[Maths-Education] Re: ICT in mathematics

[Tanner, Howard]

I have two points to make in relation to this thread:

1.      The research reported / selected for reporting, on the Carnegie learning site lists the effect sizes reported in the trials. In most cases these are small (using Cohen's usual criteria for small, medium and big) and below d=0.4. Hattie (2009) reports that the average effect size for any intervention is 0.4 and demands effect sizes above this level for "innovations that work". The average effect size for "computer-assisted instruction" is reported as 0.31 - so nice try but no cigar! (Am I allowed to say that?)

2.      I have a problem with classifying interventions as ICT or non-ICT as if that was the most important aspect of learning and teaching.

Clearly there is a world of difference between
a) computer aided learning in which a student works through a series of tasks as instructed by a computer;
b) a good teacher using software such as Autograph, Geogebra or Cabri to support dialogic teaching that encourages debate around students' ideas and
c) a poor teacher using the same software to tell students what the answer is.

I don't think that there are easy technological fixes for educational problems. We need to focus on helping teachers to develop their own pedagogical subject knowledge and appreciate when the affordances of ICT might be useful.


Hattie J (2009) Visible Learning; a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement London; Routledge


Dr Howard Tanner
Reader in Education / Darllenydd Addysg

Director of Centre for Research in Education / Cyfarwyddwr y Ganolfan Ymchwil mewn Addysg
School of Education / Ysgol Addysg
Swansea Metropolitan University / Prifysgol Fetropolitan Abertawe
Townhill Road  / Heol Townhill
Swansea / Abertawe SA2 0UT
Wales, UK / Cymru, y DU

Phone / Ffôn: 01792 482019
Fax/Ffacs: 01792 482126
e-mail / e-bost: howard.tanner at smu.ac.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: maths-education-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk [mailto:maths-education-bounces at lists.nottingham.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Alan Rogerson
Sent: 04 March 2011 16:10
To: Mathematics Education discussion forum
Subject: [Maths-Education] Re: ICT in mathematics

***********************************************************************************************************
This message has been generated through the Mathematics Education email discussion list.
Hitting the REPLY key sends a message to all list members.
***********************************************************************************************************
Dear Dylan,

What you say below does not in any way alter the fact that what you
actually recommended to Sarah were reports on a webpage produced by a
commercial company. That is the problem. You say something is "one of
the best researched" but we need to know when and by whom? It is not the
quantity of research that counts, rather its quality.

Please note, I am not making any judgement about the actual research
which you call "original" nor did I say that this research is some how
invalidated by being used by a commercial company. Let's say for the
sake of argument, that  all this research could be validated, and also
note that some of the reports on the Carnegie.inc webpage were (as we
know) from Carnegie Mellon University itself, and may have even
pre-dated the formation of Carnegie.inc, I do hope you can see that this
does not change the problem? "Selective quotation" is still a real
hazard, what company after all will quote research critical of its own
products?

We know only too well the much bigger and much more serious debate going
on about so-called academic research being funded, or supported, (or of
course suppressed!) by drug companies. Companies are in business to make
money, so we can hardly use them, or the reports they quote, as
objective exemplars of "research". The contrast is between reports which
clearly have no such bias, and those which are at risk of being biassed.
Surely we cannot say "third party evaluations... would be better",
surely you mean essential? We know from basic statistics that biassed
evidence, when we can  not attach boundaries to the bias, , is, and must
be, useless (not second best). We all know the story of the millions of
telephone calls surveyed  that failed to predict the next President of
the USA....?

Please also note that there is absolutely no bias (or specific
accusations) against Carnegie.inc in particular here, it is a purely
general point that is being made.

The only remaining problem, and somewhat insoluble, is the one Douglas
Butler has just mentioned.

C'est la vie, c'est la ICT.

Best wishes,
Alan




On 04/03/2011 15:52, dylanwiliam at mac.com wrote:
> Alan: Sarah asked specifically for studies that showed the impact of ICT on attainment, and the Cognitive Tutor is one of the best researched pieces of software for mathematics education.  While Carnegie Learning is a commercial company that has taken over marketing and distribution of the products generated by the people who developed the Cognitive Tutor, the research itself is very solid (and much of it dates from before Carnegie Learning became involved). I agree that third party evaluations, such as those undertaken by Mathematica, would be better, and of course educationalists should evaluate the merits of the studies, but the fact that the research is now being used to support a commercial enterprise does not invalidate the original findings.
>
> Dylan


This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it.   Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment.  Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.

This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.