3 * By contrast, in a comprehensive Zheng, et al. (2016) review of research about *one-to-one 1:1 computer initiatives computer initiatives in schools, Increased learning in multiple studies documented science, writing, math, *increased student achievement in and English science, writing, math, and English. More student-centered, *They also reported teachers using individualized, more student-centered, individualized, and project-based Better student approaches. *Many of the studies engagement also noted increased student engagement in learning. 4 *What about computer use with Tackas, et al. (2015) young children? The results are Young children: mixed.* Story comprehension and Comprehension and vocabulary have been positively vocabulary affected by *the use of electronic Electronic and books with *animated illustrations stories and sound. *However, interactive Helped: Animations; elements like hotspots and games sound did not help to improve literacy. Didn’t help: Interactive *Economically disadvantaged elements children were more sensitive to both More for children at positive and negative effects. risk 5 *In another review of Golonka, et al. (2012) more than 350 studies about *using - Technology in foreign technologies to learn foreign language learning languages, the authors concluded of efficacy is “Evidence that *quote evidence of efficacy is limited” limited end-quote. *However, Helped: computer-supported pronunciation training and *using chatting tools for pronunciation communication in target languages Helped: Online were associated strongly with chatting in target learning gains. languages 7 * Why are there such large Chauhan (2017) differences among these syntheses of - Computer use with research about educational students technology use? *A meta-analysis of Curriculum differences research about computer use with
3 * By contrast, in a comprehensive review of research about *one-to-one computer initiatives in schools, multiple studies documented *increased student achievement in science, writing, math, and English. *They also reported teachers using more student-centered, individualized, and project-based approaches. *Many of the studies also noted increased student engagement in learning. Zheng, et al. (2016) 1:1 computer initiatives Increased learning in science, writing, math, and English More student-centered, individualized, Better student engagement 4 *What about computer use with young children? The results are mixed.* Story comprehension and vocabulary have been positively affected by *the use of electronic books with *animated illustrations and sound. *However, interactive elements like hotspots and games did not help to improve literacy. *Economically disadvantaged children were more sensitive to both positive and negative effects. Tackas, et al. (2015) Young children: Comprehension and vocabulary Electronic and stories Helped: Animations; sound Didn’t help: Interactive elements More for children at risk 5 *In another review of more than 350 studies about *using technologies to learn foreign languages, the authors concluded that *quote evidence of efficacy is limited end-quote. *However, computer-supported pronunciation training and *using chatting tools for communication in target languages were associated strongly with learning gains. Golonka, et al. (2012) - Technology in foreign language learning “Evidence of efficacy is limited” Helped: pronunciation Helped: Online chatting in target languages 7 * Why are there such large differences among these syntheses of research about educational technology use? *A meta-analysis of research about computer use with Chauhan (2017) - Computer use with students Curriculum differences
Module1Script.docx