Response #10

Lei, J. (2010). Quantity versus Quality: A New Approach to Examine the Relationship between Technology Use and Student Outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 455-472. Retrieved from ERIC database.

            This empirical study examined the relationship between technology use and student outcomes.  Despite massive investments in educational technology around the world ($66 billion over a ten-year period in the US), research has produced mixed findings when it comes to student outcomes: some studies claim that it helps achievement, while other studies found no effect (456-457).  The author attributes this discrepancy to a question of quality—that is, what kinds of technology and how are they used.  Too often, the author writes, technology is regarded as a monolith and researchers view it in terms of quantity.  Through a 5-point Likert scale survey, this study assessed middle school students in the northwestern US (n=133) and their use of different technology media, which were broken into five categories: subject-specific, social communication, construction, exploratory/entertainment, and general technologies. The study measured four student outcomes: academic performance (GPA), technology proficiency, learning habits, and developmental outcomes (e.g., self-esteem).  Interviews were also conducted with students and teachers.  Most notably, the study found that quantity of technology use had no significant relationship to any of the student outcomes, while quality of use impacted all outcomes.  Additionally, specific technologies affected different areas.  For instance, social communication technologies were positively associated with developmental outcomes, while exploratory/entertainment technologies had a positive association with student learning habits. Interestingly, the study found that technology had no statistically significant effect on academic achievement, or GPA.

            I like the distinctions that this particular author drew about approaching technology.  Different technologies have different purposes, with some providing a broader range of functions compared to others (e.g., you can do many things on the Internet, while a document camera only projects an image).  In the debate over the role of technology in the classroom, it is important to clarify what exactly is being referred to, as well as the objective to which a particular piece of equipment or medium would lend itself.  More importantly, though, is whether a technology is being used well—or, as the author might say, whether there is quality use of the technology.  For instance, it would be a waste of precious class time to have students working on a poorly designed Webquest.  The fact that they are spending time on computers—even significant amounts of time—has no bearing on whether or not they are engaged in good learning or practicing sound historical thinking.  I have come to realize that a technology, like any other instructional tool or method, must be held up to the same basic litmus test: does it promote effective and interesting learning?