OECD: Veel lagere resultaten voor leerlingen die pc vaak gebruiken

Via Het Parool werden we opmerkzaam gemaakt op het OECD rapport over de relatie tussen computers en onderwijs. Vanwege het belang publiceren de de executive summery hier direct en kunt u het gehele rapport als bijlage lezen.

De resultaten zijn opmerkelijk, niet zozeer omdat het verrassend is dat al die ICT in het onderwijs geen positief en vaak zelfs een negatief effect heeft; dat is bij iedereen die zich serieus met onderwijs bezig houdt geen nieuws. Het rapport is opmerkelijk omdat het OECD een van de aanjagers is van innovatie en ICT in het onderwijs. Zo is er bijvoorbeeld de conferentie die men in oktober organiseert met grote ICT bedrijven

Hieronder de managementsamenvatting:

In 2012, 96% of 15-year-old students in OECD countries reported that they have a computer at home, but only 72% reported that they use a desktop, laptop or tablet computer at school. Only 42% of students in Korea and 38% of students in Shanghai-China reported that they use computers at school – and Korea and Shanghai-China were among the top performers in the digital reading and computer-based mathematics tests in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2012. By contrast, in countries where it is more common for students to use the Internet at school for schoolwork, students’ performance in reading declined between 2000 and 2012, on average.

 These findings, based on an analysis of PISA data, tell us that, despite the pervasiveness of information and communication technologies (ICT) in our daily lives, these technologies have not yet been as widely adopted in formal education. But where they are used in the classroom, their impact on student performance is mixed, at best. In fact, PISA results show no appreciable improvements in student achievement in reading, mathematics or science in the countries that had invested heavily in ICT for education. (vet lettertype door redactie)

 As these results show, the connections among students, computers and learning are neither simple nor hard-wired; and the real contributions ICT can make to teaching and learning have yet to be fully realised and exploited. But as long as computers and the Internet continue to have a central role in our personal and professional lives, students who have not acquired basic skills in reading, writing and navigating through a digital landscape will find themselves unable to participate fully in the economic, social and cultural life around them. Amidst the decidedly mixed messages that are drawn from the PISA data, a few critical observations emerge. The foundation skills required in a digital environment can and should be taught. Reading on line requires the same skills as reading a printed page – with the important addition of being able to navigate through and among pages/screens of text, and filtering the relevant and trustworthy sources from among a large amount of information. Korea and Singapore, the two highest-performing countries in digital reading, and among those countries whose students are the most proficient in navigating through the web, have excellent broadband infrastructure, and their 15-year-old students use computers with ease in their daily lives. Yet students in these countries are not more exposed to the Internet at school than are students in other OECD countries. This suggests that many of the evaluation and task-management skills that are essential for online navigation may also be taught and learned with conventional, analogue pedagogies and tools. Improve equity in education first.

 In most countries, differences in computer access between advantaged and disadvantaged students shrank between 2009 and 2012; in no country did the gap widen. But results from the PISA computer-based tests show that once the so-called “first digital divide” (access to computers) is bridged, the remaining difference, between socio-economic groups, in the ability to use ICT tools for learning is largely, if not entirely, explained by the difference observed in more traditional academic abilities. So to reduce inequalities in the ability to benefit from digital tools, countries need to improve equity in education first. Ensuring that every child attains a baseline level of proficiency in reading and mathematics will do more to create equal opportunities in a digital world than can be achieved by expanding or subsidising access to high-tech devices and services. Teachers, parents and students should be alerted to the possible harmful aspects of Internet use.

 Those in charge of educating today’s “connected” learners are confronted with a number of new (or newly relevant) issues, from information overload to plagiarism, from protecting children from online risks (fraud, violations of privacy, online bullying) to setting an adequate and appropriate media diet. In addition, many parents and teachers will not be surprised by the PISA finding that students who spend more than six hours on line per weekday outside of school are particularly at risk of reporting that they feel lonely at school, and that they arrived late for school or skipped days of school in the two weeks prior to the PISA test.

 Schools can educate students to become critical consumers of Internet services and electronic media, helping them to make informed choices and avoid harmful behaviours. They can also raise awareness in families about the risks that children face on line and how to avoid them. Parents can help children to balance the use of ICT for entertainment and leisure with time for other recreational activities that do not involve screens, such as sports and, equally important, sleep. To improve the effectiveness of investments in technology, learn from experience. PISA data show that, in countries where mathematics lessons focus on formulating, and solving, real-world problems – whether in engineering, biology, finance or any problem that arises in everyday life and work – students reported that their teachers use computers to a greater extent in instruction. And among all teachers, those who are more inclined and better prepared for student-oriented teaching practices, such as group work, individualised learning, and project work, are more likely to use digital resources, according to students.

 But while PISA results suggest that limited use of computers at school may be better than not using computers at all, using them more intensively than the current OECD average tends to be associated with significantly poorer student performance. ICT is linked to better student performance only in certain contexts, such as when computer software and Internet connections help to increase study time and practice.

 One interpretation of these findings is that it takes educators time and effort to learn how to use technology in education while staying firmly focused on student learning. Meanwhile, online tools can help teachers and school leaders exchange ideas and inspire each other, transforming what used to be an individual’s problem into a collaborative process. In the end, technology can amplify great teaching, but great technology cannot replace poor teaching. 

De laatste alinea is veelzeggend:  "ICT werkt nog niet goed genoeg, leraren moeten er nog beter mee om leren gaan". Misschien moeten we nog wat cursussen optuigen. We hebben het hele rapport nog niet kunnen lezen. De vraag is waar die "our interpretation" vandaan komt. Dat kan toch niet op basis van de PISA cijfers zijn, maar enkel vanuit een "geloof" in de kracht van de ICT voor het onderwijs. De vraag is dan natuurlijk ook waarom bij andere beroepen die ICT wel direct nut heeft en waarom de beoefenaren daar niet beter moeten leren om met ICT om te gaan. Het kan toch niet zo zijn dat leraren dommer zijn dan de gemiddelde werknemer. Kennelijk is het onderwijs zoveel complexer dat het formaliseren daarvan door computers niet zo goed mogelijk is.

En in een eerder contact met Maurice de Hond antwoordde hij mij op mijn opmerking dat ICT nu al 30 jaar een belofte is en nog steeds niets heeft opgeleverd, dat dat ICT was met gewone lap/desktops, maar dat het met iPads toch echt heel anders is. 

Update: inmiddels wordt er overal gereageerd op de uitkomsten van het OECD onderzoek. Voorspelbaar genant is de reactie van Kennisnet directeur Toine Maes: ICT werkt wel degelijk, maar de leraren kunnen er niet mee om gaan. Doet me denken aan: "realistisch rekenen is perfect maar die domme juffen weten het niet" en "passend onderwijs is een geweldig systeem, maar de leerkrachten moeten beter getrained". Het is duidelijk: als je iets nieuws introduceert dan moet je rekening houden met de randvoorwaarden, dus zelfs al zouden realistisch rekenen en ICT op school werkelijk tot het perfecte leren kunnen leiden, als dat ondanks tientallen jaren proberen niet blijkt te lukken, dan past het nieuwe systeem niet bij de werkelijkheid. Daarmee de werkelijkheid als foutief beschouwen is een gotspe. Maar er zijn voldoende andere aanwijzingen en onderzoeken die aannemelijk maken dat ICT in het onderwijs hooguit een beperkte winst zou kunnen zijn en in veel gevallen zelfs verlies oplevert. Hetzelfde geldt voor realistisch rekenen of het sociaal conatructivisme. De ideeën daarachter deugen niet, ook niet bij perfecte docenten.

Update 23 september: Ook Maurice de Hond heeft uitgebreid gereageerd in de Volkskrant BON heeft inmiddels een opinie-artikel naar de Volkskracht opgestuurd.