Research reports: there are no discernible differences between students who have access to technology at home and those who don't

It's all rather confusing! A few weeks ago, the wonderful Rachel Dingle recently shared a piece of research with me that made me go...hmmmm. The research, as she said, indicates that "there are no discernible differences between students who have access to technology at home and those who don't". The abstract reads:

Computers are an important part of modern education, yet many schoolchildren lack access to a computer at home. We test whether this impedes educational achievement by conducting the largest-ever field experiment that randomly provides free home computers to students. Although computer ownership and use increased substantially, we find no effects on any educational outcomes, including grades, test scores, credits earned, attendance and disciplinary actions. Our estimates are precise enough to rule out even modestly-sized positive or negative impacts. The estimated null effect is consistent with survey evidence showing no change in homework time or other "intermediate" inputs in education (Fairlie, & Robinson, 2013, Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Home Computers on Academic Achievement among Schoolchildren)

This was a null finding. In other words, while there was no positive effect, there was no negative effect on completion of homework, for example, or on academic achievement, which is something indicated in other studies. For example, Ofer Malamud and Cristian Pop-Eleches (using a regression discontinuity design writing to estimate the effect of home computers on child and adolescent outcomes) write in Home Computer Use and the Development of Human Capital that:

We collected survey data from households who participated in a unique government program in Romania which allocated vouchers for the purchase of a home computer to low-income children based on a simple ranking of family income. We show that children in households who received a voucher were substantially more likely to own and use a computer than their counterparts who did not receive a voucher. Our main results indicate that that home computer use has both positive and negative effects on the development of human capital. Children who won a voucher had significantly lower school grades in Math, English and Romanian but significantly higher scores in a test of computer skills and in self-reported measures of computer fluency. There is also evidence that winning a voucher increased cognitive ability, as measured by Ravenís Progressive Matrices. We do not find much evidence for an effect on non-cognitive outcomes. Finally, the presence of parental rules regarding computer use and homework appear to mitigate the effects of computer ownership, suggesting that parental monitoring and supervision may be important mediating factors (2010, p. 1)

Taken at face value, these results are at best disheartening. However, I started to ponder - as we know a computer by itself does little for enhancing learning experiences. The learner has to have reasonably well digital literacy / digital citizenship skills; they have to have to be developing metacognitive skills; and they need to have a sense of investment in their own learning. So, now we are back to thinking about curriculum design, and how eLearning is integrated into curricula.

There is little surprise that access to a computer at home is not efficacious in and of itself. Rather, this is just one very small piece of a large and complex puzzle that leads back to how we learn and teach.

 

The four vision principles are building learning capacity, collaborating, making meaning, and breaking through, and the vision for the school acts as a filter for anything that happens there.  As a team. the next part of the journey was to voice a graduate profile, and this is a touchstone to see if the students are working towards their aspirational vision. To realise the vision they needed to develop the mindsets and norms that would help the students develop. Two of the main significant points of differences are the learning spaces at the school (on the site there are several images and a couple of videos you can watch to see the learning spaces). And Breakthrough day is another big point of difference, and this is the day where students can work on their own projects and to develop their talents within areas that interest them.

There are many milestones along the way that have been reached as part of the development of the school, but they wanted to pose the question - what learning matters?  And to help answer the question - why a concept curriculum? A curriculum that is just based on content no longer cuts the mustard. Dealing with the complex issues now needs to be a focus, and students need to be supported in their development of the necessary skills to rise to the challenges.

Peter Newell believes that 90% of what we teach is a "waste of time" - so 90% of what we teach - the nuggets of knowledge - will never be used. As such, we need to teach in a way where students look for wide scope...the areas outside of a topic or discipline that inform it in a sometimes tenuous,  but very important way. This will enable students to develop large understandings to cope with the unexpected. The idea of a concept curriculum is not a new one. 

One of the things did was as a team (and the process included the students) they looked into the macro areas that underpin many of the curriculum micro concepts. They also asked questions such as what are the major concepts emerging? What micro concepts sit beneath the macro concepts that had been identified? And finally they started back-mapping the key concepts (a process that took a number of terms to complete).  The process was one of creating and re-creating, imagining and re-imagining. Then there was a 'so what? What next?' moment.

To evaluate they started by gathering baseline data of student understanding (and used video as part of this process). Using a 'shift happens' bridge, and the middle bit seems to be most tricky, when the try and tried seems not to be working. The learning process is conceptualised as a framework for students to use around building knowledge, making meaning, and applying understandings. The model includes verbs that pop out and help the students actualise and verbalise the process. 

The presenters then provided a glimpse into how the teachers plan when provided with this conceptual understanding input. The audience was split into groups, and each teacher provided an example of the process. Planning is split into 2. The first half of the term is planned up front, and then the team meet halfway through the term to plan for the second half (this is done collaboratively in Google Docs). Videos were taken at the beginning of the term (and captured on video) - the example provided was 3 students talking about the macro concept of collaboration, with an example from the very beginning of the term (very sketchy understanding), which was compared with one from after 3 weeks of engaging with the concept (where the students were a lot more confident, and had the vocabulary and personal / general examples to talk about the concept of collaboration). The teachers were rapt as this was a concrete example of the students developing an understanding of collaboration. The evaluative data that is collected is used to inform reporting, and achievement data. One of the aims is to change the mental models around assessment and the learning that matters (so for example, the report back to the BOT often takes the form of video clips showing significant shifts in understanding). 

 This is gold dust! I can imagine that collecting the data, collating it, and crunching the numbers is quite a big job, but the results - especially the personalising of the curriculum and learning experience in response to shifts - are heartening. 

Image: 'Into the light (Explored)' - Found on flickrcc.net