David Brauer wrote: > For several months, Michael among other list members has asked > Minneapolis school officials for studies, numbers, verifiable data, etc. > on school board initiatives. > > MPS board president Catherine Shreves is good enough to take them time > to provide several studies underlying the district's computing > philosophy...and now it's too MUCH? And disdaining to read those > studies, persistent critics such as Michael (who has presented a ton of > his own studies) can evaluate them and know what they say....based on > admittedly older research?!
Allow me to give a brief overview on how to evaluate scientific evidence. 1. Do not trust articles published on websites, although you can always use them to get information on ONE side of the story. 2. You can often put more trust into "peer reviewed" journals. Peer reviewed means that articles are screened by people (usually) experts in the field. 3. It is helpful to look at both sides of an issue. Even articles in peer reviewed journals may have opposing viewpoints. Now, please allow be to explain why I was not overly impressed with the references Ms.Shreves' contact, Colleen Kosloski, provided. First it is not clear to me that Ms. Shreves has actually read all of the material herself. Part of the problem is that I've already been down a similar road with Ms. Shreves before. During our discussion on class sizes I read everything that Ms. Shreves cited. Going so far as to order and pay for documentation that wasn't readily available online or in the library. Upon reviewing her references I was astounded to find that some of her citations contradicted or qualified her own arguments. Let me give you an example in regards to the current discussion. I will use one of the references provided by Ms. Kosloski, "Does it Compute? The Relationship between Educational Technology and Student Achievement in Math." This report was published by the ETS (Educational Testing Service) a well known and generally well respected testing organization. They state: "These findings come with certain caveats. First, the data were collected at a single point in time; the aspects of technology studied here occurred at the same time as the educational outcomes of interest. Thus, it may be that high achieving students are more likely to use technology in certain ways rather than that these uses of technology promote high levels of academic achievement. Second, while the study takes into account some characteristics of teachers, it does not take into account their overall tendency to teach in certain ways, such as to teach higher-order thinking skills. It may be that computers are but one medium among many that teachers use to teach higher-order thinking skills, and that all of these media are conducive to high levels of academic achievement." One thing that this paragraph states is that, "computers are but one medium among many that teachers use to teach higher-order thinking skill..." And, as I have stated, one of the most expensive. Now here's the kicker, this study actually found that the use of computers by students in schools NEGATIVELY impacts achievement (although home use is positively related). See Tables 1 & 2 on page 30. Hello, hello? Is anybody listening? Is anybody actually reading these reports carefully before citing them? Now do you understand why I was a little incredulous when confronted with a list of web references? So, if you could actually accept the results of this one study (which I am reluctant to), the conclusion would be to avoid purchasing computers for use in the public schools, although you could loan them to students to take home. AND, if anyone remembers, I had suggest that computers be available for check out in the public libraries. Not to say that this is necessarily a valid conclusion, we just cannot know without further research. > As for usability: had Catherine provided one easy-to-digest study, it > would have been dismissed as insignificant. Had she boiled several > studies down and presented her analysis in easy-to-read nugget form, it > would have been suspect (or worse, "spinning.") I suppose we'll never know. > I've long believed the education wars are less about "science" than > confirming a given side's pre-existing ideology. (And the goes for all > sides.) That's why I find myself listening to parents' and teachers' > anecdotal experiences, while gravitating to policymakers who seem the > most open-minded...or at least open to data that challenges their > assumptions. My push is to get the MPS to do the testing themselves, that way you can be more confident that innovations will work here in Minneapolis. I'm not interested in confirming my ideology, I'm interested in finding and developing programs that work. Let the testing begin and may the best instructional programs win. If they do, then students win, we all win. Michael Atherton Prospect Park _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
