04.29.09

Is it the brand or the technology?

Posted in General at 11:44 pm by Travis

I have taken as much as I can about the Marzano study. The renowned researcher, and education guru, Robert Marzano recently released the details of his study on the effectiveness of Promethean Activclassroom and student achievement. His study has shown significant improvement in student achievement by using this product, and this is where I have a problem. Dr. Marzano is pushing a product and not the technology. I don’t have a problem with the good doctor gettin’ his grind on. I don’t have a problem with Promethean gettin’ their marketing on, but let’s call it what it is, an endorsement wrapped up in research.

Administrators and tech directors around the country now feel justified to spend that stimulus money just because Dr. Marzano said… They won’t ask those probing questions such as:

Is it the Promethean brand or is it the interactive white board technology that makes the difference? What does it matter? Dr. Marzano said…

The study mentions “Promethean technology” 111 times, but never tells you what Promethean technology is or what it does or how it makes the difference. I have been cruising the different message boards and blogs and the discussions on the study are interchanging interactive white boards with Prometheans which is what I think is exactly what Promethean marketing wanted, branding. The study does not say “white board technology”. It specifically says Promethean.

The key to the study focuses on what we in educational technology have been saying for years. If you have a teacher this if proficient and confident with the use of technology and put technology in the center of the learning, students will become engaged and achievement will be substantially affected, and Promethean didn’t even have to sponsor our research. I am disappointed that many more in the Ed Tech community did not speak out more on this issue because I think that it tends to undermine what we are trying to accomplish in Ed Tech, competent and sound decisions made based on a thorough examination of the data. Isn’t this what data driven decision making is about? What about the other white board technologies? Will they conduct studies on others?

The Other Study

Now here is something interesting. Most administrators and tech directors won’t dig deeper to investigate this issue. BECTA, The British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, published a study in 2007 titled “Evaluation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project“. Notice the they used Whiteboard and not a brand. Just wanted to make sure you were paying attention. What’s interesting about this study is that the organization funded the acquisition of the technology and put it in 21 local authorities to study it’s effectiveness. Now before you go and say that this is the same thing as Promethean and Marzano, no it’s not and I’ll show you why later. According to the Interactive Technology in Education Symposium 2007 Blog,

This major study into the the impact of interactive technologies on student performance standards, involved 20 Local Authorities and 7272 learners in 97 schools. Variables considered in this detailed research included; length of exposure to interactive whiteboard technology, the age of pupils (down to individual birthdays), gender, special needs, entitlement to free schools meals and other socio-economic groupings.

Dr. Vanessa Pittard from BECTA had the following to offer after her presentation:

“The findings are stunning. They clearly show that when teachers fully integrate interactive whiteboards, and they make best use of their functionality, pupils really do benefit.”

The BECTA objective were very clear.To:

Assess the extent to which the use of interactive whiteboards affect standards in literacy and mathematics.

Identify the effects of using interactive whiteboards on a range of other outcomes.

Investigate the contribution made by the introduction of interactive whiteboards to the development of pedagogies and to a more general embedding of ICT across the curriculum.

Evaluate the impact of the project on continuing professional development among teachers.

Evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation and operation of the first phase of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Project initiative. (Bridget Somekh, 2007)

Notice, again, the use of the words, interactive whiteboards. Another interesting issue from all of this is what the BECTA study said about the use of interactive whiteboards in the classroom.

When teachers have used an interactive whiteboard for a considerable period of time (by the autumn of 2006 for at least two years) its use becomes embedded in their pedagogy as a mediating artIfact for their interactions with their pupils, and pupils’ interactions with one another. The concept of ‘mediating interactivity’ is robust. It offers a sound theoretical explanation for the way in which the multi-level modeling (MLM) analysis link the length of time pupils have been taught with interactive whiteboards to greater progress in national test scores year on year. (Bridget Somekh, 2007)

Sound familiar? I think the most interesting comparison of studies is the fact that BECTA tells you the number and brand of whiteboards that were used in the study.

Sixty-three percent of installations were Smartboards and 28 percent were Promethean. The remainder included Clevertouch, RM, Cleverboard, TDS, ACTIVboard and Interactive Education. (Bridget Somekh, 2007)

63% to 28%. There were over twice as many SMART boards used in the study as there were Promethean. SMART took the information in stride. They could have shoved it down our throats about the number of their products that were available in the study, but they didn’t, they took it in stride. This is the media release from SMART’s website about the study.

SMART Board™ interactive whiteboards
Sixty-three percent of the interactive whiteboards in the study were SMART Board interactive whiteboards. The report did not suggest that the brand of interactive whiteboard had any bearing on the results. (SMART, October)

I am not the only one who questions this issue. Micheal Scott on his blog brings up some interesting points-”Promethean buys what it needs to be credible…”

Now, if you want to buy Promethean, buy as many as your stimulus money can afford, but buy it because you really believe that interactive whiteboard technology will benefit student achievement. I just believe that you should do your homework when buying educational technology. As educational leaders, we have to be responsible stewards over the public’s money. We owe it to them to research, attend demonstrations, reading, discuss, and research again to make sure that what we buy aligns with the overall vision and mission of our educational institutions. If you buy a product just because certain researchers say so at least make sure that they explain to you why “this” product makes a difference. Ask yourself is it the brand or the technology?

Sources

Bridget Somekh, M. H. (2007). Evaluation of the Primary Schools Whiteboard Expansion Project- Report to the Department for Children, Schools and Families. Manchester: BECTA.

Education, I. T. (2007, October 9th). The Symposium gets a sneak preview of latest BECTA report into the impact of Interactive Whiteboards. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from The ITie Symposium 07 Interacitve Technology in Education: http://thesymposium07.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/the-symposium-gets-a-sneak-preview-of-latest-becta-report-into-the-impact-of-interactive-whiteboards/

Laboratory, M. R. (2009). Evaluation Study of the Effects of Promethean ActivClassroom on Student Achievement. Centennial: Promethean, Ltd.

SMART. (October, 24th 2007). Researchers conclude interactive whiteboards produce significant results. CALGARY, Alberta, Canada.

Permalink Comments

04.10.09

Finally- A Better Road Map of Minority Media Ownership Data

Posted in Media at 8:03 pm by Travis

Stop Big Media » Blog Archive » A Better Road Map of Minority Media Ownership Data.

In the process of conducting these studies, we learned that the commission had collected inaccurate date on minority and female ownership since 1998. Many stations had filled out their ownership forms incorrectly – omitting key diversity data — but the FCC had failed to monitor or verify the accuracy of the submitted information. Instead, the agency released ownership figures that were simply wrong.

The GAO has three reports confirming this and the fact that the main hindrance to minority media ownership is the lack of access to capital. What worse is that when stations were being sold, minority media owners were not privy to the sale of these stations until the deal was about to close. The most disappointing fact is that there was a tax deferment for those who sold their stations to minority companies, but the provision was repealed in 1995. A year before the great FCC giveaway in 1996 where we saw conglomerates such as Clear Channel and Citadel become media powerhouses.

As a prelude to the mortgage crisis, many of the stations were sold far above their value which may be the reason the Citadel is near bankruptcy. I have seen this first hand in Central Arkansas. There is no local progressive radio here. The one station that served the black community and the home for most of the black churches was sold right out of the community.

The funny thing about was that no one who claims to be from the religious right came to assist their brothers in the same way the lead the charge in our neighborhoods for all of the evils of abortion and gay marriage. The main thing on talk radio in Little Rock is a call to arms. Lock and load.