I admit to a bit of naughtiness - it's impossible to summarise a whole paper
in a few lines. However I think most of us could predict that if every
classroom in your school received a computer tomorrow - most of them would
sit their gathering dust.
The paper was about using computers for instruction in subjects - not in
teaching students how to use computers. The findings that there were no
improvements in learning by using computers to help instruction does not
surprise me.
My own supposition is that the photocopier has been the biggest single
technological advance in the classroom. What do you think?
That is not to denigrate using computers as an instruction method. The paper
does however point out the opportunity costs involved. And for me, suggests
that its still the teacher that counts and its how they use materials not
what materials are left lying around.
|