eMod Learning Systems
Home

Software's Benefits on Tests In Doubt

Study Says Tools Don't Raise Scores

By Amit R. Paley

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, April 5, 2007; A01

Please note the blue text is Awareness Communication Technology (creator of eMod Learning Systems) editorial comments.

Educational software, a $2 billion-a-year industry that has become the darling of school systems across the country, has no significant impact on student performance, according to a study by the U.S. Department of Education. The long-awaited report amounts to a rebuke of educational technology, a business whose growth has been spurred by schools desperate for ways to meet the testing mandates of President Bush's No Child Left Behind law. The technology -- ranging from snazzy video-game-like programs played on Sony PlayStations to more rigorous drilling exercises used on computers -- has been embraced by low performing schools as an easy way to boost student test scores.	eMod: Let it be said that, the technology is not just embraced by low performing schools but, by most schools. The technology/media department of a school receives separate funding for arts and technology, and schools purchase the software because (a) it either cannot be used in other departments, and would therefore be lost money and/or (b) educators/administrators are erroneously led to believe that the technology will increase the effectiveness of a student’s test scores and ability to learn and retain information.
But the industry has also been plagued by doubts over the technology's effectiveness as well as high-profile bribery scandals, including one that led to the resignation of the Prince George's County schools chief in 2005. The study, released last night, is expected to further inflame the debate about education technology on Capitol Hill as lawmakers consider whether to renew No Child Left Behind this year. "We are concerned that the technology that we have today isn't being utilized as effectively as it can be to raise student achievement," said Katherine McLane, spokeswoman for the Department of Education.	eMod: eMod is just as concerned as the Department of Education about the fact that technology is not being utilized effectively to raise student achievement . We realize that today’s software’s technologies can initially peak a students interest and excite them to interact with a computer. But, we know from our own studies and experience that, the results of this so-called approach to education is not lasting. The reason the current approach is not lasting is because, although the software technologies are intended to make learning “fun” they completely miss the point of creating a solid, integrative educational process in which information can be retained by the student both initially and long-term and the experiences one gains in the learning process motivates the student to adopt the educational principles being taught, into one’s own life and belief system.
Industry officials played down the study and attributed most of the problems to poor training and execution of the programs in classrooms. Mark Schneiderman, director of education policy at the Software and Information Industry Association, said that other research trials have proven that the technology works, although he said that those trials were not as large or rigorous as the federal government's. "This may sound flip or like we're making excuses, but the fact is that technology is only one part of it, and the implementation of the technology is critical to success," said Schneiderman, whose group represents 150 companies that produce educational software. "We need to take every study with a grain of a salt and look at the overall body of work."	eMod: Not all technology needs additional implementation in order to be a critical success. The bottom line in the view of eMod Learning Systems, is, that, teachers and administrations don’t have the time, manpower, or money to train and implement additional programs, which in our experience, are questionable in effectiveness to begin with. Personal Learning Technology and eMod Learning Systems, although it features several components, is a stand-alone software. It does not require the “extras” that make implementing and sustaining software use in the classroom nearly impossible.
The study, mandated by Congress when it passed No Child Left Behind in 2002, evaluated 15 reading and math products used by 9,424 students in 132 schools across the country during the 2004-05 school year. It is the largest study that has compared students who received the technology with those who did not, as measured by their scores on standardized tests. There were no statistically significant differences between students who used software and those who did not.	eMod: This is because the early complaint of teachers and students was that learning was not “fun” enough, and thus, it could not succeed in holding the attention of the student. What happened as a result is that, we saw the technology industry go from “information overload” to “entertainment overload.” Educational software became the new video games. The “games” were welcomed by those who were dazzled by their animation and multi media effects, but what happened to the student who participated in them is that, their special effects and sounds overpowered the student’s ability to actually learn. And though the innovators of the technology may have thought they were creating a bold, new educational tool that would increase the joy of learning, what they did, (because they are not trained in the understanding that “how people learn” is as important as “what people learn”), was to sink all of their energy and developmental monies into technology applications that would be likely to sell in the popular marketplace and that would, in our opinion, even go so far as to motivate a consumers addiction to the use of their product.
In classrooms, the programs -- such as "iLearn Math" and "Achieve Now" -- are used in different ways, depending on teachers. Some educators use the software as a supplemental tool to drill students in particular lessons; others use it instead of textbooks to teach entire lessons.	eMod: In most cases, we know that software and technology are used by schools during “free” class times, when the required curriculum is not being implemented. An example might be, when on a Friday afternoon, a teacher who must adhere to a rigid itinerary, gives his or her students permission to use the computers in the classroom. Though the students might look forward to the experiences, chances are, they may have to ‘fight’ for the use of the computer and the “hands-on software that goes with it, because most classrooms have a very limited inventory of computers. The problem, however, goes beyond an inventory shortage. The problem is that, those who use the programs do not have the opportunity to learn in a way that recognizes and honors their innate intelligence. The reason that eMod Learning Systems is effective, when and where other technology programs are not, is because it recognizes the innate intelligence of every learner and, it has taken great pains to design its software technology based on principles for learning that support this innate intelligence. The principles for learning that our technology employs are designed to assist the learner in identifying not only the innate intelligence they were born with, but the broader spectrum of intelligences (known as the 8 Multiple Intelligences) that Dr. Howard Gardner Ph.D. from Harvard, has defined and, which, he says are responsible for developing our sense of self and our purpose in the world. By designing software that speaks to these intelligences in every learner, eMod Learning Systems has created a tool for true leaning that others have not. This added bonus of our tool compared to the tools of others, is that it can be used by every single student in a classroom or learning domain, versus a few alone.
Backers say the technology better engages students by giving them individualized instruction and prepares them for a technology-filled world. Schools use the software to teach almost every subject, although the federal study looked only at math and reading programs.	eMod: Preparing students for a technology filled world is wonderful. But we cannot forget the fact that technology has its limitations in preparing students and life long learners for life in the real world, and especially, life in today’s fast-changing world. While it seems to eMod, that, students everywhere today are taught the importance of studying books, gaining a lot of knowledge, and most of all, getting good grades which might offer “proof” of a student’s ability to conform and even compete in the classroom domain, we sincerely believe that what has been lost in this factory-style educational approach is the opportunity to be one’s own authority in the learning process and the opportunity to experience true freedom in the educational process. School and education should not be something one does to see how fast one can go, from “Point A” to Point “z”. It should not, for example, be a race to “take part” the contents of reading lessons, or “multiply and divide” the components of a math assignments. Nor should education be something that sets out with the goal of preparing us for our roles in the job market alone. Because, in order to be competent in such roles, we also need to feel healthy, happy, and capable of making a contribution of service that goes beyond our ability to produce an income. eMod believes that students who use its technology can learn how to create the experience of greater health and happiness by doing two things: First, using our technology to “draw out” the “knowingness” and the “beingness” of who we really are (including the wisdom of our bodies, minds, emotions and spirit) which assist us in creating a whole relationship with life. Secondly, to be part of a culturally creative community that supports students and teachers through the social dimensions of learning.
In the Washington region, the debate over educational software raged most prominently in Prince George's, where Superintendent Andre J. Hornsby resigned and was indicted on suspicion of arranging for the school system to buy $1 million worth of software from LeapFrog SchoolHouse, where his then-girlfriend was a saleswoman. The indictment says that he demanded and received kickbacks. The schools have not made any major software program purchases since. County Superintendent John E. Deasy said the programs aren't magic bullets. "No technology adds value by itself," he said. "Just employing software is not likely to lift test scores for students."	"No technology adds value by itself”—until now. We believe that eMod is the “gold standard” of educational technology, because not only does it meet the needs of all types of learners (and all types of intelligences) by speaking to all four quadrants of the human brain. It is also designed to overcome this century’s “everyday learning challenges” such as ADD, and dyslexia, which run rampant in our culture today, and which create problems not only for students and life-long learners, but problems for teachers, school administrators, and parents, who find themselves needing to comply with mandatory drug enforcement policies in schools and other learning domains where the behaviors and learning styles of students is changing faster than what our current system is trained to handle.
Nationally, perhaps no school system better represents the fears of industry supporters than that of Los Angeles, which spent $50 million in 2001 to buy Waterford Early Reading, distributed by software giant Pearson Digital Learning. Ronni Ephraim, a chief instructional officer for the district, said the company gave presentations that described how successful the program was for other schools. Los Angeles school administrators soon began praising it. "Teachers loved it. Kids loved it," Ephraim said. "Waterford gave us data from their tests that showed it was working. Everyone said, 'Oh my God! The kids are doing so well.' "	eMod: The question that arises in the minds of those who have been part of developing eMod’s simple, yet highly sophisticated learning process, is: “What kind of long term results can be substantiated, IF ANY?”
But a school district evaluation found that students using Waterford were not scoring better on standardized tests than those not using it. "I'm so embarrassed to admit this," Ephraim said, "but when we heard the results we said, 'This can't be true.' "	Curriculum taught in the classroom today supports the curriculum presented on standardized tests. While software programs today can enhance curriculum by embellishing topics or adding additional drill exercises, eMod can actually take the curriculum required for students to learn and create state-of-the-art, tailor made learning applications that literally transform the learning materials into a profound learning experience that we refer to as “PROCESS EDUCATION” rather than “EVENT EDUCATION.” While we characterize “EVENT EDUCATION” as the “entertaining”, video game style technology, we see PROCESS EDUCATION as being technology that is rooted in strong principles for learning and personal growth, such as structure, discipline, communication, and a feedback testing systems that measures the results of learning, which learners experience as “EASY” & “FUN.” (eMod Learning Systems would never create a system that was not easy and fun to use!)
The Los Angeles system dropped the program from its regular classes but sometimes uses it for individual students. Ephraim said she blamed the school system, because teachers were not prepared or properly trained to use the technology.	eMod: The beauty of our technology software is the freedom that it gives to both teachers and students. The last thing we wanted to create, when we created the learning tools known as eMods, was to create more training for teachers, and more training costs. You can feel good about the fact that eMod is a learning system not a teaching system. It truly is student centered, creating a pathway from discovery to empowerment on the learning journey.
Nonetheless, some experts said the software holds promise. Elliot Soloway, professor of educational technology at the University of Michigan, said that teachers need to be better trained and that administrators need to wait more than one year to see results. He said he worried that the study would scare off school districts.	eMod: Keep in mind, standardized tests are offered mid-year, and there are usually anywhere from 2-4 per grade. So if a software is unable to “do its job” within the time needed… what is the learning outcome and benefit? The learning needs occur during the time that it is needed, and then, be reinforced and supported as time goes on.
"This is the last thing that we need now," he said. "It is the poor kids who will suffer, because it is their schools who will not get technology because of this study."	eMod: This is understandable. However, those who are considered “poor kids” are not exactly aware of what it is, they are missing out on. They might think (as parents and teachers alike think) that they are “missing out” on advanced software programs (so often perceived as “magic bullets”) that will help their students learn better. But the learning that does occur as a result of their use, promises to be minimal and short term. Seventy seven percent (77%) of people it must be noted, are said to experience some form of a learning challenge. How then, can the current software technologies support true learning and prevent the necessity of having students pulled out of the classroom for “special services” tutoring, as is so common today? They can’t, and they don’t!
To persuade companies to participate in the study, researchers promised not to report the performances of particular programs. Among the businesses whose products were in the study were LeapFrog SchoolHouse, PLATO Learning, Scholastic Inc. and Pearson. (The Washington Post Co. owns Kaplan, a test preparation company that sells education software. Kaplan applied to be in the study but was not included.)	eMod: Each of the above mentioned, may offer something valuable to the student, especially if their use of the software is repetitive. But how is the result of repetitive learning measured? Can we see evidence in a student’s life that their education is being utilized? Or, is he education likely to be forgotten and replaced by yet another form of learning that creates the same outcomes?
Although some of the companies are now criticizing the report, many were initially eager to be studied and praised researchers. "We are proud to be the largest commercial supporter of this important study of the effectiveness of using technology in the classroom," said John Murray, president and chief executive of PLATO, in 2004	eMod: But the essence of this study is not about the significant benefits of using technology in the classroom, of which we are all aware. It is about whether or not the educational “learning based” software’s have earned the right to give their product such a label. Educational software is very competitive and, let’s face it, marketers know how to make a product look good. Yet, you might agree with eMod Learning Systems: A Mercedes might catch your eye before a Volvo does, but it doesn’t mean it’s a better drive or more reliable car! If our children have developed the erroneous notion that learning comes from he components alone, of entertaining technology, we might have some serious homework to do, as far as making them aware of the truth about what constitutes true learning. “Click and browse” or “click and stream” is not an educational process by itself, our kids need to know! Technology needs to teach people a clear and effective way to think. Only when we can think clearly, will we conquer the crisis we have in education today!

© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Software's Benefits On Tests In Doubt - washingtonpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR200704040... 06-Apr-07