iPad improves Kindergartners literacy scores

[onehandle]

Apple has been involved in the education market for decades, but the release of the iPad could be the most significant contribution the company has ever made. A new research study shows that Kindergartner students using iPads scored better on literacy tests than students that didn’t use the device.

I spoke with Mike Muir, Auburn School Department’s Multiple Pathways Leader, about the program and specifically about the focus on the iPad initiative. “The objective has to be learning, not just getting the technology out there,” said Muir. “We are paying attention to app selection and focused on continuous improvement — we aren’t just handing equipment to teachers.”

The study, conducted in Auburn, Maine, randomly assigned half of the districts 16 kindergarten classes to use iPads for nine weeks. In all, 129 students used an iPad, while 137 students were taught without an iPad. Each of the 266 students were tested before and after the iPads were introduced into the classroom.

“Too many innovative programs don’t prioritize their own research, and even if they collect observations and stories later, they don’t make the effort to do a randomized control trial, like we did,” said Muir. “We wanted to make sure we could objectively examine the contribution of the iPads.”

http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/02/17/ipad-improves-kindergartners-literacy-scores

[eppur_se_muova]

1. Look out for the Hawthorne Effect ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect

Educators have experimented with teaching students new alphabets, dual-language instruction in Japanese, and new number names (replacing the irregular names "eleven", "twelve", and "-teens&quot . Every change tried seems to lead to an increase in student interest and performance initially. Once the novelty of the new learning environment wears off, though ...

[uberblonde]

2. Zackly.

Flavor of the month, as it were. Yes, iPads are fun. SO ARE BOOKS.

[Igel]

3. That and improperly aggregating disparate data.

One school near where I live ensures that every student has a computer.


Guess what the overall scores showed?

Increased learning.

Guess what results with the data disaggregated by race, SES, LEP, and SpEd status showed?

For some students, learning improved. For some students, learning stayed flat. For some students, learning deteriorated.

The facile argument was that somehow skin color mattered. It didn't.

Arguably it really did help some of the students. Those who are accustomed to using computers at home quickly got the hang of them, they quickly started having an easier time editing, doing Internet searches. Virtual labs in science class got them to look at what was going on with the theory. Their nifty new graphing calculators--just like the ones they had at home--were a plus.

The students without the technology at home were at a disadvantage. Their scores improved less. Some couldn't figure out how to submit assignments and, more insidiously, avoided their computers. Rather than wrestle with the software they "just said no." The nice new calculators were things they only saw in class. Doing homework that assumed they had the nice, new graphing calculators when they only had calculator.exe on their laptops was harder.

Hawthorne effect, sure. Longer term it'll be important to see if this is a nice backdrop for an advertisement and ego-building scheme or something that actually helps all students (as claimed).

Personally I have no problem with helping some students more than others. The ability of bottom 10% to do more algebra will have little effect on the country; but if not just the top 1% but the top 15% could ace calculus with ease it would mean more STEM majors and provide a greater technological base and set of possible innovative entrepreneurs.