Daniel Koretz on Access to Technology
Daniel Koretz is the Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Education at Harvard Graduate School of Education. He focuses his research primarily on educational assessment, particularly as a tool of education policy. A primary emphasis in his work has been the effects of high-stakes testing, including effects on schooling and the validity of score gains. His research has included studies of the effects of testing programs, the assessment of students with disabilities, international differences in the variability of student achievement, the application of value-added models to educational achievement, and the development of methods for validating scores under high-stakes conditions. His current work focuses on the design and evaluation of test-focused educational accountability systems. Dr. Koretz founded and chairs the International Project for the Study of Educational Accountability, an international network of scholars investigating improved approaches to educational accountability. Dr. Koretz is a member of the National Academy of Education. His doctorate is in developmental psychology from Cornell University. Before obtaining his degree, Dr. Koretz taught emotionally disturbed students in public elementary and junior high schools.
I mean, clearly, it’s a gap in access. But what’s very unclear is how many of the kids who have access are using it for things that are valuable and how many are using it for things that are no more valuable than, say, television which we know from the academic point of view is for the most part a waste of time. We just don’t know. And, moreover, the efforts to bring digital media into schools have been, in many cases, real failures. It’s been a hammer in search of a nail. People know that there’s this powerful technology out there, it ought to be to in schools and I agree it ought to, but they weren’t quite sure how to do it, many of them. We have a number of really promising things, some of which have been going out for a long time. So, for instance, there has been very interesting work going on for at least a dozen years in the development of intelligent, computer based intelligent tutors in mathematics, software that will allow diagnosis of errors and present kids with new problems based on the reasons why they fail to get a previous problem correct and so on. But that’s not, generally, what you see when you go into schools. And when I went, I used to go and watch my kids in school, I rarely saw, there were computers, but I rarely saw any activity on the computers. It was very valuable other than learning to type on them. So I think there is a problem that the world has reached a point at which a lack of access to the digital media and for that matter a lack of access to broadband can be crippling. But the other side of it is we still have a relatively weak grasp of how kids use it and how to encourage them to use it in ways that are more productive. There are lots of interesting pilots in development efforts but there is, in my view, a lack of consensus in the policy world about what really to do with all of these. And some of that, by the way, is also expensive. It will cost money.
A gap exists, Daniel Koretz admits, but he wonders how much of technology is used for educational purposes.
Giving our solar system a "slap in the face."
- A stream of galactic debris is hurtling at us, pulling dark matter along with it
- It's traveling so quickly it's been described as a hurricane of dark matter
- Scientists are excited to set their particle detectors at the onslffaught
The climate change we're witnessing is more dramatic than we might think.
A lazy buzz phrase – 'Is this the new normal?' – has been doing the rounds as extreme climate events have been piling up over the past year. To which the riposte should be: it's worse than that – we're on the road to even more frequent, more extreme events than we saw this year.
Once again, our circadian rhythm points the way.
- Seven individuals were locked inside a windowless, internetless room for 37 days.
- While at rest, they burned 130 more calories at 5 p.m. than at 5 a.m.
- Morning time again shown not to be the best time to eat.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.