so you should be able to learn anything from a computer that you can learn from a book. Of course, that does require that the software isn't so brain-damaged that it detracts from learning.