Bob, I look forward to your essay. I've read the study. It says a couple of things about 5th-8th graders that make intuitive sense:
* personal computers and internet access in the 5th-8th grades can crowd out the development of other learning skills, including math and reading * this is a particular problem in households with little or no parental supervision or control. In other words, computers and internet access are not a "magic bullet" for educational achievement, particularly for the disadvantaged students, and, in certain circumstances, can be counter-productive. An earlier European study reached similar conclusions about "crowding out" and suggested that over-exposure to computers and the internet in these early years of intellectual development produced great keyboarding skills that would prepare the students to compete for low-paying data entry jobs but not for jobs requiring intellect. It seems reasonable to consider the possibility of adverse impacts under the admonition of "first, do no harm". >From this report's CONCLUSION: "This evidence is consistent with the view that internet service, and technology more broadly, is put to more productive use in households with more effective parental monitoring of child behavior. For school administrators interested in maximizing achievement test scores, or reducing racial and socioeconomic disparities in test scores, all evidence suggests that a program of broadening home computer access would be counterproductive. Of course, administrators may have other goals aside from improving math and reading test scores. Computer literate students may enjoy improved job opportunities later in life, or may be poised to take better advantage of online resources once their internal mechanisms for behavioral regulation have fully developed. ... It is not clear, however, whether computer literacy actually leads to better employment outcomes, and also not clear whether access to home computers in the early secondary school years is critical to later computer literacy. [p.35]" On 6/28/10 6:16 PM, "Bob Frankston" <[email protected]> wrote: The more I think about it the worse these studies are. They are fraudulent. If do real science and try to isolate the factors you'll find that the one factor most antithetical to these results is the broadband business model. I argue that keeping that service-based pricing out of the home was a key enabler what we've gained from today's connectivity. I can understand companies proffering marketing bad studies as marketing hype - that's their job. But when academics get in the business that's irresponsible and even fraudulent. Sometimes it's just a result of sloppy work, especially with statistics which get tricky. In statistics people can also fall back an accepted practices such as significance testing even if they turn out to be very problematic. But these kind of studies, Duke is far from alone and I haven't look at this one in particular, have no such excuse. They are simply a race to publish and prove their thesis. This is also normal part of the grant process - you better know the answer before you "waste" the government's money on "research". I put all this in quotes to emphasize factors that prevent discovery. I'm mulling an essay on this. The general topic is too deep and pervasive but focusing on broadband might be useful for making the point. Too bad people don't understand science and see it as discovering the one true truth rather than refining our ability to deal with an ambiguous world. The idea of revealing the truth is more religion than science and leads us to confirm our naïve assumptions rather than challenging them. And it leads to terrible policy decisions From: Frank A. Coluccio [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 17:45 To: Bob Frankston Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [OIA] FW: [ NNSquad ] Duke Univ. study claims universal home access to broadband would *widen* math/reading achievement gaps Bob, you've touched on a recurring theme whose frequency and breadth is on the rise and expanding near-universally. I'm currently discussing the "NBN" prospects of several countries with their leading proponents who are holding out social agendas and attempting, whether wittingly or not, to shoehorn network infrastructure, which has already been contaminated by "broadband", to meet the contours of specific vendors' municipal applications (similar to the far-sweeping social platforms now being proffered by vendors doing exactly the same thing under the guise of CSR, or corporate social responsibility) in the most gratuitous and self-serving ways. It's pervasive. Green, smart-grid, broadband, the list goes on. This is what happens when the elasticity of legitimate enterprise reaches its limit and becomes entirely exhausted: Madison Avenue FUD. --- [email protected] wrote: From: "Bob Frankston" <[email protected]> To: "Open Infrastructure Alliance" <[email protected]> Cc: 'Lauren Weinstein' <[email protected]> Subject: [OIA] FW: [ NNSquad ] Duke Univ. study claims universal home access to broadband would *widen* math/reading achievement gaps Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:11:57 -0400 FYI. I really need to write a full essay on the fallacy of using these kind of results to justify bad policies. We can think of many other policies. For example, training people to work at MacDonald's will improve their job prospects but nowhere near as much as educating them with skills to learn or train themselves for whatever job happen in the future. Settling for broadband is like getting a bad loan to buy a year's supply for first class train tickets instead of buying a car you can afford that will take you where you choose to go, especially to local destinations. -----Original Message----- From: Bob Frankston [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 17:09 To: 'Lauren Weinstein'; '[email protected]' Subject: RE: [ NNSquad ] Duke Univ. study claims universal home access to broadband would *widen* math/reading achievement gaps The problem with these studies is that they are correct but the policy implications are limiting. Sure broadband will improve skills. The danger comes when we use it to justify giving away our infrastructure to service providers. We could accomplish this an much more if we take other approaches without the negatives of the broadband business model. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lauren Weinstein Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 16:54 To: [email protected] Subject: [ NNSquad ] Duke Univ. study claims universal home access to broadband would *widen* math/reading achievement gaps Duke Univ. study claims universal home access to broadband would *widen* math/reading achievement gaps http://bit.ly/czWVww (Calder Center [PDF]) --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator _______________________________________________ Open Infrastructure Alliance http://lists.bway.net/listinfo/oia
