Ed tech companies love to tout research findings that highlight their success in improving student outcomes.
Laurence Holt in Education Next recently highlighted (and Dan Meyer wrote about it, too) a big problem with two such studies that supposedly showed the effectiveness of Khan Academy and DreamBox, two popular math programs.
Yes, it’s true, using the math programs resulted in student gains. However, only for those who used the program “as recommended” (for Khan, it’s at least thirty minutes a week).
What percentage of students studied spent that kind of time on the programs?
Just five percent!
Listen, it’s probably a safe bet that students will show some academic improvement if they do just about any academic program “as recommended.” The challenge is identifying and implementing the strategies required to create the conditions for student intrinsic motivation and, then, which kinds of instruction are most effective once students want to do them.
I wouldn’t bet on ed tech usage (Khan, AI, etc.) being in the top ten (though they can certainly have a limited classroom role).
I have to wonder how many other ed tech studies out there have included similar caveats to the ones in these two studies.
Here are some pieces I’ve previously written on this issue:
It Doesn’t Matter If It’s “Effective” If Students Won’t Do It
I’m adding this info to The Best Posts & Articles Highlighting Why We Need To Be Very Careful Around Ed Tech.
Ed tech companies love to tout research findings that highlight their success in improving student outcomes. Laurence Holt in Education Next recently highlighted (and Dan Meyer wrote about it, too) a big problem with two such studies that supposedly showed the effectiveness of Khan Academy and DreamBox, two popular math programs. Yes, it’s true, ed tech digest Larry Ferlazzo’s Websites of the Day…
