Gabriel, T., & Richtel, M. (2011, October 8). A Classroom Software Boom, but Mixed Results Despite the Hype. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/technology/a-classroom-software-boom-but-mixed-results-despite-the-hype.html
“A separate 2009 federal look at 10 major software products for teaching algebra as well as elementary and middle school math and reading found that nine of them, including Cognitive Tutor, ‘did not have statistically significant effects on test scores.’” (¶ 3)
“‘The advertising from the companies is tremendous oversell compared to what they can actually demonstrate,’ said Grover J. Whitehurst, a former director of the Institute of Education Sciences … [federal agency]” (¶ 6)
“School officials, confronted with a morass of complicated and sometimes conflicting research, often buy products based on personal impressions, marketing hype or faith in technology for its own sake.” (¶ 7)
“And Intel, in a Web document urging schools to buy computers for every student, acknowledges that ‘there are no longitudinal, randomized trials linking eLearning to positive learning outcomes.’” (¶ 11)
“Karen Billings, a vice president of the Software and Information Industry Association — a trade group representing many education companies — said the problem was not that companies overpromise, but that schools often do not properly deploy the products or train teachers to use them. Ms. Billings’s group helped design the field trials, in 132 schools, for the landmark 2009 government study of 10 software products, which was ordered by Congress and cost $15 million. … Then came the deflating results. The industry ‘became very hostile,’ recalled Mr. Whitehurst, now director of education policy at the Brookings Institution. ‘It seems to me,’ he added, ‘`hypocrisy` is the right word for loving something until the results are not what you expect.’” (¶ 18-19)
- Aabø (2005). The role and value of public libraries in the age of digital technologies.
- Gervais (2011). Finding the faithless: Perceived atheist prevalence reduces anti-atheist prejudice.
- Dorner & Gorman (2011). Contextual Factors Affecting Learning in Laos and the Implications for Information Literacy Education.
- Gervais, Shariff, & Norenzayan (2011). Do you believe in atheists? Distrust is central to anti-atheist prejudice.
- Goleman (2000). Emotional intelligence: Issues in paradigm building.
- Smith (1996). David A. Kolb on experiential learning.
- Bruffee (1995). Sharing our toys: Cooperative learning versus collaborative learning.
- Britz (2004). To Know or Not to Know: A Moral Reflection on Information Poverty.
- Wright (2010). Twittering in teacher education.
- Kinasevych (2011). Considering culture in e-learning environments and post-secondary learning success (Abstract)
- Wicks et al. (2011). bPortfolios: Blogging for reflective practice.
- Rinaldo, Tapp, & Laverie (2011). Learning by tweeting: Using Twitter as a pedagogical tool.
- Gabriel & Richtel (2011). A Classroom Software Boom, but Mixed Results Despite the Hype.
- Elavsky, Mislan, & Elavsky (2011). When talking less is more: Exploring outcomes of Twitter usage in the large‐lecture hall.
- Junco, Heiberger, & Loken (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades.
- Higdon, Reyerson, McFadden & Mummey (2011). Twitter, Wordle, and ChimeIn as Student Response Pedagogies.
- Veltsos & Veltsos (2010). Teaching responsibly with technology-mediated communication.
- Dunlap & Lowenthal (2009). Horton Hears a Tweet.
- Blankenship (2011). How Social Media Can and Should Impact Higher Education.
- Young (2010). Teaching with Twitter: Not for the Faint of Heart.
FeedbackComments, suggestions, criticisms, and any type of feedback would be greatly appreciated. Use the comment tools provided in the articles or use any of the means indicated on the Contact page to reach the author.