Domestic, Elementary / Primary / Junior, Ethics, High school / Secondary 2, Private education, Public education, Publishers, Required, Students, Technology - Written by Wired Academic on Monday, October 10, 2011 18:31 - 0 Comments
Heard: Carnegie Learning & Other Edu Tech Firms Overpromising, Underdelivering?
The New York Times dials in with another thoughtful piece critical of marketing by Ed Tech players this weekend with a story by Trip Gabriel and Matt Richtel headlined, “Inflating the Software Report Card.” It suggests that the $2.2 billion a year education software industry isn’t exactly what it’s cracked up to be. In fact, they point to critics and data showing some of these products or companies just don’t get the results they say they do. They highlight Carnegie Learning, which the University of Phoenix purchased for $75 million in August. They write that the company, started by scientists at Carnegie Mellon University, promises to revolutionize math curriculum and classrooms. But they say a U.S. Department of Education review last year suggests this and other software market themselves heavily but offer “unproven results.”
The federal review of Carnegie Learning’s flagship software, Cognitive Tutor, said the program had “no discernible effects” on the standardized test scores of high school students. A separate 2009 federal look at 10 major software products for teaching algebra as well as elementary and middle school math and reading found that nine of them, including Cognitive Tutor, “did not have statistically significant effects on test scores.”
Amid a classroom-based software boom estimated at $2.2 billion a year, debate continues to rage over the effectiveness of technology on learning and how best to measure it. But it is hard to tell that from technology companies’ promotional materials.
Many companies ignore well-regarded independent studies that test their products’ effectiveness. Carnegie’s Web site, for example, makes no mention of the 2010 review, by the Education Department’s What Works Clearinghouse, which analyzed 24 studies of Cognitive Tutor’s effectiveness but found that only four of those met high research standards. Some firms misrepresent research by cherry-picking results and promote surveys or limited case studies that lack the scientific rigor required by the clearinghouse and other authorities.
Carnegie tells the Times that 600,000 students in 44 states are using its products. Teachers take Carnegie training and use its workbooks. They say the What Works study by the DOE has its flaws because it focuses on the wrong questions. The company was founded in 1998 by cognitive and computer scientists and math teachers at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, some of whom have won high academic awards. Many consider the company to be a paragon of high standards. But the Times points out that Carnegie’s curriculum can cost a school roughly 3 times as much as a normal school textbook costs over six years.
At least one expert agrees with Carnegie Learning that the DOE clearinghouse reports are not perfect:
Karen Cator, a former Apple executive who directs the Office of Educational Technology at the Department of Education, said the clearinghouse reports on software should be “taken with a grain of salt” because they rely on standardized test scores. Those tests, Ms. Cator said, cannot gauge some skills that technology teaches, like collaboration, multimedia and research.
But The Times reporters point to other examples of eager marketing and unmet promises by education technology companies:
- Carnegie, one of the most respected of the educational software firms, is hardly alone in overpromising or misleading. The Web site of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt says that “based on scientific research, Destination Reading is a powerful early literacy and adolescent literacy program,” but it fails to mention that it was one of the products the Department of Education found in 2009 not to have statistically significant effects on test scores.
- Similarly, Pearson’s Web site cites several studies of its own to support its claim that Waterford Early Learning improves literacy, without acknowledging the same 2009 study’s conclusion that it had little impact.
- And Intel, in a Web document urging schools to buy computers for every student, acknowledges that “there are no longitudinal, randomized trials linking eLearning to positive learning outcomes.” Yet it nonetheless argues that research shows that technology can lead to more engaged and economically successful students, happier teachers and more involved parents.
Leave a Reply
We welcome Tips & Pitches
Latest WA Original Features
The Pulitzer Prize winning investigation newsroom digs into for-profit education.
- Interview: UoPeople Founder Shai Reshef On Edu Tech, Free Tuition & P2P Learning
- Cheating in School— How the Digital Age Affects Attitudes About Plagiarism [Infographic]
- U of Phoenix: Raises tuition, Enrollment drops, Still Making Plenty of Cash
- Guest Column from Hansoo Lee of Magoosh.com: SAT Scores are Falling – Now What?
- Edublog Award Winners For Mobile App, Web Tool, Wiki Tool
MARKET INTRADAY SNAPSHOT
- Education & Tech Companies We Follow
Cost of Education, Domestic, Education Quality, Ethics, For-Profit, Regulatory, Required, Students, University & College - Mar 11, 2012 21:17 - 0 Comments
More In For-Profit
- Heard: MOOCs Growing From Stanford to Georgia Tech to MIT to Udacity and Udemy
- Heard: California Applies Headlock, Begins Clamp Down On For-Profit Colleges
- Heard: Capella University On The Ropes But Planning For A Comeback In Round 4
- Hungry Hippos: For-Profits Gobble Up Half of Military Education Benefits
- Researchers Find Students At For-Profit Colleges More Likely To Be Unemployed
Blended Learning, Domestic, Elementary / Primary / Junior, Flipped Classrooms, High school / Secondary 2, International, Open Source Education, Required, School teachers, Startups, Students, Technology - Mar 12, 2012 19:04 - 0 Comments
More In Technology
- Opinion: Online Tutoring Disrupting Traditional Tutor Model, But Expanding The Tutor Industry
- The “Mathlash”: Mathmeticians Strike Back Against Silicon Valley’s Foray Into Math Edu
- Shantanu Sinha of Khan Academy Explains The Gamification Approach of Khan
- Fast Company Ranks The 10 Most Innovative Education Companies
- Must See: Interactive Tour of the Universe — Online Tool for Teachers and Gawkers
Domestic, Education Quality, For-Profit, Friend, Fraud, or Fishy, Required, University & College - Feb 10, 2012 16:36 - 0 Comments
More In Friend, Fraud, or Fishy
- Infographic & Video: Is America Witnessing A Growing Education Bubble? Part II Of II
- Investigative Opinion: For-Profit Kaplan University’s $250 Million Payout To Former Executives
- Heard: Mitt Romney Takes Money From, Offers Praise To Full Sail University Leaders
- Heard: New York Attorney General Is Investigating Pearson Education – NYTimes.com
- Guest Column: A Response To Occupy Wall Street’s View Of Student Debt