Do we need to justify what is patently obvious with the theories of people who before the invention of courseware? Since we know that it is best to involve the major sense organs, would it be unethical to have large scale controlled studies where we deny half the students the use of their eyes? What is effective education anyway, and how can we reliably measure it? Can we extrapolate studies done on infants with the expected learning patterns of adult students? If infants learn by playing, should adults do so too?

Ian Kennedy, I appreciate your answer to my question, but I think it is rather short- sighted. What is unethical is to invest millions into an approach without having any clear proof of effectiveness. Also, if these technological approaches are effective, it would be useful to know for whom and under what circumstances. You readily dismiss play for adults, but I don't know that we have studies that show that play is ineffective for adults. So much in education is done without support of experimental research. Yet by implementing untested methods in schools we are inadvertently using students as test subjected for ad hoc experimentation.

OK, Sharon. I was deliberately provocative. I agree that we should base our educating only on the best-practice methods. However, the problem is that education research is lagging far behind technological advances. My last question was rhetorical. I do advocate adults learning by playing. I think that more damage in the world is being done by inadequately trained and committed teachers than by the introduction of any technology.

Well said. I have spent over 10 years in teaching and have my fair share of horror stories, hence my reluctance to put poorly tested technology in the hands of teachers who are not truly committed to pedagogy. Not only is education research lagging behind technological advances, it lags behind advances in our understanding of cognitive science - what we have learnt about how learning takes place does not correlate with what takes place in the classroom. If we are not careful with how we bring technological advances into the classroom, we will end up with greater inequality of educational opportunity. We need to bring technology that will benefit all students; and can be effective for students in spite of poor teachers.

@Jaunita: Feel free to post a premature copy on RG for comments from the community.

Juanita Fernando,

Thank you for your response. I look forward to your publications. I am looking for lessons learned from such studies to use as part of my dissertation literature search.

All of the reports I have read on technology and education have been anecdotal. My sense is that the administrators and teachers who are implementing technology are insufficiently trained in research methods to be able to design and conduct related studies. In addition, over the last two or three decades, it has become much harder in the States for university researchers to conduct empirical studies involving children in public schools.

Have you heard of the International Computer and Information Literacy Study? This is an IEA study and will examine the outcomes of student computer and information literacy (CIL) across countries. According to the framework of the study, CIL refers to an individual's ability to use computers to investigate, create, and communicate in order to participate effectively at home, at school, in the workplace, and in the community.

You can find more information here: http://www.iea.nl/icils_2013.html

Andres Hernandez:

This is an interesting study. Thank you for posting the information.

Part of my current research involves evaluation and recommendations for mobile educational technologies. I have almost finished a paper for publication investigating game based software versus what could be considered, less engaging educational software, and teachers' technology choices (what technology they choose, why, and how they use it). I suggest looking at Falloon (2013) concerning the need for empirical data (not only observational or anecdotal) whi also recommends collaborative design partnerships between teachers, developers and researchers.

Michelle Somerton:

Thank you for your response.

I look forward to reading your paper when it is published.

This might be informative... it looked at face to face, online and blended learning.

US Department of Education: Office of Planning Evaluation and Policy Development. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html

Direct link http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

Abstract: A systematic search of the research literature from 1996 through July 2008 identified more than a thousand empirical studies of online learning. Analysts screened these studies to find those that (a) contrasted an online to a face-to-face condition, (b) measured student learning outcomes, (c) used a rigorous research design, and (d) provided adequate information to calculate an effect size. As a result of this screening, 51 independent effects were identified that could be subjected to meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found that, on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction. The difference between student outcomes for online and face-to-face classes—measured as the difference between treatment and control means, divided by the pooled standard deviation—was larger in those studies contrasting conditions that blended elements of online and face-to-face instruction with conditions taught entirely face-to-face. Analysts noted that these blended conditions often included additional learning time and instructional elements not received by students in control conditions. This finding suggests that the positive effects associated with blended learning should not be attributed to the media, per se. An unexpected finding was the small number of rigorous published studies contrasting online and face-to-face learning conditions for K–12 students. In light of this small corpus, caution is required in generalizing to the K–12 population because the results are derived for the most part from studies in other settings (e.g., medical training, higher education).

Mathew Hillier:

Thank you for this submission. I will definitely read it.