Previous by Date | Next by Date | Date Index
Previous by Thread | Next by Thread
| Thread Index
| LM_NET
Archive
| |
Good points, Bob, though I was pleased at all the factors the study corrected for, which would seem to make the research pretty valid. I have seen so many that do not do this anywhere near so thoroughly and the research is thus nearly pointless. I saw one recently about black students getting less sleep than white students, but it was not corrected socio-economically, which could have a significant impact on the data. Despite correcting for past achievement level, teachers, socio-economic factors, etc., the fact is that whatever is motivating them, somewhere in here is still the kernel that the workers are doing better than the players, the ants are doing better than the grasshoppers. Are there students who neither used computers much for the writing process, nor for playing? And where did they fall? That would seem to be the missing piece. :) To use your pencil analogy, if this was a pencil study, do you suppose those who often used pencils to do homework (as opposed to those who just scratched it on mud with a stick) would have an achievement gap over those who used pencils but used them more often to play tic-tac-toe and write notes to the cute classmate across the aisle? And how did the mud-scratchers do? :) Thanks for the comic strip recommendation. Lauri Cahoon-Draus K-12 Library Media Specialist Suring School Libraries draus@suring.k12.wi.us "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." Sherlock Holmes - A Scandal in Bohemia. >>> Robert-Koreis -FW <rkoreis@FWPS.ORG> 2/4/2005 9:54:34 AM >>> Nancy Willard <nwillard@CSRIU.ORG> writes: > >Note the following passages in this article: > >" the study found that the more regularly students use computers to write papers for school, the better they performed on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment Systems (MCAS) English/Language Arts exam... > Conversely, the study found that students' recreational use of computers to play games, explore the Internet for fun, or chat with friends at home had a negative effect on students' MCAS reading scores." *- I have a very hard time atributing performance to computer use. As I recall, there were many studies and meta-studies in the '80s touting the learning benefits of using computers. Go back further and and just about every other media device was researched for positive attributes. In 1983(?), Richard Clark of USC authored "Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media". The gist of the piece was that it's the content, and curriculum, not the medium that influences learning. I would posit that even if students were using that tired technology of pencils and dried wood pulp, there would still be an achievement gap over students who used computers to play games or those who just sat and scribbled pictures. However, the scribblers might do better in a test of artistic ability. ;-) Bob Koreis -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- All LM_NET postings are protected by copyright law. To change your LM_NET status, e-mail to: listserv@listserv.syr.edu In the message write EITHER: 1) SIGNOFF LM_NET 2) SET LM_NET NOMAIL 3) SET LM_NET MAIL 4) SET LM_NET DIGEST * Allow for confirmation. LM_NET Help & Information: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ Archive: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/archive/ EL-Announce with LM_NET Select: http://elann.biglist.com/el-announce/ LM_NET Supporters: http://www.eduref.org/lm_net/ven.html --------------------------------------------------------------------