This article impressed me so much when I first read it a couple of years ago that I immediately remembered it when I saw it cited by Bas in his argumentative paragraph this week. I thought it showed very capable research skills on Bas's part, although I'm less sure as to exactly what the article does support.
In "Potential Adverse Effects of the 'One Tablet per Child' Policy", Dilaka Lathapipat of the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI), uses statistics from her own research to support a negative assessment of the Pheu Thai government's policy of providing a tablet computer device to all Thai students.
The statistics are presumably correct. But what conclusions about the tablet computer policy can we, and can we not, draw from them? How well do the figures provided support the writer's largely negative assessment?
For your convenience, the relevant statistics are:
- 6,192 (100%) fifteen year-old students were surveyed (how?)
- 945 (15.3%) used computers for educational purposes only (?). The academic performance of these students improved marginally (or were higher by) (?)
- 351 (5.7%) used computers for entertainment only (?). According to the writer, the correlation with, or effect on, academic performance is negative, with 16 and 11 point (?) drops (lower?) scores in science and mathematics respectively. I assume that these figures correctly report large differences that were found.
- 1,473 (23.8%) used computers for both educational and entertainment purposes. According to the writer, the correlation with, or effect on, academic performance is marginally positive. (?)
- 3,423 (55.3%) did not use or rarely used computers. This is the test group, for whom computers exert no positive or negative effect on science and math scores, or for whom there is no correlation due to the fact that they do not use them.
If you think we can confidently replace my uncertainties, indicated by ( ... ?), with something more definite, based on the content of the article, please help.
If you were reviewing and grading Lathapipat's opinion piece in The Nation, what grade would you give it? What review comments would you make?
The main distinction between popular magazines and academic journals is that journals send submitted work for peer review, and then back to the writer for revision, sometimes several times, before agreeing to publish, whereas magazines publish whatever the editor or editorial group likes. Were you the editor of The Nation, would you have published the article as it is, or would you have sent it back for revision?
__________
Reference
Lathapipat, D. (2011, September 12). Potential Adverse Effects of the 'One Tablet per Child' Policy. The Nation. Retrieved from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Potential-Adverse-Effects-of-the-One-Tablet-per-Ch-30165050.html
A couple of writers have cited sources from the excellent Economist, on the effects of One Laptop per Child (OLPC) projects in different countries. In "Error Message: Education in Peru", The Economist cites a report by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) evaluating the large OLPC project in Peru (2012a).
ReplyDeleteAccording to The Economist:
1. Does the IDB conclude that the OLPC project in Peru has improved student performance in math or language amongst students?
2. Does the IDB conclude that the OLPC is a good idea?
You might also like to consider similar questions regarding Thaland in "Let them eat tablets: Education in Thailand" (2012b). According to this article in The Economist have the tablets improved education standards among Thai students? Is the policy of providing a tablet for every student a bad idea?
Reference
Error Message: Education in Peru. (2012a, April 7. The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/21552202
Let them eat tablets: Education in Thailand. (2012b, June 16. The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/21556940
I was very pleased to see people successfully doing research that led them to these highly relevant articles in a respected international magazine. The use the writers made of them in their paragraphs was also effective, and correctly done.
DeletePerhaps it will be easier to narrow down to a single Yes/No question.
ReplyDeleteDoes The Economist think that projects such as Thailand's One Tablet per Child and Brazil's One Laptop per Child are sound investments in people?
Your answer is either Yes or No, and you think the other one is wrong. After you answer Yes or No, you will probably need a few sentences to support your idea against everyone who thinks the opposite.
I think you can support your answer from what is in the sources cited here only. There is no need to use any source not already cited in this discussion.
So, are you asserting and supporting "Yes" or "No"?