,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
There are some questions I always ask when I'm looking at edtech intervention claims that seem to have at least a reasonable grounding for producing effects on learning:
A big one is whether they controlled for novelty. New approaches are definitionally novel for learners. Novelty brings with it attention effect, engagement effect. It might bring social effects (as students chat and react and joke about new tech). Did they control for that lift?
Or if not control (perhaps it's ok that the effect really comes from novelty not some miracle of the tech itself) then did they acknowledge/attempt to measure it? Measure attenuation over time?
Another q: is it likely that we're having a massive file drawer problem with an intervention? So hard to get answers on this from industry/for profit entities but...if they keep talking about exactly ONE positive trial one time...! Interventions will always have mixed effects...
And it's a sign of much more rigorous assessment when people can say, we know when this starts to fail or at least we have some guidance re: when we haven't seen it work, or for whom. Blanket "it always works for everyone" = snake oil frankly
A classic q: does the edtech claim to cause humans to engage in cognitive processes hitherto untapped? Change your brain on dramatic ways? That's ridiculous. Flip side good sign is if they talk about well documented metacognitive learning strategies and why the tech helps those.
Finally, I never believe anything that claims that all learning will be an easy joyful happy gleeful experience at every moment forever. 😄 Humans don't work that way, "happiness" isn't a good measure, and learning is often hard. That's also core to what we define as learning.
(for some reasons corp marketing type talk around this REALLY wants to claim that we can magically make learning easy at all times to which my answer is, it is THE HEART of learning that we face a positive, rewarding, but real challenge)
