Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)

thecoffeelicious.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 83 posts

Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)

#51

Post by throwaway729 »

cmdrfred wrote: post #46
throwaway729 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If teachers unions didn't oppose standardized testing This of course assumes that standardized testing is actually a good mechanism for measuring outcomes . Which IMO is an extremely dubious assertion. A lot of people who opt-out of the public school system at great personal expense do so because they agree with those damn teacher's unions on this very question. > Why here? Simple. Because I don't care if my burger…

>This of course assumes that standardized testing is actually a good mechanism for measuring outcomes. How do you propose to measure outcomes of education without testing for ability to recall and utilize the knowledge and skills taught? >A lot of people who opt-out of the public school system at great personal expense do so because they agree with those damn teacher's unions on this very question. I left school. I d…

> How do you propose to measure outcomes of education without testing for ability to recall and utilize the knowledge and skills taught?

I'm not.

But you have the burden of evidence backward! If you want to use metrics like standardized tests in this manner, then it's your job to prove to me that standardized tests are reasonably good metrics.

Why? Because forcing schools to optimize for counter-productive metrics is actively harmful! Better to have no idea how to measure than to measure the wrong thing, use that metric to make high-stakes decisions, and thereby actively harm true outcomes.

> I don't know anyone who did so for dislike of standardized testing

I mean parents who send their kids to private schools or home-school. Lots of them loathe standardized tests. Google will help you find the manifestos.

> Why not double pilots salaries in order to prevent plane crashes? Double doctors salaries to prevent mistakes?

Eventually you hit a saturation point where the return on investment becomes too low to justify the additional expense.

20k aint that point.

> Instead most found the value of that education to be low compared to work experience.

Well sure, if you happen to work in a trade where formal education isn't necessary. Nothing wrong with that of course! Most parents want to give their children the option to do something else, at least in their early formative years. I've no problem with my kid going to a tech school or even dropping out for on-the-job training, but I don't want to lock them into never being a doctor/lawayer/scientist before they hit puberty.

> thus lowering the take home pay of the parents of those children. Thus worsening the home life of those children and worsening outcomes

Do you have any evidence for this claim? Sounds extremely unlikely to me.

Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)

#52

Post by gnicholas »

The cooking analogy is tempting, but it overlooks the hardware/software distinction.

In the classroom, you have (1) the teacher's skills, (2) the computer hardware purchased, (3) and the computer software purchased.

In the kitchen, you have (1) the chef's skills and (2) the hardware purchased.

If it's true that "software is eating the world", then a good analogy wouldn't skip over it. Software could be like the recipe, which of course makes a big difference in cooking outcomes.

Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)

#53

Post by germinalphrase »

cmdrfred wrote: post #46
throwaway729 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If teachers unions didn't oppose standardized testing This of course assumes that standardized testing is actually a good mechanism for measuring outcomes . Which IMO is an extremely dubious assertion. A lot of people who opt-out of the public school system at great personal expense do so because they agree with those damn teacher's unions on this very question. > Why here? Simple. Because I don't care if my burger…

>This of course assumes that standardized testing is actually a good mechanism for measuring outcomes. How do you propose to measure outcomes of education without testing for ability to recall and utilize the knowledge and skills taught? >A lot of people who opt-out of the public school system at great personal expense do so because they agree with those damn teacher's unions on this very question. I left school. I d…

I think the general argument is that paying teachers a wage that is more competitive with alternatives will bring in higher quality teachers.

I don't know if this is true - but that math major is probably a lot more likely to go work for an accounting firm at 60k a year rather than put up with the stress of teaching at 40k.

Finally, I actually agree with you on the pay vs. proof of outcomes thing. The problem is that we lack reliable ways for measuring teacher efficacy. I have worked in both urban and suburban schools. I'm not a better teacher in the suburbs, but I sure as hell look a lot more effective.

Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)

#54

Post by dragonwriter »

cmdrfred wrote: post #50
dragonwriter wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If teachers unions didn't oppose standardized testing with such vigor it would be a simple matter to find a number of similar schools and increase wages for some time then compare outcomes. Standardized testing with per state standards has been nationally mandatory since NCLB, so clearly nothing relying on it is hampered by whatever opposition teachers unions may have.

Per state is the key here, If we were able to compare a highly paid (relatively to COL) teacher school to a lower paid one it would be obvious if it is helpful to pay more. We need a large enough sample size of schools on both sides of the spectrum and a single state won't provide enough data or enough variance.

Perhaps, but the per state thing has nothing to do with teachers unions opposition to standardized testing and everything to do with sentiment against federal substantive standards in education, which is strongest among opponents of teachers unions.

Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)

#55

Post by throwaway729 »

germinalphrase wrote: post #53
cmdrfred wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This of course assumes that standardized testing is actually a good mechanism for measuring outcomes. How do you propose to measure outcomes of education without testing for ability to recall and utilize the knowledge and skills taught? >A lot of people who opt-out of the public school system at great personal expense do so because they agree with those damn teacher's unions on this very question. I left school. I d…

I think the general argument is that paying teachers a wage that is more competitive with alternatives will bring in higher quality teachers. I don't know if this is true - but that math major is probably a lot more likely to go work for an accounting firm at 60k a year rather than put up with the stress of teaching at 40k. Finally, I actually agree with you on the pay vs. proof of outcomes thing. The problem is that…

> I don't know if this is true - but that math major is probably a lot more likely to go work for an accounting firm at 60k a year rather than put up with the stress of teaching at 40k.

And if you think that's bad try getting a Computer Science teacher to literally shave six figures off their salary!

I hate to bad-mouth teachers, because there are so many people taking haircuts on their salary for altruistic reasons.

But my experience tutoring college math majors is exactly this. The low performers are nearly all interested in teaching, the high performers nearly all headed to either grad school or engineering/finance.

That's why you'll encounter a lot of super great humanities teachers but a lot fewer stellar STEM teachers.

Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)

#56

Post by cmdrfred »

throwaway729 wrote: post #51
cmdrfred wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This of course assumes that standardized testing is actually a good mechanism for measuring outcomes. How do you propose to measure outcomes of education without testing for ability to recall and utilize the knowledge and skills taught? >A lot of people who opt-out of the public school system at great personal expense do so because they agree with those damn teacher's unions on this very question. I left school. I d…

> How do you propose to measure outcomes of education without testing for ability to recall and utilize the knowledge and skills taught? I'm not. But you have the burden of evidence backward! If you want to use metrics like standardized tests in this manner, then it's your job to prove to me that standardized tests are reasonably good metrics. Why? Because forcing schools to optimize for counter-productive metrics is…

You claim

>But you have the burden of evidence backward!

Then claim

>Eventually you hit a saturation point where the return on investment becomes too low to justify the additional expense. 20k aint that point.

Do you have evidence of this claim? How do you know? Please show sources.

>Do you have any evidence for this claim? Sounds extremely unlikely to me.

You don't believe poorer kids have worse outcomes in life?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528796/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2998067/Bright-pupil...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-children-in-poo...

https://newrepublic.com/article/123093/rich-kids-better-poor...

Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)

#57

Post by mustacheemperor »

rattray wrote: post #22
FireBeyond wrote: post #3

The cookware analogy is a really good one. A similar one can be seen in the arts: "That's an amazing photo. You must have a really good camera!" which you see here and there. As opposed to: "That's an amazing painting. You must have really good brushes!" (Disclaimer: I'm a photographer and I do know that the quality of the lens and sensor is going to play some role in the output, leaving aside things like Photoshop.…

Right, but bad cookware isn't usually so bad it prevents you from cooking. Bad educational technology can get in the way of teaching and learning. Errors/bugs and confusing UX can cause lengthy delays in the classroom. Teachers can easily spend 15 minutes running around playing IT support when students are using a new technology – out of a 50 minute class which was scheduled in 5-minute increments. That doesn't mean…

My mother is coordinator of edtech at a small catholic middle and elementary school that fully invested in iPad education when it first released. It works as well as the commenters in this thread can tell you.

The one thing you missed is that plenty of teachers won't spend the 15 minutes. The first time an edtech feature doesn't work in their classroom - usually because the teacher is using it completely incompetently - they just stop using it altogether. It took the school almost a semester just to get an english teacher to stop making the students use paper notebooks because she resented the tech so badly.

And you can see where the resentment comes from - lots of teachers do NOT tend towards technical literacy. A lot of them are older and underpaid, and they aren't going home and plugging away familiarizing themselves with contemporary tech to "skill up." The reason "kids can't use computers" is no doubt because plenty of their teachers can't either.

Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)

#58

Post by andybak »

redsummer wrote: post #49

Computer tech in education is a con. It is completely unnecessary. There's a reason Steve Jobs limited his kids access to technology: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new... In fact, it has opposite effect to what is intended. It gives the child an avalanche of distraction, when what they need is simplicity. I would say the same about mobile phones.

Doesn't it rather depend on what you're trying to teach? To push an over simplistic alternative, maybe it hinders the syllabus but necessarily learning in the broadest sense.

I'm not sure I've thought this through very deeply at this stage but I do have a deep distrust of formal education. I learned by playing with stuff until it broke and skim reading chunks of books I didn't have the patience to finish.

Also - the classroom is full of distractions of other kinds. Move here, do this, listen to this, copy that. There's a huge amount of busy-work at school that is only tangentially related to learning. Technology might not be a magic bullet but it's no worse than some of the nonsense kids are put through.

Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)

#59

Post by rattray »

germinalphrase wrote: post #36

I'm a high school teacher. I've worked in rural/urban/suburban districts with wildly varied student demographics and school resources. The largest tech-related improvements to my teaching have not come from the availability of "edtech" - but from run of the mill productivity software (Email/Google Docs/etc) and students having reliable access to a computer/internet. I wasn't familiar with K2 Audiovisual before readin…

> Teachers know they should be personalizing their curriculum, assessment, and instructional performance for what each kid needs. They will typically even know how to accomplish it.

I've been thinking about trying to build tools that let teachers create educational content (incl. formative assessment, etc) and share that content with each other.

Does that sound like what you have in mind? If so, would love to chat.

Re: Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)

#60

Post by Uhhrrr »

Jtsummers wrote: post #2

While interesting, and anecdotally seems correct to me, does anyone here with a background in education and/or education technology have any pointers on actionable ways to use technology more effectively? This piece never seems to get to that point, other than strongly encouraging training for teachers (that they provide if you go with their solutions).

The other reply is correct about the piece being marketing, but your question is still good.

I've worked at 2 edtech startups and have a few teachers in my family, and my personal observation has been that technology is best when it removes friction in the areas of classroom control, assessment, communicating with parents, and organizing presentation materials. For the part where teachers figure out how to engage students and get them over conceptual humps, it seems like teachers are way ahead of any technology.

The canonical technology fail in edtech is to dump computers or robot kits into the classroom with no training. I have been in a number of classrooms where stuff like that winds up piled in a very expensive corner.

Also useful and sort of technological: https://donorschoose.com

Post reply on HN