Report: Computers 'Do Not Improve' Pupil Results

An anonymous reader writes: A report issued by the UK's Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has evaluated how technology in classrooms affects test results, and found that the availability of computers provides "no noticeable improvement" to students' test scores. According to the report, "Students who use computers very frequently at school get worse results." Also, "high achieving school systems such as South Korea and Shanghai in China have lower levels of computer use in school." The organization warns that classroom technology can be a distraction if implemented unwisely, and it also opens the door to easy ways of cheating.

Comments

Procrastinators dream

[Camel Pilot]

Computers enable procrastination always providing readily available diversionary escape. Learning is still hard work... no short cuts.

Re: Procrastinators dream

[malignant_minded]

I agree and disagree. There is a point that memorization is beneficial but just like multiplication tables after a point it is wasted effort with an unlikely return. LMGTFY is a huge modern skill lacking in many. Is it bad that kids in a programming class are pouring through stackoverflow to get the answers to the test? How many programmers here tweak Google searches in such sites as a normal occurrence of their day? That is cheating in the eyes of a school. So yeah, playing games all day is a distraction but when your test questions can be found by Googling who is at fault and how is that not 'learning'?

Common sense = none

[rtkluttz]

Its not computers, magnet schools, charter schools, teacher pay, higher taxes or any of those even when statistics sometimes hint at showing otherwise. The commonality is involved parents who help their kids when struggle, demand they toe the line when they get hardheaded, and have expectations for success. Its just not politically correct to say so because parent involvement lines up so closely with racial lines. Not exact, but close enough.

Re:Common sense = none

[Anonymous Coward]

Please have all the mod points.

I don't know how many times we have to debate this, but no shiny new toy ever makes anyone more willing to learn.

If you want to learn, you will. If not, nothing will help you.

And yes, the strong correlation with parental involvement is not fictional.

Re:Common sense = none

[Ayanami_R]

Live in ghetto, am minority, can confirm. We are pretty tough on our 14 year old and DEMAND good grades. His friends parents... not so much. They pretty much check out once their kids hit middle school.

Re:Common sense = none

[Mr D from 63]

You mean spending millions on Ipads doesn't mean we are progressing in education?

Re:Common sense = none

[ShanghaiBill]

The commonality is involved parents who help their kids when struggle, demand they toe the line when they get hardheaded, and have expectations for success.

This is "obvious" and something that everyone "knows", but there is actually very little supporting evidence. Although involved parents, who buy lots of books, read to their kids, and push them to study, are correlated with academic success, they don't cause it. Once you correct for the things that DO matter (IQ of biological parents and family income) all of that correlation vanishes.

The secret to academic success is simple: be born to smart, rich parents.

Re:Common sense = none

[AK Marc]

. Its just not politically correct to say so because parent involvement lines up so closely with racial lines. Not exact, but close enough.

Then you notice that hours worked to provide food for the children lines up on racial lines as well. The parents aren't involved. They are out working their second job so their children can eat. If you can solve poverty, you solve 90% of the "race issue" in the US, other than the bigots who assert it's about the lazy race, and not economics.

Thank you

[TWX]

"The organization warns that classroom technology can be a distraction if implemented unwisely..."

I've been saying this for a decade. If the computer that the student uses is a general-purpose computer and can do 10,000 things, of which only one thing is that which the student should be doing, the student is going to be overwhelmingly tempted to do one of the rest of those 9,999 things instead, especially if that other thing is more fun.

Software for teaching computers needs to be developed. It needs to limit the available options to the lessons and only a few diversions, like how computers were before they were networked in schools.

Parents suck too

[grub]

How many of these parents work with their kids when at home? How many let the kids to go their room and play on the iPad or xbox and only see them at dinner? Or are too busy driving them to useless and expensive team sports events?

Education requires major input from the parents but many of them treat the schools like babysitters and get mad at the teachers when their kids can barely read.

Recess helps, lunch helps, teachers help

[WillAffleckUW]

Computers rarely help. Ever.

Now watch as those whose salaries are paid by pushing more computers and testing post lies that aren't backed by peer reviewed scientific studies, to feather their nests.

"the More you Know"

Re:However, in special ed, they do keep them engag

[thegarbz]

The past few years have been filled with schools blindly deploying smartboards, iPads, and high end windows/apple laptops. Unfortunately many of these districts didn't put in enough support systems or integrate the technology into the curriculum.

This right here! A lot of districts are deploying technology based on sales presentations by iMarketing folk. My girlfriend is a teacher at a school where this has failed spectacularly. Next semester they start a 2 year program to phase out the iPads and replace them with something that doesn't make students cry and teachers put their firsts through the wall when doing such incredibly complicated feats such as adding a greek letter to a word document in a science assignment.

A lot of these places were oversold on the hardware capabilities and absolutely had no idea how if at all software would support student learning.

Absolutely not shocked

[ErichTheRed]

When I was in elementary school, eons ago, the most advanced computers we had were Apple ][e machines. High school gave us Macintosh SEs and IBM PS/2 model 30s. I think the difference then vs now is that we had to learn to do something useful (i.e. programming) on them to make them fun. There was LOGO, Oregon Trail and AppleWorks, but they were pretty primitive. Especially today, computers can be "consumer-only" devices and just another screen to stare blankly into.

One thing that isn't different is that the best predictor of student success is good teachers, a good school and a decent home life with caring parents. Adding computers into the classroom without a clear purpose or reason is just a waste of money. Not because it's some kind of Luddite fantasy, but because students need to learn fundamentals before they are put in front of the computer.

Take me for example -- I'm reasonably successful but have a serious math handicap that I developed in elementary school. Exactly how would a computer, especially a locked down one-way device like an iPad have helped me? I struggled though math all the way to a degree in chemistry, probably for the simple reason that I had crappy early math teachers that couldn't pound the basics into my thick skull. Good instruction is the key to good performance, especially in a subject like math where everything is cumulative. I have no idea how people are taught math in a way that makes it all make sense, but it would be interesting to see what's being tried now. I guess I'll find out soon since I have 2 kids about to enter elementary school!