| CollegeHighway.com Login |
| Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name. |
| Trippin? |
 |
| Check Yourself |
 |
| Ephemerids |
One Day like Today...
|
| Welcome |
| You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here. |
 |
|
| Home / College Guide / The False Promise of Device-Based Education | ParentMap |
| Posted on Thursday, May 08 @ 00:00:26 PDT |
Photo:
Editor’s note: This article is an excerpt of a longer article which first ran in After Babel, a weekly newsletter from Jonathan Haidt and his team. It is reprinted here with permission. For more information on the youth mental health crisis, screen time and social media, and the need for increased play time for children, visit ParentMap’s Antidote for the Anxious Generation resources page.
“Screens in schools” refers to all device-based usage in educational settings, whether for learning or recreation. This includes two distinct yet often overlapping areas: Educational Technology (EdTech) and recreational screen time. While these two categories may seem mutually exclusive, they often overlap. For instance, students may use educational apps during downtime, access recreational YouTube videos on school networks, or bypass parental controls on personal devices by using school-issued devices.
Technology has always been a part of education (a pencil is technology) and computer-based learning has been around for decades (think Math Blaster or Oregon Trail). But since the early 21st century, and especially by the 2010s, the rapid adoption of digital devices has fundamentally changed education.
Today, digital devices are integrated into nearly every aspect of school life.
The anatomy of the problem
Technology will continue to be a part of everyday life years from now, and our students need to be comfortable and skilled with its use. Failing to teach our students the transformative aspects of modern digital technology would be negligent. The real question isn’t whether screens belong in schools — it’s about how to incorporate them in ways that teach unique skills or elevate learning while protecting students from negative outcomes. That’s where we’ve gone profoundly off track.
Screens in schools haven’t proven to be more effective than traditional methods.
Many school districts have adopted devices without a clear plan. This lack of a driving philosophy results in specious practices. Teachers are pressured to use devices and apps because districts have invested millions in technology. Without a sound philosophy and clear guidance, we see problematic EdTech use. For example, students using reading apps like Epic! can swipe through entire books in seconds to earn digital rewards, without actually reading. One parent told me her second grader “read” 40 books during 30 minutes of silent reading.
The teacher’s goal was to use the iPad and practice reading. The child’s goal was to collect badges and unlock a new avatar in the app. What we ended up with is a child who had 30 minutes of pointless screen time and no reading practice.
Screens in schools haven’t proven to be more effective than traditional methods. Instead, they may be contributing to academic and social-emotional challenges, while displacing the human connection students need most. The topic of screens and schools is complex and nuanced, so we have to look at each layer of the problem to gain insight into best practices. To begin to understand the potential costs of screens in schools, we must acknowledge five big myths that have led us to the misguided place we are today. The simplest place to start is the first layer of the problem: effectiveness.
Myth #1: EdTech is, on average, making kids smarter
Many educators have been led to believe that personalized learning apps, algorithms and educational games yield better outcomes than traditional teaching methods. It’s easy to assume that technology, with its sophistication and innovation, would naturally enhance education.
However, there’s a notable lack of independent, non-industry-funded data showing that EdTech is more effective than traditional methods.
While this doesn’t mean EdTech is never or could never be effective, the potential costs — both financial and to children’s well-being — should make us proceed with caution. In fact, there is ample data to suggest that we should pause and reconsider current EdTech practices.
Academic outcomes, from standardized tests to IQ scores, show that students aren’t getting smarter. How much technology has to do with these declines is still debated, but it is certainly a part of the picture. Shortly after the wide-spread adoption of school-issued devices, we began to see an alarming downturn in academic outcomes on the Nation’s Report Card beginning in 2012 that has only continued to worsen. While the pandemic is often blamed for the most recent declines, PISA data indicates “performance was already deteriorating before the pandemic” suggesting “other structural reasons for the decline.”
Global PISA Test Scores in Decline |
Declines in Math and Reading Since 2012 |
International data shows that countries with more digital technology use in classrooms tend to perform worse on PISA, when controlling for GDP per capita and past test scores. In fact, the OECD found that incorporating technology into the classroom has not shown any appreciable improvements in reading, math, or science outcomes.
There is enough evidence to make us question the effectiveness of screens in schools, and conversely, there is also convincing data in favor of traditional methods — specifically print reading and handwritten notes. Reading in print has the unique benefits of improved comprehension, recall, long-term memory, attention, working memory and a deeper knowledge of the material. Likewise, handwriting notes improves memory, recall and conceptual understanding of complicated material, while supporting brain development in young learners. Neglecting handwriting can hinder fine motor skills and areas of the brain used for reading.
Though we can’t definitively say that screens in schools are the sole cause of academic problems, it appears that the rise of EdTech has not led to better overall outcomes.
Myth #2: The delivery method doesn’t matter
The rapid adoption of digital technology in schools sends the message that using screens for educational purposes is harmless. It suggests that EdTech is “neutral,” with no more risk than traditional tools like pencils or paper. However, even if screen-based education was as effective as traditional methods academically, there are still significant losses in using screens as the primary delivery method.
One common form of EdTech is educational gaming, which may seem like a fun way to teach repetitive skills, such as math. But these games are often designed by for-profit companies whose primary goal is to maximize revenue through ad sales and upselling, not learning.
Devices bring with them a host of distractions, developmental concerns, and social-emotional issues that can’t be ignored, even in the context of learning.
Beyond academic effectiveness, educational games trigger dopamine responses, making it harder for students to focus on less stimulating activities later on. This compulsion loop pulls students toward screens for entertainment rather than engaging in more developmentally appropriate activities, such as playing with friends, reading a book, or practicing creativity. We often focus on whether an educational game “works” academically, but we ignore the compounding negative effect it may have on student focus and well-being.
The delivery method does matter. Simply using a device in an educational setting doesn’t negate its downsides. Devices bring with them a host of distractions, developmental concerns, and social-emotional issues that can’t be ignored, even in the context of learning.
Myth #3: EdTech is necessary to teach 21st century skills
Tech companies often push the idea that students need tech skills to succeed in the 21st century. Technology is fast-paced, exciting, and can, at times, require complex skills to navigate. We fear our children will be left behind if they are not on devices from a young age and preparing for jobs of the future.
The reality is, the skills students are more likely to miss are soft skills — critical thinking, collaboration, communication, problem-solving, interpersonal skills, creativity, and even simple eye-contact. These are the skills they’ll need to navigate the ever-changing landscape of technology and future workplaces.
Let’s look at three crucial 21st-century soft skills that screens in schools may actually be undermining: attention, self-control and creativity.
Attention: Current classroom practices with devices often teach distraction more than focus. Students might play overstimulating educational games, rush through assignments to get to recreational screen time, or read online articles instead of reading full-length books.
When students are frequently encouraged to fill downtime with screen use, their brains form automatic habits around device use, making it harder for them to focus on more demanding tasks, or on almost anything in the real world, because the real world is rarely as stimulating as a screen.
Adolescents, whose prefrontal cortex (responsible for judgment and impulse control) is still developing, are particularly vulnerable to distractions. Instead of learning to focus, they’re developing the habit of escaping from difficult tasks in favor of mindless digital activities.
The saturation of devices in school is hindering the development of self-control and setting many students up for failure.
Self-control: Self-control is linked to success in life, but it’s not something adolescents can develop on their own. Their executive functioning is still maturing, so adults need to help them build self-control and self-regulation skills.
The saturation of devices in school is hindering the development of self-control and setting many students up for failure. PISA 2022 data shows that a [quarter](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/53f23881-en/1/3/9/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/53f23881-en&_csp_=de697f9ada06fe758fbc0d6d8d2c70fa&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book) of students reported feeling distracted by the devices that other students were using in most or every class, and indicated that devices negatively affected the flow of class.
Creativity: While technology can enhance creativity, it can also limit it.
Creativity scores were rising for decades but began to [decline](https://www.newsweek.com/creativity-crisis-74665) in the 1990s, coinciding with the rise of technology replacing free play. The decline has been most pronounced in younger students. Creativity researcher Dr. Kyung Hee Kim [advises](https://www.amazon.com/Creativity-Challenge-Recapture-American-Innovation/dp/1633882152) that creativity is nurtured by promoting play, encouraging open-ended assignments, and fostering intrinsic motivation — factors that are often displaced by the nature of EdTech.
Myth #4: Kids (these days) need fun and engaging devices to learn
There’s no doubt that kids are drawn to screens like a moth to a flame. The lure is even stronger when it’s a personal device that they control. Many teachers may see devices as tools to keep students interested. But there’s a critical difference between genuine engagement in learning and attention hijacking. Students may appear focused on their screens, but often, it’s merely the device (not the material) that has captured their attention.
The constant presence of overstimulating devices and tools creates a never-ending competition to find something even more exciting to grab students’ attention.
But for kids today, devices are hardly novel — the average teenager spends nearly [nine hours a day](https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/8-18-census-integrated-report-final-web_0.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email) on recreational screen time alone. With the best of intentions, we try to grab student attention through exciting means, but this sets the bar of entertainment in education at a place that is unsustainable when learning gets hard and requires self-governed focus and attention.
Myth #5: Technology is connecting
In a world where everyone is just a text, Snap, or call away, it seems like human connection should be richer than ever. But does this digital interaction really make us feel more connected?
The reality is that technology is an impoverished substitute for in-person relationships. Despite endless ways to communicate digitally, our students are lonelier and more depressed than ever — [nearly 3 in 5 teen girls](https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2023/p0213-yrbs.html) report persistent sadness, and loneliness has [doubled](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140197121000853) in the past decade. Loneliness matters: having a [best friend at school](https://www.
theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/08/how-help-kids-like-school-better-loneliness/619881/) is the best predictor of engagement. What combats loneliness? Human presence, eye contact and feeling heard. Yet, in today’s schools, students are glued to devices in class and on their phones during downtime, leaving little room for genuine connection.
This disconnecting effect of technology is illustrated in a finding from [Jean Twenge, Jon Haidt, and their colleagues](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34294429/). They found that in the PISA dataset, there were six questions on loneliness at school. As you can see in the figure below, loneliness self-reports were stable until the 2012 data collection. But over the next few years, when iPads and Chromebooks began pouring into classrooms around the world, loneliness increased, around the world.
Rising School Alienation Since 2012 |
[Human connection](https://pesaagora.com/access-archive-files/ACCESSAV40N1_015.pdf) has a foundational significance in a teaching relationship. The [“best” teachers](https://www.npr.org/2024/08/29/nx-s1-5090895/teens-school-college-poll) aren’t great because of their tech tools; they’re great because students feel they care.
That bond [doesn’t exist](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/21/technology/silicon-valley-kansas-schools.html) with a computer-based learning program.
In “[The Anxious Generation](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0C9N2L56X/?bestFormat=true&k=the%20anxious%20generation%20by%20jonathan%20haidt&ref_=nb_sb_ss_w_scx-ent-pd-bk-d_de_k0_1_7&crid=10XSWV3YD4CYF&sprefix=the%20anx),” Jon Haidt refers to “experience blockers” and this concept applies to screens in schools as well. When devices dominate education, they displace essential activities that foster social-emotional growth. Instead of collaborating face-to-face, students often work silently and separately on their own devices. Instead of lively lunchtime conversations, they stare at screens. These moments of interaction are critical for learning life’s important lessons. As devices take over, we lose these little moments, eroding school culture and, more importantly, the connections that make us healthy and happy.
|
|
| |
|
|
