Very sad. A district I worked for previously had invested in I-Ready for years before questioning the company more seriously about why improvements were not greater for our students. Unfortunately, districts are constantly struggling with new, usually lateral-entry teachers, high-turnover, and nowhere near enough time and resources to provide the sustained coaching support these teachers need to service the students well.
However, believing that personalized pathways can compensate for poor instruction is a flawed approach. The amount of money spent on those programs could easily go towards training and coaching programs instead—and ultimately, make greater impacts on student learning.
Thanks for breaking this down! Very helpful. I love your mention of the opportunity costs. What is the cost of using something like i-Ready instead of instructional time? That's my questions to the district/school
I’ve seen so many iterations of using such tech tools, in and out of traditional classrooms (including after school, supplementary, and weekend program.)
I’ve seen them work best under two conditions:
1.) It was used by fairly independent students who were already above average performers and were self-disciplined students. They also have a basic understanding of the material. It basically amplifies what these sort of students already have. They aren’t depending on tools for learning as much as they are for practice.
2.) A supplementary weekend program for 7-12th graders where the number of volunteer tutors in the room equaled the number of students. So students were using self-guided / adaptive learning / AI technology. But each one of them also was working 1:1 with a person who was educated in mathematics at the undergraduate level. It was phenomenal to watch. But these were volunteers, not being paid. That makes this hard to duplicate.
One of the most surprising failures I’ve seen with this sort of thing was in a traditional school setting. 3-4 days a week students had a 30-minute period where they were using very similar technology for personalized math learning. They absolutely HATED it. On top of it, they often felt frustrated by it. The e way they described it, they felt like they were trying to learn on an island all by themselves.
Throughout my research on this topic. Time spent on learning is by far the most important factor besides installing HVAC (!). Actually, if a student is given a structured and comfortable amount of time to study on a digital screen, the difference versus paper reading will not be so much different. However, if time is limited (which it often is), a screen is much lower in performance, especially self assessment (of when they will stop studying due to thinking they know the material). Excluding time as a factor is the fault of the peer reviewed journal and lowers the credibility of that journal and its reviewers who should have questioned it. Or maybe that was intended since it is such an obvious question. The trick is to put an educated scholar and skeptic as a reviewer. That is where you should reach out....
Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1816–1828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.023
Can you do an analysis for ST Math (MIND institute)?? The only independent RCT I can find is Rutherford et al. (2014) with non-significant effect. The rest are funded by the MIND Institute that built ST Math or use data provided by MIND in quasi-experimental studies done by private educational consulting/research companies/non-profits like West Ed.
Our low-income district (81% qualify for free/reduced lunch) has been requiring every single student K-6 to complete 60 minutes of ST Math each week. There is absolutely no option to opt-out and the district is convinced it is helping our most vulnerable learners.
Very sad. A district I worked for previously had invested in I-Ready for years before questioning the company more seriously about why improvements were not greater for our students. Unfortunately, districts are constantly struggling with new, usually lateral-entry teachers, high-turnover, and nowhere near enough time and resources to provide the sustained coaching support these teachers need to service the students well.
However, believing that personalized pathways can compensate for poor instruction is a flawed approach. The amount of money spent on those programs could easily go towards training and coaching programs instead—and ultimately, make greater impacts on student learning.
Thanks for breaking this down! Very helpful. I love your mention of the opportunity costs. What is the cost of using something like i-Ready instead of instructional time? That's my questions to the district/school
I’ve seen so many iterations of using such tech tools, in and out of traditional classrooms (including after school, supplementary, and weekend program.)
I’ve seen them work best under two conditions:
1.) It was used by fairly independent students who were already above average performers and were self-disciplined students. They also have a basic understanding of the material. It basically amplifies what these sort of students already have. They aren’t depending on tools for learning as much as they are for practice.
2.) A supplementary weekend program for 7-12th graders where the number of volunteer tutors in the room equaled the number of students. So students were using self-guided / adaptive learning / AI technology. But each one of them also was working 1:1 with a person who was educated in mathematics at the undergraduate level. It was phenomenal to watch. But these were volunteers, not being paid. That makes this hard to duplicate.
One of the most surprising failures I’ve seen with this sort of thing was in a traditional school setting. 3-4 days a week students had a 30-minute period where they were using very similar technology for personalized math learning. They absolutely HATED it. On top of it, they often felt frustrated by it. The e way they described it, they felt like they were trying to learn on an island all by themselves.
Throughout my research on this topic. Time spent on learning is by far the most important factor besides installing HVAC (!). Actually, if a student is given a structured and comfortable amount of time to study on a digital screen, the difference versus paper reading will not be so much different. However, if time is limited (which it often is), a screen is much lower in performance, especially self assessment (of when they will stop studying due to thinking they know the material). Excluding time as a factor is the fault of the peer reviewed journal and lowers the credibility of that journal and its reviewers who should have questioned it. Or maybe that was intended since it is such an obvious question. The trick is to put an educated scholar and skeptic as a reviewer. That is where you should reach out....
Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1816–1828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.04.023
Is this just for iReady digital platform or does this include the suggested intervention lessons and the ready math curriculum
Can you do an analysis for ST Math (MIND institute)?? The only independent RCT I can find is Rutherford et al. (2014) with non-significant effect. The rest are funded by the MIND Institute that built ST Math or use data provided by MIND in quasi-experimental studies done by private educational consulting/research companies/non-profits like West Ed.
Our low-income district (81% qualify for free/reduced lunch) has been requiring every single student K-6 to complete 60 minutes of ST Math each week. There is absolutely no option to opt-out and the district is convinced it is helping our most vulnerable learners.