The Technology
Solution: Computer-Assisted Instruction
You say you want a revolution. Well, you know, we all
want to change the world … You say you got a real
solution. Well, you know, we’d all love to see the plan.
– John Lennon & Paul McCartney
The six fundamental
flaws have persisted for centuries. During that time,
millions of teachers and billions of students have
operated within these constraints. Educators tried new
things but always returned to the same formula, which
begs the question, “If there is a better way, why hasn’t
it surfaced by now?” The obvious conclusion is that education works as best it can. However, when all you
have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When all
you have is a chalkboard, lecturing looks like an
effective strategy. We have not been able to solve the
fundamental flaws because of the tools we use.
Imagine what would happen if we had different tools.
Imagine walking into a class, but instead of rows of
desks, there are computers – one for each student.
Imagine everyone working at their own pace on
personalized lessons or in small groups around a
computer. Imagine students returning to school after
several days of illness and starting where they left off
rather than in the middle of unfamiliar content. Imagine
students choosing among different versions of lessons –
all of which are entertaining, offer immediate feedback,
and lead to mastery. Imagine teachers offering guidance
and support rather than lecturing, grading, and
disciplining students. None of this is possible with the
tools we now use; all of it is possible with technology.
Technology 101
My first experience with technology in the classroom
was using a lowly overhead projector. I liked it better
than the chalkboard because my writing was clearer, I
could face students as I wrote, and I was able to
prepare transparencies before class. After my first
semester, I was ready for more technology. I decided to
use PowerPoint. I put a computer in my classroom and
connected it to two televisions – one on either side of
the room. At first, my slides were mostly text.
Eventually, I added pictures, animations, sounds, and
videos. Soon I had a graphics tablet and a webcam.
The graphics tablet allowed me to scribble circles and
arrows over slides. The camera let me capture images and
zoom in on chemical reactions to display them larger
than life. I was enamored with this setup. Keeping all
my files on one CD was more convenient than storing
transparencies in big, bulky binders. Updating
PowerPoint files was faster than rewriting
transparencies and the slides looked more professional.
Three years passed before I reached the limits of
what was possible with PowerPoint. During that time, I
presented information better than I could have using a
chalkboard or overhead projector. But my lectures still
suffered from the same limitations that all lectures do
– they progressed at a single pace, were ephemeral, and
did not allow students choice or independence. I knew
these limitations were inherent to lectures and could
never be overcome by my system. The only option was
radical change. I needed to up the technological ante.
I spent a full year planning for my next big
challenge: teaching all lessons with computers. I
arranged for forty secondhand computers to be donated to
the school. When they arrived, I began installing
software and upgrading hardware. When I wasn’t teaching
or fixing computers at school, I was creating content at
home. I designed a web page to deliver lessons, studied
programming languages, and bought a camcorder, a tripod,
and a green screen for special effects. When the summer
came, I replaced desks with tables, set up the
computers, and networked them to a high-speed Internet
connection. It took me ten months just to prepare for
teaching with computers. I spent hundreds of hours and
thousands of dollars. As the start of the semester began
to loom, it became increasingly apparent that I had
bitten off more than I could chew.
Despite a year of careful planning, my first semester
with computers
was a disaster. From the start, I struggled to create
enough content to keep students busy. My second semester
was no better. I spent many sleepless nights trying to
iron out problems. The features I had envisioned were
taking longer to deliver than I had hoped. Often, I was
forced to revert to my old PowerPoint lectures, leaving
the computers unused and
blocking the view of students. When summertime
mercifully arrived again, I was able to catch my breath
and survey the damage. Looking back, one incident stands
out as the defining moment of my year.
It was
during the second semester that I had to teach a
vocational class how to balance chemical equations. Some
people think “vocational” means “practical” or
“hands-on”. Really it means “watered-down”. Students in
vocational classes often cannot pass advanced classes;
they have trouble with literacy and math, poor
attendance, and often end up dropping out of high
school. Balancing equations was going to be difficult
for this group. In past years, I had tried various
strategies: lectures, seatwork, group work, and games.
Whatever I tried, the concept eluded most students and
eventually I had to give up and move on. It was a
frustrating experience for everyone. With computers in
place, I decided this semester was going to be
different.
I used my camcorder to record answers for ten
questions. The videos consisted of little more than a
piece of paper in frame, on which I wrote step-by-step
solutions, along with a running narrative explaining each step. When the taping was done, I
imported the video into my computer, edited it, and
exported clips suitable for streaming over the Internet.
Finally, I designed a special web page for the lesson.
The whole process took twelve hours.
When students
came to class the next day, I told them to go online and
follow the instructions. As directed, students put on
headphones, listened to an introductory video, and
solved the remaining questions as an assignment. If
anyone got confused, I reminded them to watch the
videotaped answers. Upon finishing, students handed me
their assignment for marking and then completed a second
assignment, for which videotaped answers were not
available.
Something amazing happened. By the end
of the period, everyone got it. What had taken two
periods to explain in lecture in past years now took
only one period on computer. Instead of students feeling
lost and frustrated, they were excited by their mastery
of this difficult material. Instead of spending the
entire period lecturing, I spent all of my time
interacting with students and giving them individual
feedback. Instead of having a pile of marking at the
end of class, I had none because I had marked
assignments in front of students as they finished. One
student remarked, “We should do all of our lessons like
this.”
I was glad that students had done well, but I was
also upset. This was the most rudimentary computer
lesson I could design: there was no feedback, the
quality of the video was poor, and marking was not done
automatically by software. Originally, I had envisioned
lessons that were interactive and offered individual
feedback. But I did not have time. My barebones lesson
took twelve hours to create. Reaching my goal would have
taken hundreds of hours more. Plus, this was only one of
three courses on my timetable. Creating fantastic
content for all courses was out of the question. One
teacher working alone does not have time to produce
adequate computer lessons. However, when somebody else
designs the software, there is ample evidence that computers
are better than traditional instruction.
Just the Facts
Hundreds of studies have compared computers to
traditional classroom instruction. Since most studies
use their own unique software, it is only necessary to
get a few positive results to show that computers can be
beneficial. In other words, one negative result proves
only that a particular piece of software does not work –
it says nothing about computers in general.
Fortunately, nagging doubts due to a small number of
positive results is a nonissue. The majority of research
is in agreement. In fact, all meta-analyses agree that
computers are more effective than traditional
instruction.
A meta-analysis is a type of
statistical review that conducts no original research.
Instead, it pools data from other studies. Meta-analyses
often exclude studies that 1) are poorly designed, 2)
lack sufficient control groups, 3) are not published in
peer-reviewed journals, 4) rely on questionnaires rather
than direct measurements, 5) do not randomly assign
participants, and 6) are otherwise unscientific. They
help to reveal general patterns and minimize anomalous
results.
It is unusual to find more than a few
meta-analyses on any topic. In the case of computers,
there are many because of the large volume of original
research and because of rapid changes in technology over
the last forty years. By 1991, more than a dozen
meta-analyses existed, all of which concluded that
learning from computers was better than traditional
instruction. Recent reviews have simply confirmed
earlier findings. One of the largest meta-analysis
ever published examined 254 studies; computers improved
test scores in 81% of studies (94% of statistically
significant studies). Computers were better at every
level: elementary, secondary, college, and adult
education. Improvements were seen in reading, math,
science, history, psychology, accounting, foreign
languages, vocational training, etc. And in studies that
looked beyond test scores, there were other benefits.
Computers took 30% less time, and student attitudes
improved in 79% of studies. In other words, students
learned more in less time on computers and felt better
about it afterward – precisely what I had discovered in
my own classroom.
next:
Financing Change
This is an excerpt
from
Chalkbored.
Order the book
here
to learn more about ...
- How technology can solve each of the fundamental
flaws
- Cheating in schools: frequency and
solutions
- How computers make classes more personal,
social, and complex
- Examining the current use of technology in
schools
|