A closer reading of the study shows that it is, as many large-scale statistical studies are, a simple correlational study. They measured the achievement of students, compared that to access to computers at school and at home, adjusted for other factors such as socio-economic status, and looked for any relationships. They saw none, and in some cases, increased computer use was actually associated with lower achievement. Conclusion? Computer use does not improve test scores.

The resultant outcry from the EDTECH membership was predictable, since most pursue educational technology integration professionally. Some of the many concerns they raised...

• Who was using the computers?
• What were they doing on them?
• When were they used?
• Who monitored their use?
• What capabilities did the computers have? Online access? Educational software?

The study, being a large-scale survey of gross data, cannot begin to answer those questions. But let's take a closer look at one of its conclusions: "...the more computers in a student's home, the worse the student's maths performance...In schools, they found students performed worse in those which reported a significant lack of computers. But again, once they took into account the schools' general resources the same pattern emerged...", i.e., the more the computers, the worse the scores. The BBC article (not the researchers, mind you) implies that massive amounts of technology money is being misspent in schools in the pursuit of increased student achievement.

But the study fails to answer, nor does it ask, what is the goal of placing a computer in a school? Is it increased math performance? Is it increased knowledge of literature, or social studies? Most educational technologists would say a qualified "Yes," but by no means is that the reason, or even the most important reason. In asking what the relationship between the presence of computers is to student achievement, here are a few other questions the study  ignores:

• Are computer skills themselves improved? (This question is moot, but implies the larger question, pivotal in a society overrun with technology-dependent work environments, "Are computer skills themselves important?")
• Does the presence of computers increase access to knowledge? Do students test better while using computers? (This isn't ever assessed!)
• Do computers improve productivity? Do they increase the quality of projects and writing, while decreasing time? (Productivity is important to almost any workplace.)

And, of course, if we simply assume that computers will be present, this study simply does a very handy job of proving that technology use is not taught, not required, not supported, and hence is not effective in supporting all the other educational endeavors that students must pursue. In 25 words or less...stick a bunch of computers in a classroom, and nothing happens. As my youngest son would observe, "Well, duh!"

Since the world of technology is simply expanding, as educators we have no choice but to prepare ourselves and our peers for a reversal of the results of this study. There is no question that computer use has the potential to increase performance on a wide range of educational goals. It is simply up to us to make that happen! This study isn't so much an indictment of educational technology as it is a wake-up call to us, that, if we want to harvest what it offers, we've got to do better!

        --Jeffrey L. Jones, Editor