Photo credit: hechingerreport.org
As educational institutions prepare for the upcoming academic year, the discourse surrounding the utilization of artificial intelligence in teaching tools is intensifying. However, there remains a prevalent skepticism, particularly regarding the appropriateness of cell phone usage in classrooms.
In the face of constrained budgets, overcrowded classrooms, persistent achievement disparities, and pressing mental health issues among students, educators are confronted with a pivotal question: how should precious instructional time be allocated to integrate digital and AI learning into their curricula?
To navigate this challenge effectively, schools require additional means to evaluate the efficacy of the technology employed. There is a pressing need for clear guidance on the standards, incentives, and policies necessary to safeguard against the implementation of detrimental technologies in educational environments.
Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter to receive our comprehensive reporting directly in your inbox.
With the rise of generative AI, researchers and advocates for transparency have underscored the critical importance of governmental support to fund unbiased evaluations of educational technology to ensure safety, educational integrity, and equitable opportunities for all students. Unfortunately, the market is currently flooded with subpar and ineffective educational technologies presented to both children and schools.
This situation presents a crucial chance to highlight the ongoing challenges regarding educational technology quality and propose sustainable solutions. The recent turmoil surrounding the AllHere initiative in Los Angeles exemplifies the consequences of a lack of robust evaluation systems. The AllHere AI chatbot generated considerable attention in March within the nation’s second-largest school district, only to face collapse three months later after failing to meet its commitments.
Significant taxpayer funds were wasted, instructional time was compromised, and students’ educational trajectories were adversely affected. It is imperative that we prevent such situations from recurring. School leaders must be vigilant and skeptical of the enticing claims made by powerful technology marketing entities.
Here are several strategies to consider:
Implement Penalties for Misleading Claims and Enhance Evidence Standards
Ed tech product managers and procurement professionals need to adopt a more cautious approach towards marketing claims. Many products promoted to educational institutions assert they are “evidence-based” without proper independent verification. Ed tech companies frequently showcase results from questionable studies that do not withstand the scrutiny of the Every Student Succeeds Act standards and lack academic peer review. It is crucial for states, districts, and charter networks to curtail such exaggerations.
Moreover, the U.S. Department of Education should refine its ESSA evidence tiers. Currently, the lowest tier allows products to be classified as demonstrating a rationale with very minimal requirements, which is insufficient. This tier only necessitates that companies show some reasoning behind their solutions without proper assessment of its quality. In contrast, products rated at the highest tier undergo randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which can be costly and may not always be suitable for every product.
Many educators and entrepreneurs have voiced their concerns regarding ESSA’s strong focus on RCTs. We propose adding a new tier, inspired by Digital Promise’s collaborative research approach, prioritizing partnership with teachers in research and design. Engaging teachers’ input across diverse contexts is essential to understanding what truly works in educational settings.
Streamline Educational Technology Certifications
The United States has more certifications for educational technology than any other country. These certifications are intended to assure that a product meets certain quality benchmarks related to educational equity, particularly for underserved populations, and safety. The certifications listed on the EdTech Index outline the key evaluation criteria from various certification bodies. However, the lack of consolidation means that a company could be deemed “usable” by one body while being labeled “pedagogically unsound” by another.
To assist schools and districts in navigating this confusing landscape, certifications should be integrated within a new transparent framework that encompasses evaluations from all certification providers.
It is recommended that an independent organization be established to review and harmonize the evaluation indicators, address inconsistencies, and provide rankings based on the strength of certification processes.
Education stakeholders require a system that assigns quality scores to each educational technology product, factoring in safety, data utilization, efficiency, equity, effectiveness, cost, and instructional value.
This assessment process should be managed by an independent entity connected to districts, states, and charter authorities rather than by the certification providers or ed tech companies themselves.
Related: OPINION: Some warning flags for those embracing personalized learning powered by education technology
The lessons learned from the AllHere debacle and the wave of new AI implementations in classrooms signify an urgent need for comprehensive revisions to our evaluation and certification frameworks.
If immediate action is not taken, millions of students stand to miss out on the transformative potential of modern digital tools for enhancing their learning experiences. By establishing a rigorous, independent verification system, we can help guarantee that educational technology offerings are both evidence-based and equitable for all learners.
Natalia I. Kucirkova is a research professor and director of the International Centre for EdTech Impact, which bridges academia and the educational technology industry. Michael H Levine has led innovative initiatives in social impact at organizations such as Sesame Workshop and Carnegie Corporation, and is recognized globally for his expertise in early learning and educational media. They both contribute to developing impactful learning resources.
Source
hechingerreport.org