Led On Line
Presentazione - About us
Novita' - What's new
E-Journals
E-books
Lededizioni Home Page Ricerca - Search
Catalogo - Catalogue
Per contattarci - Contacts
Per gli Autori - For the Authors
Statistiche - Statistics
Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy

Tecnologie per apprendere: quale il ruolo dell’Evidence Based Education?

Antonio Calvani, Giuliano Vivanet

Abstract


Technologies for Learning: What Is the Role of Evidence Based Education?

If we ask ourselves whether technology improves learning, then evidence-based research provides us with a substantial body of knowledge, mainly derived from systematic comparisons of experimental designs. In the first part of the paper, the state-of-the-art regarding the evidence on the effectiveness of educational technology, e-learning/blended learning, digital reading, and interactive whiteboards at school (K-12), is introduced underlining the contrast between these data and the rhetoric that accompanies discussion about technological innovation in schools. The second part highlights that evaluation merely based on evidence, although necessary, is not a sufficient condition for decision-making on technological innovation in schools. The introduction of technology has different implications: it requires a careful consideration of untapped potential and involves evidence-based information with other evaluation criteria, related to reasons of utility or ethical issues and values.


Keywords


Educational technology, Evidence Based Education, Learning, School, Apprendimento, Educazione basata su prove di efficacia, Scuola, Tecnologie didattiche

Full Text:

PDF

References


Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/

changingcourse.pdf.

Avvisati, F., Hennessy, S., Kozma, R. B., & Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2013). Review of the Italian strategy for digital schools. OECD Education Working Papers, 90. OECD. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k487ntdbr44-en.

Bayraktar, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of computer assisted instruction in science education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 173-188.

BECTA (2003). What the research says about interactive whiteboards. http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5318/1/wtrs_whiteboards.pdf.

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature.

Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-439.

Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Schmid, R. F., Tamim, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2014). A meta-analysis of blended learning and technology use in higher education: from the general to the applied. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 26(1), 87-122.

Bonaiuti, G. (2009). Didattica attiva con la LIM: metodologie, strumenti e materiali per la lavagna interattiva multimediale. Trento: Erickson.

Bruni, F. (2009). Blog e didattica. Macerata: EUM.

Burgstahler, S. (2003). The role of technology in preparing youth with disabilities for postsecondary education and employment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(4), 7-19.

Calvani, A. (2009). ICT in schools: what rationale? A conceptual frame for a technological policy. Educational Technology: The Magazine for Managers of Change in Education, 49(4), 33-37.

Calvani, A. (2012). Per un’istruzione Evidence Based. Trento: Erickson.

Calvani, A. (2013). Le TIC nella scuola: dieci raccomandazioni per i policy maker. Form@re – Open Journal per la Formazione in Rete, 13(4) 30-46. http://www.fupress.net/index.php/formare/article/viewFile/14227/13184.

Calvani, A., & Vivanet, G. (2014). Evidence Based Education e modelli di valutazione formativa per le scuole. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies, 1(9), 127-146.

Camnalbur, M., & Erdoğan, Y. (2008). A meta analysis on the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction: Turkey sample. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 8(2), 497-505.

Carr, N. (2011). Internet ci rende stupidi? Come la rete sta cambiando il nostro cervello. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.

Cavanaugh, C. (2010). Blended education for primary and secondary pupils. Better: Evidence-Based Education, 5, Autumn, 16-17.

Chen, S. Y., Fan, J. P., & Macredie, R. D. (2006). Navigation in hypermedia learning systems: Experts vs. novices. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(2), 251-266.

Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 9, 88-113.

Christmann, E. P., & Badgett, J. L. (2003). A meta-analytic comparison of the effects of computer-assisted instruction on elementary students’ academic achievement. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 1, 91-104.

Clark, R. C., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning. Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco: Pfeiffer Wiley.

Coe, R. (2002). It’s the effect size, stupid: What effect size is and why it is important. Paper presented at Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Exeter, England, 12-14 September. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002182.htm.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

CrossKnowledge (2012). European e-learning barometer. http://www.trainingzone.co.uk/files/siftmedia-trainingzone/CrossKnowledge-Europeanelearningbarometer-ENG.pdf.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1992). Flow: The psychology of happiness. London: Rider.

Cullen, J. (2007). Status of e-inclusion measurement, analysis and approaches for improvement. Final report. Bruxelles: European Commission.

De Jong, M. T., & Bus, A. G. (2002). Quality of book-reading matters for emergent readers: An experiment with the same book in regular or electronic format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 145-155.

Englert, C. S., Zhao, Y., Dunsmore, K., Collings, N. Y., & Wolbers, K. (2007). Scaffolding the writing of students with disabilities through procedural facilitation: Using an Internet-based technology to improve performance. Learning

Disability Quarterly, 30(1), 9-29.

Fabos, B., & Young, M. D. (1999). Telecommunications in the classroom: Rhetoric versus reality. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 217-259.

Fedeli, L. (2012). Social media e didattica. Opportunità, criticità e prospettive. Lecce: Pensa Multimedia.

Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3-8.

Grimshaw, S., Dungworth, N., McKnight, C., & Morris, A. (2007). Electronic books: Children’s reading and comprehension. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 583-599.

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London - New York: Routledge.

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London - New York: Routledge.

Higgins, J., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11), 1539-1558.

Higgins, S., Falzon, C., Hall, I., Moseley, D., Smith, F., Smith, H., & Wall, K. (2005). Embedding ICT in the literacy and numeracy strategies. Final report. Newcastle: Newcastle University.

Higgins, S., Katsipataki, M., Kokotsaki, D., Coleman, R., Major, L. E., & Coe, R. (2014). The sutton trust – Education Endowment Foundation teaching and learning toolkit. London: Education Endowment Foundation.

Higgins, S., Xiao, Z., & Katsipataki, M. (2012). The impact of digital technology on learning: A summary for the Education Endowment Foundation. School of Education, Durham University. http://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/uploads/pdf/The_Impact_of_Digital_Technologies_on_Learning_(2012).pdf.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jaggars, S. S., & Bailey, T. (2010). Effectiveness of fully online courses for College students: Response to a Department of Education Meta-analysis. New York: Community College Research Center, Columbia University.

Jonassen, D. H. (2006). Modeling with technology; mindtools for conceptual change. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J. E., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Korat, O. (2010). Reading electronic books as a support for vocabulary, story comprehension and word reading in kindergarten and first grade. Computers & Education, 55(1), 24-31. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.014.

Kozma, R. (1994). Will media influence learning: Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.

Kulik, J. (2003). Effects of using instructional technology in elementary and secondary schools: what controlled evaluation studies say. Arlington, VA: SRI International.

Landriscina, F. (2009). La simulazione nell’apprendimento: quando e come avvalersene. Trento: Erickson.

Landriscina, F. (2013). Simulation-based learning: questioni aperte e linee guida per un uso didatticamente efficace della simulazione. Form@re – Open Journal per la Formazione in Rete, 13(2).

Lefever-Davis, S., & Pearman, C. (2005). Early readers and electronic texts: CD-ROM storybook features that influence reading behaviors. Reading Teacher, 58(5), 446-454.

Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 215-243.

Liao, Y. K., & Chen, Y. W. (2007). The effect of computer simulation instruction on student learning: A meta-analysis of studies in Taiwan. Special Issue on Computer and Network Technologies in Education, 2(2), 69-79.

Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lipsey, M. W., Puzio, K., Yun, C., Hebert, M. A., Steinka-Fry, K., Cole, M. W., Roberts, M., & Busick, M. D. (2012). Translating the statistical representation of the effects of education interventions into more readily interpretable forms. National Center for Special Education Research. http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20133000/pdf/20133000.pdf.

Long, M., & Jennings, H. (2005). «Does it work?»: The impact of technology and professional development on student achievement. Calverton, MD: Macro International.

López, O. S. (2009). The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners’ academic success in mathematics and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers and Education, 54, 901-915.

Marzano, R. J., Haystead, M. W. (2010). Final report: A second year evaluation study of Promethean ActivClassroom. Englewood: Marzano Research Laboratory.

Mathis, W. J., & Welner, K. G. (Eds.). (2010). The Obama education blueprint: Researchers examine the evidence. IAP.

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided method of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14-19.

Mirenda, P. (2001). Autism, augmentative communication, and assistive technology what do we really know? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16(3), 141-151.

Moss, G., Jewitt, C., Levačić, R., Armstrong, V., Cardini, A., & Castle, F. (2007). Interactive whiteboards, pedagogy, and pupil performance: An evaluation of the schools whiteboard expansion project (London Challenge). University of London, Department for Education and Skills, Institute of Education.

Noeth, R. J., & Volkov, B. B. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of technology in our schools. ACT. NRP (2000). National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US) – Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development - National Institutes of Health.

O’Dwyer, L. M., Carey, R., & Kleiman, G. (2007). A study of the effectiveness of the Louisiana Algebra I online course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 289-306.

OECD (2011). PISA 2009 Results: Students on line. Digital technologies and performance, Vol. 6. doi: 10.1787/9789264112995-en.

OECD (2012). OECD Digital economy papers e-books: Developments and policy considerations. doi: 10.1787/5k912zxg5svh-en.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

Patrick, S., & Powell, A. (2009). A summary of research on the effectiveness of K-12 online learning. International Association for K-12 Online Learning.

Pearman, C. J. (2008). Independent reading of CD-ROM storybooks: Measuring comprehension with oral retellings. Reading Teacher, 61(8), 594-602.

Pearman, C. J., & Chang, C. (2010). Scaffolding or distracting: CD-ROM storybooks and young readers. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 54(4), 52-57.

Pearson, D. P., Ferdig, R. E., Blomeyer, R. L., & Moran, J. (2005). The effects of technology on reading performance in the middle-school grades: A meta-analysis with recommendations for policy. Naperville, IL: University of Illinois, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

Rockman et al. (2007). ED PACE. Final report, submitted to the West Virginia Department of Education. San Francisco. http://www.rockman.com/projects/146.ies.edpace/finalreport.pdf.

Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (Eds.). (2006). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Russell, T. L. (1999). No significant difference phenomenon. Education, Communication & Information, 3(2), 241-280.

Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9.

Salvadori, I. (2012). Cosa sappiamo circa l’efficacia della LIM nel contesto scolastico? Form@re – Open Journal per la Formazione in Rete, 12(78), 4-10.

Sandy-Hanson, A. E. (2006). A meta-analysis of the impact of computer technology versus traditional instruction on students in kindergarten through twelfth grade in the united states: A comparison of academic achievement, higher order thinking

skills, motivation, physical outcomes and social skills. Doctoral dissertation, Howard University.

Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Santa Monica, CA: Milken Exchange on Education Technology.

Schagen, I., & Hodgen, E. (2009). How much difference does it make? Notes on understanding, using, and calculating effect sizes for schools. http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/_data/assets/pdf_file/0006/36195/Schoolnotes.pdf.

Schmid, R. F., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Surkes, M. A. (2014). The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of classroom applications. Computers & Education, 72, 271-291. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.11.002.

Segal-Driori, O., Korat, O., & Shamir, A. (2010). Reading electronic and printed books with and without adult instruction: Effects on emergent reading. Reading and Writing, 23(8), 913-930.

Shachar, M., & Neumann, Y. (2010). Twenty years of research on the academic performance differences between traditional and distance learning: Summative meta-analysis and trend examination. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2).

Shamir, A., & Korat, O. (2006). How to select CD-ROM storybooks for young children: The teacher’s role. The Reading Teacher, 59(6), 532-543. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20204386.

Sivin-Kachala, J., & Bialo, E. R. (1994). Report on the effectiveness of technology in schools, 1990-1994. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED371726.

Small, G., & Vorgan, G. (2008). iBrain: Surviving the technological alteration of the modern mind. HarperCollins.

Smith, H. J., Higgins, S., Wall, K., Miller, J. (2005). Interactive whiteboards: Boon or bandwagon? A critical review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(2).

Somekh, B., Haldane, M., Jones, K., Lewin, C., Steadman, S., Scrimshaw, P., Sing, S., Bird, K., Cummings, J., Downing, B., Haber Stuart, T., Jarvis, J., Mavers, D., & Woodrow, D. (2007). Evaluation of the primary schools whiteboard expansion project. Report to the Department for Children, Schools and Families. London: BECTA.

Sun, K., Lin, Y., & Yu, C. (2008). A study on learning effect among different learning styles in a web-based lab of science for elementary school students. Computers & Education, 50(4), 1411-1422.

Swan, K., Schenker, J., & Kratcoski, A. (2008). The effects of the use of interactive whiteboards on student achievement. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA World Conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications (pp. 3290-3297). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.

Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81, 4-28.

Thomas, D., & Brown, J. S. (2011). A new culture of learning. Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. Createspace.

Torff, B., & Tirotta, R. (2010). Interactive whiteboards produce small gains in elementary students’ self-reported motivation in mathematics. Computers and Education, 54, 379-383.

Torgerson, C. J., & Elbourne, D. (2002). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of information and communication technology (ICT) on the teaching of spelling. Journal of Research in Reading, 25, 129-143.

Torgerson, C., & Zhu, D. (2003). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of ICT on literacy learning in English, 5-16. Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.

Trushell, J., Burrell, C., & Maitland, A. (2001). Year 5 pupils reading an «interactive storybook» on CD-ROM: Losing the plot? British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(4), 389-401.

U.S. DoE (2010). U.S. Department of Education. Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington. http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-basedpractices/finalreport.pdf.

U.S. DoE (2012). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics 2012. Table 121. Percentage of public school districts with students enrolled in technology-based distance education courses and number of enrollments in such courses, by instructional level and district characteristics: 2002-03, 2004-05, and 2009-10. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=46.

U.S. DoE (2013). U.S. Department of Education. Expanding evidence approaches for learning in a digital world. http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/files/2013/02/Expanding-Evidence-Approaches.pdf.

Vivanet, G. (2014a). Che cos’è l’evidence based education. Roma: Carocci.

Vivanet, G. (2014b). Sull’efficacia delle tecnologie nella scuola: analisi critica delle evidenze empiriche. TD Tecnologie Didattiche, 62, 2.

Waxman, H. C., Lin, M., & Michko, G. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes a metaanalysis of the effectiveness of teaching and learning with technology on student outcomes. Naperville, IL: Technology.

Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis, Vol. 59. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wood, R., & Ashfield, J. (2008). The use of the interactive whiteboard for creative teaching and learning in literacy and mathematics: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(1), 84-96.

WWC (2008). What Works Clearinghouse. Procedures and standards handbook. Washington.

Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B., Lai, C., & Tan, H. S. (2005). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. The Teachers College Record 107, 1836-1884.

Zucker, T. A., Moody, A. K., & McKenna, M. C. (2009). The effects of electronic books on pre-kindergartento-grade 5 students’ literacy and language outcomes: A research synthesis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40(1), 47-87.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.7358/ecps-2014-010-calv


Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies (ECPS)
Registered by Tribunale di Milano (19/05/2010 n. 278)
Online ISSN 2037-7924 - Print ISSN 2037-7932


Research Laboratory on Didactics and Evaluation - Department of Education - "Roma Tre" University


Executive Editor: Gaetano Domenici - Managing  Editor: Valeria Biasci
Editorial Board: Giuditta Alessandrini - Eleftheria Argyropoulou - Massimo Baldacci - Joao Barroso - Richard Bates - Christofer Bezzina - Paolo Bonaiuto - Lucia Boncori - Pietro Boscolo - Sara Bubb  - Carlo Felice Casula - Jean-Émile Charlier - Lucia Chiappetta Cajola - Carmela Covato - Jean-Louis Derouet - Peter Early - Franco Frabboni - Constance Katz - James Levin - Pietro Lucisano  - Roberto Maragliano - Romuald Normand - Michael Osborne - Donatella Palomba - Michele Pellerey - Clotilde Pontecorvo - Vitaly V. Rubtzov - Jaap Scheerens - Noah W. Sobe - Francesco Susi - Giuseppe Spadafora - Pat Thomson
Editorial Staff: Fabio Alivernini - Guido Benvenuto - Anna Maria Ciraci - Massimiliano Fiorucci - Luca Mallia - Massimo Margottini - Giovanni Moretti - Carla Roverselli 
Editorial Secretary:
Nazarena Patrizi