few months ago, the Evaluation Institute published general diagnostic evaluation 2009. Primary Education. Fourth year (eye, 14 Mb) last step of a long process that was intended to assess competencies in Language, Mathematics, Physical World, and a fourth, called social and civic competence. Is an assessment with a large sample, as it seeks to obtain significant results for all the Autonomous Communities. In total, 28,708 students were assessed from 887 centers, and passed out questionnaires to 1,341 teachers, 25,741 families and 874 directors.
Finally, a study that required a planning and organizing important, technical reliability backed by a prestigious scientific advice, etc. Unfortunately, the final report is not up to the company: a technically very bad report , in which data are missed so obvious, conclusions are drawn more than doubtful and left in the air many questions not only relevant, but which correspond to pressing problems of our education system. I'm not the only says, but I still think we are too few people say and we should be more. This is compounded because so far (at this point is new, I will tell you) the database is not made public by simple political kidnapping.
One of the rare points of the report was that it was about the relationship between computer use in the center and the results education. This is a topic of interest because the Ministry in collaboration with the CCAA (all except Madrid and Valencia) is implemented in this course an expensive School 2.0 program in which, for political reasons, is providing the infrastructure facilities for communications and computers, and is giving a "netbook" to thousands of students. Without a single technical or pedagogical reason to support it, without a previous study, without consulting other studies relating to countries that have implemented similar measures, and without learning from the mistakes that have already made some regions. Come on zero evidence. But as in this country seems to work for a politician to spend, but do not ask a priori justifications not post accounts, as well it goes. One would expect to find any evidence in the evaluation report, but we find this text (p. 158):
results based on computer use at school and Internet use
The computer and Internet access for multiple purposes have become an element of leisure and not only among teenagers but also at younger ages. Like many other aspects of child and youth entertainment, it can have negative effects positive, according to the use made of it. Also schools have incorporated computer use at school and Internet use as learning tools. Therefore interested in investigating how these media facilitate the acquisition of basic skills in students. In general
Diagnostic Assessment 2009 included several questions on the questionnaire of context for the students on the use of information technologies and communication. From students' responses, we studied the relationship between frequency of use and familiarity of students with information technology and communication and results in the four skills assessed.
From the students' responses show that only 4% of students say they use the computer at school every day, these students have an average ISEC very low (-0.34), a higher average age than the sample survey expectations of below average and a later start in his first schooling.
The results of the other students are not significantly different, whether it is students who used a moderate frequency of information technologies and communication, as if he believes those who make more frequent use. Nor do the data analysis nothing conclusive can be said about how it affects the the results more or less frequent use of the Internet. Therefore, should further analysis to allow better assess their significance. It is also necessary to clarify the questions posed to students on this topic for a more consistent data that allow a more detailed analysis of the relationship between outcomes and the use and familiarity with these technologies.
Finally, it should be noted that the results of this first year of general diagnostic Assessment 2009 can not collect in any case the impact will the new plans for strengthening the use and familiarity with computers and internet in education as learning tools.
Therefore, it will be necessary to carry out this analysis in subsequent applications of the general diagnostic evaluations, once enriched the tools for collecting information. They shall also apply analytical techniques to obtain more accurate and meaningful results.
This is what the report says on the subject, a report that from now on call "politically correct." As we shall see, never better. As the report is politically correct to say that although there are significant differences between those who use computers every day in the center and those who do not, few (a 4% of the sample are approximately 1,150 students, there are so few, even if, as is probably the case, found in 15 or 20 centers. Moreover, these students come from poorer backgrounds, as their socioeconomic and cultural index medium (ISEC) is low, -0.34 (but not too much, it is one third of standard deviation lower than the national average), there are more repeaters and their expectations for high levels of study are low. All this influences the results, of course, but not knowing the difference in speaker is difficult to know whether warranted or not.
The problem is that the report is B, but there was an A before being reviewed by the Autonomous Communities and so far has not seen the light. Until now. Is the report that call DCO (So much for our chaste ears), and decided to close we will not doubt the wise citizens of our political decisions. This is what the report says DCO in the same place as the politically correct:
results based on computer use at school and Internet use .
In this section, as in some of those that follow, there has been a factor analysis has permitted the classification variables of the questionnaires for students and families regarding the use and familiarity of students with information technology and communication. The variables thus constructed provide greater explanatory power of the results.
Students say they rarely or never use the computer (51%) in class have a higher score on the four powers who claim to use it every day or almost every day (5%). Use it once or twice a week to 44%. The differences range from 84 points in social and civic competence and 62 points in mathematical literacy, as shown in Figure 5.4.
Figure 5.4. The results according to frequency of computer use at school
Similarly relate the use of internet by students and their results in the general diagnostic evaluation 2009, although in this case the differences are minor, as shown in Figure 5.5. Students say they rarely or never use internet (27%) have a higher score on the four powers which claim to use the network every day or almost every day (36%). The differences range from 25 points in social and civic competence and 19 points in mathematical literacy.
These results of computer use in class and the Internet both at school and in the private sector are clearly outstanding and should be further analysis to allow better appreciation of the meaning of them.
Figure 5.5. Differences in the results by frequency of internet browsing
should be noted that when using the Internet aims to provide the student seeking information for their studies, students who make moderate use Internet (once or twice a week) are those with a higher score. Students who use the Internet to communicate with others (chat) every day gets a score lower than those who did not never used for this purpose, values \u200b\u200branging between 24 and 28 points in four races.
The DCO report says is that these results are "really remarkable." For between 84 and 62 points (the average deviation of 100), we can infer with some confidence that the results are both significantly and substantively noteworthy. ISEC says nothing of half of the students, probably because the net difference (ie, discounting the effects of ISEC) remains substantial. On this subject we can say more, according to the report politically correct (Table 4.1, pg. 128), the variation in performance associated with a unit of ISEC ranges from 33 to 37 points. It is therefore impossible for a variation of 0.34 point ISEC explain differences over 20 points, as is the case.
Can you then say that the pedagogical model based on daily use of computer at school is associated with a much lower performance of students? Can it be stated that the extension of the Escuela 2.0 will bring a reduction in the already poor performance of our students? No, look you. Both A and B report are technically very bad, and no one can say almost anything based on it. Another thing would be if you allow access to microdata society.
Why we can not say for sure? Because we do not know how are the centers and their quality: not only due the composition of their students, but the quality of the school and education authority to which it belongs (these two aspects are systematically ignored in too many analysis and, in my experience, have a significant effect). Nor do we know the number of repeaters in these facilities, nothing about their social composition, whether they are rural or not, if they decided to put computers in these facilities precisely because they were particularly trouble ... Now, is far more likely that the educational model of introduction of computers in classrooms that we use in Spain, as a points-based study of the PISA results for our country, have the effect of decreasing performance of students.
Now, what you can make sure the program is that School 2.0 is extremely unwise in its conception and implementation, and should be supported by any study or any previous experiment, or at least some small-scale test before applying to all students.
And, of course, that there has been a willingness to conceal relevant information to citizens about the functioning of the education system. Like so many other times, the despot who watches over us paternally considered unprepared to assume this kind of information. As so often, lying on this issue will be free. It has happened before. And so it goes.
0 comments:
Post a Comment