Computers in the (Indian) classroom
Some of my previous posts (see here and here) raised doubts about the value of spending gobs of money to introduce computers into classrooms in the developing world. A new study from the Poverty Action Lab at MIT provides some additional insight on exactly this question. Leigh Linden, the author of Complement or Substitute? The Effect of Technology on Student Achievement in India, offers up some truly useful information by asking a better question than others have asked - namely, not whether computers improve learning on average but rather in what context and for whom they improve learning.
Employing a pair of randomized evaluations of computer use in classrooms in Gujarat, India, Linden found that computers improve learning outcomes when they are used as a complement to the normal curriculum, rather than as a replacement for the standard offering. He also found that the weakest students benefitted most, as the computers allowed for further practice of material already covered in the classroom. Finally, Linden also found that the computers were about as cost-effective an intervention as girls scholarship programs, cash incentives for teachers, and textbooks.
These results seem almost too commonsensical to have required the expense of randomized evaluations, but I think it's important to remember claims that have been made that programs like OLPC would completely revolutionize the classroom. It seems that technology can bring improvements, but they are incremental and not revolutionary.
Update: I should add that Linden's study was funded by infoDev, which houses an impressive collection of literature on ICT and education. Thanks to Ana Carrasco for alerting me to this.
Comments (2)
Bookmark
E-mail
Facebook
Good conclusion. Computers AID learning, NOT 'provide' all the learning. I have been in classes of both sorts and having the coursework readily accessible or presentations available online for reference makes a lot of difference rather than online lectures by themselves. I remember, when Negroponte was still at MIT, he used to say repeatedly that the XO was meant as a teaching aid and not as a substitute for the teacher. In the marketing and communications strategy, that nuance got lost somewhere and the XO started to be seen as a saviour for education, which it was never meant to be!
So, Ryan, again, excellent conclusion!
Posted by: Mudit | Jul 21, 2008 9:48:33 AM
I had the good fortune to be part of a pilot program which introduced high school students to computers in 1973. For me, it was a life-changing experience. Our teacher was given the task of teaching what he himself had not yet learned. Unlike him, we budding geeks had no social life, and could devote all of our energies towards absorbing the technology (often at the expense of our other studies).
However, that only works for some people, those of us "wired" to take things apart and put them together in interesting ways. It also didn't do much for our social development, nor did it help in history and literature classes.
I'm an XO owner and a Free/Open Source Software enthusiast. However, I fully agree with the thoughts posted here: Technology can be a real aid to learning, as well as to other endeavors, but a computer, like a dictionary, a slide rule, a calculator, etc, is merely a tool albeit a very powerful one, not a pre-packaged education.
Posted by: ubuntourist | Jul 21, 2008 8:08:34 PM