Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

New Technology in Schools: Is There a Payoff?

Contents:

Author Info

  • Stephen Machin
  • Sandra McNally
  • Olmo Silva

Abstract

In recent years the role of investment in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) as an effective tool to raise educational standards has attracted growing attention from both policy makers and academic researchers. While the former tend to express enthusiastic claims about the use of new technologies in schools, the latter have raised concerns about the methodological validity of much of the research undertaken. The view that ICT could help to raise educational standards dates back to the Fifties, and builds on some of the original findings by the Harvard psychologist Skinner (1954, 1958). More recently, support for the effectiveness of ICT as a teaching and learning device comes from the educational literature. Yet results are generally inferred from simple correlations between ICT and pupil performance, without taking full account of other factors (such as school characteristics, resources and quality) that may be related to both ICT resources and pupil outcomes. These methodological short-comings cast serious doubt on the validity of most of the existing research which finds a positive relationship between computers (and/or computer software) and student outcomes. In contrast, the small number of economic studies that address these issues by applying more rigorous methods of analysis, report no evidence for a positive impact of ICT on pupil outcomes. In recent years, and in parallel with the widespread belief that new technologies account for much of the productivity resurgence in workplaces in the Nineties (see Jorgenson and Stiroh, 2000), the UK government has motivated its sizable ICT investment in schools by stressing the importance of ICT in raising educational standards and creating opportunities for every child. The positive rhetoric about ICT in the UK has been backed up by considerable government investment. Starting from 1997, the government has encouraged the widespread use of ICT for teaching and learning in schools: formal plans were set-up u

(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://cee.lse.ac.uk/ceedps/ceedp55.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Centre for the Economics of Education, LSE in its series CEE Discussion Papers with number 0055.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Jan 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cep:ceedps:0055

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://cee.lse.ac.uk/publications.htm

Related research

Keywords: information and communication technology (ICT); pupil achievement;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Angrist, Joshua & Lavy, Victor, 2001. "New Evidence on Classroom Computers and Pupil Learning," IZA Discussion Papers 362, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  2. Orley Ashenfelter & Alan Krueger, 1992. "Estimates of the Economic Return to Schooling from a New Sample of Twins," Working Papers 683, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
  3. Abhijit Banerjee & Shawn Cole & Esther Duflo & Leigh Linden, 2005. "Remedying Education: Evidence from Two Randomized Experiments in India," NBER Working Papers 11904, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. Rouse, Cecilia Elena & Krueger, Alan B., 2004. "Putting computerized instruction to the test: a randomized evaluation of a "scientifically based" reading program," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 323-338, August.
  5. Thomas Fuchs & Ludger Wossmann, 2004. "Computers and student learning: bivariate and multivariate evidence on the availability and use of computers at home and at school," Brussels Economic Review, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles, vol. 47(3-4), pages 359-386.
  6. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2002. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?," NBER Working Papers 8841, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  7. Leuven, Edwin & Lindahl, Mikael & Oosterbeek, Hessel & Webbink, Dinand, 2004. "The Effect of Extra Funding for Disadvantaged Pupils on Achievement," IZA Discussion Papers 1122, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  8. Dale W. Jorgenson & Kevin J. Stiroh, 2000. "Raising the Speed Limit: U.S. Economic Growth in the Information Age," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 31(1), pages 125-236.
  9. Austan Goolsbee & Jonathan Guryan, 2002. "The Impact of Internet Subsidies in Public Schools," NBER Working Papers 9090, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  10. Joshua D. Angrist & Guido W. Imbens, 1995. "Average Causal Response with Variable Treatment Intensity," NBER Technical Working Papers 0127, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
This item has more than 25 citations. To prevent cluttering this page, these citations are listed on a separate page.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cep:ceedps:0055. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.