warning

Instructional Technology: The Skeptics Weigh In

Many early critics of instructional technology questioned the recent investment by public schools in computers. Often it is difficult to evaluate the return-on-investment from spending or even whether computer-aided learning works.

R.E. Clark 1983 article pointed out the methodological difficulties in comparing two learning methods where one of them uses a different medium. Studies that purport to show improvements using computer-aided learning may simply be recording the fact that the person using a multimedia tool may have used a more current teaching method as well. And often, study design doesn't account for the fact that the instructor might be different in such comparative analysis. While Clark's observations are valid, I think it oversimplifies the position of computer-aided learning proponents. These proponents are NOT claiming that the use of one medium (i.e., computers) is inherently superior over another. And even the most ardent IT proponents would deny that the use of multimedia can interferes with learning or that "TV watching" has its pitfalls.

Actually, it is really not necessary to demostrate that a computer-enhanced program needs to be "superior" to a more traditional teaching method. From a public policy point of view, the more relevant question is whether computer-enhanced programs can offer "comparable" instruction at a lower cost. Implicit behind most of these articles is the fear that computerized education will gradually be preferred to live teachers, a notion which is nonsense. Teachers are expensive resources, and delegating tasks where human input is not necessary to a computerized learning module seems to be an effective way to use resources. In the productivity gain witnessed in the American economy over the decade, managers never worried about whether humans would permanently lose their jobs. They worried about the cost of training and support and how much "return on investment" they would have.

On first glance, the alarmist "Computer Delusion" article by Oppenheimer seems to skoff at computer learning in general, but really it argues that dividends from CAI (Computer Aided Instruction)appear only after school districts have the infrastructure to support CAI (in terms of networking, number of computers, and technical support personnel)and sufficient teacher training to make use of these CAI tools. Oppenheimer is arguing that the "computer solutions" are not as cheap as they might appear and could possibly drain resources from other academic programs. I really question the "horror story" examples he chose to illustrate his point that computers mess up learning. It seems easy to come up with counterexamples. For example, how many shop teachers did he quote lauding the Auto-CAD programs? Why didn't he quote high school graduates who were still unemployed because they lacked basic computer proficiencies? how many music teachers lauding music composition software or Encarta CD's did he quote? Oppenheimer gave the misleading impression that it is only the IT folk pushing for more spending on computers and software. I suspect that the push is coming more from the teachers and students and parents and other subjects than the technology coordinators. One target of Oppenheimer's venom was the federal task force, whose chapter we read. Oppenheimer seems to imply that the Presidential task force report is calling for more federal funding, but actually it only is recommending more federally-funded research on the effectiveness of CAI.

One fallacy described by almost all the articles is the "newer and more is always better" fallacy. Although the latest software might be more powerful or have more multimedia capabilities than software two or three years older, it is not necessarily better. In the IT world (and possibly in the capitalist world at large), we are fed messages that it is necessary to have the latest and greatest, and that the latest will "save us money" in the long run. Perhaps the answer is for school districts to "beta test" a piece of software in one or two classrooms before making larger purchases. That beta testing can be used to gather feedback about its effectiveness or usability. Perhaps it is inappropriate to speak of a "canon" in this context here, but a school district might have have two categories of learning tools: one whose value is unquestioned and where resources will be readily expended on. The second category could refer to software whose value is not proven and cannot be implemented on a wide scale, but where funding for "beta testing" for it might be approved.

The task force article made an interesting comparison with the pharmaceutical industry in terms of funding and resource allocation (a comparison which I don't exactly agree with, by the way). It is quite common in the drug industry and other industries to provide testing before approval by some federal agency. I'm not suggesting that some federal agency or czar should play a similiar role, but I think a)industry could play a role in testing the value of their own products, and that independent certification programs could play a role in providing independent analysis of these programs. I have in mind a kind of "consumer reports" kind of watchdog, but I suspect that the software industry would be inclined to want such independent agencies to have a role early on in the development process if such a certification is seen to make a major difference towards the decision by schools to buy it.