Written by Mr. B – (No A.I.) – 100% human 🙂
This seems to be a constant debate these days at our school. Does an over reliance on digital materials (screens) stunt student development?
Sweden’s educational system is making news by officially announcing a movement away from digital learning to a more “old-school” paper/pencil type of learning because of “falling literacy levels”. Sweden’s liberal government while in power had mandated digital learning for all students, even very young students starting in the 2000’s. This was to encourage students to be technological literate and make sure students were prepared for the digital world. This early adoption of tech heavy learning seemed to yield promising results as per capita Sweden has the most “unicorn” tech companies in all of Europe, notably Spotify. Literacy rates as measured by traditional means plummeted, however, especially during the Pandemic. Did digital learning take the blame unfairly?
“The compulsory use of tablets in pre-schools was included in the curriculum in 2019, as part of the previous Social Democrat-led government’s mission to prepare even the youngest children for an increasingly digital work and private life.” – BBC – Back To Books – Sweden’s School’s Cutting Back On Digital Learning
Critics of this move back to what I will term “educational fundamentalism” say that, like it or not, the world runs on computers. Technology literacy and mastery will be critical to anyone trying gain employment in the workforce of the future.
“Everybody needs digital basic skills in order to enter the workforce,” argues Jannie Jeppesen, the association’s CEO and a former teacher. She cites a recent EU report which estimates that 90% of jobs will soon require digital skills. – BBC – Back To Books – Sweden’s School’s Cutting Back On Digital Learning
It is feared if Sweden does not create the type of IT experts that are needed for the demands of the Tech industry, high paying jobs will go elsewhere where students are better versed in technology.
Too much time on screens in general has been shown to have a negative impact on child development in a disturbingly measured way according to The Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development.
The Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development cohort study found a long-lasting connection between early screen media exposure and cognitive abilities, with each one-hour increase in TV exposure at two years of age corresponding to a 7% unit decrease in participation in class and a 6% unit decrease in math proficiency in the fourth grade.
It has become increasingly difficult to argue that children should have access to unlimited screen time. This may be one of the strongest arguments for restricting student use of digital learning tools in classrooms.
According to a report done by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) cited on the American Academy of Pediatrics website, teens in particular are spending an average of 8 hours and 39 minutes per day on screens in one form or another.
“From 2015 to 2021, teens ages 13 to 18 years old averaged 8 hours and 39 minutes of media use per day. Another report from the CDC shows that 55% of teenagers aged 15-17 were more likely than their younger peers (12-14) to have 4 or more hours of daily media use. 79% of the teens surveyed stated that they are regular users of social media. Teens are spending an hour and a half on social media, most frequently using Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, Discord, and Twitter/X. Additionally, teen boys are averaging 9 hours and 16 minutes of media use while girls are averaging 8 hours and 2 minutes. Teens are also starting to explore podcasts during this age range with 22% of them saying they enjoy listening to podcasts. ” – American Academy of Pediatrics
Tweens (8-13) come in slightly lower on average daily use at 6 hours and 11 minutes for boys and 4 hours 55 minutes for girls. Early Childhood (2-8) average 2 hours and 8 minutes.
Recommendations Regarding Screen Time
A common sense approach used by clinicians as a guide called “The 5 C’s of Media Use” coined by Lisa Guernsey encourages discussion about how the child is relating to media in a variety of ways rather than just shutting down access as a solution. What type of content are they viewing? Is it helping them explore interests that are positive? Is it overly commercialized content? Does it encourage violence, unrealistic beauty standards, or rude-role modeling?
Poor media choices can be substituted for better ones with close supervision to lessen the negative impacts of screen time. This method can also turn the child’s use of media into a potential “teaching moments” about values that can be beneficial to both child and guardian/parent. Discussions on what is being “crowded out” by excessive media usage are also encouraged under this method, which can lead to shared ownership of the issue and its solutions. This process encourages the literacy and critical thinking skills that make up what we call “literacy”. It is also helpful to turn on captions for video content to encourage reading and listening. This is a great way to “sneak in” extra reading for kids if going outside to play is not an option for whatever reason.
Nonetheless, these numbers are somewhat staggering, however critics would argue there is always problems with how these numbers are arrived at and which specific skills are being measured and how. The elephant in the room may be the skills and abilities that are not being measured due to the unpredictability of learning in the first place. In short, are we measuring all possible outcomes or just the a handful of ones that we think are relevant? A valid point…
How Should Education Systems Adapt Instructional Strategies?
The consensus and the data seem to point to more screen time as detrimental to student learning, however, we do have to consider the hidden externalities that may be lurking in the data not measured by standardized tests and its overall causes. If students are constantly taking in language in the form of videos (audio language) hopefully with closed captions on (written language) and doing complex problem solving (video games), how in the world are literacy rates/critical thinking skills going down?
Unfortunately, the research guiding our understanding of the impact of screen media on health and wellbeing is further complicated by inconsistent or inaccurate research measures. As research studies move forward, social media researchers must go beyond measurements of screen time to better understand how social media impacts health and well-being for adolescents.
While I certainly do not advocate for unlimited screen time for children, in regards to literacy, I am not sure digital learning platforms are the cause of the problem in the classroom. A big part of the problem is that students are inundated with digital media outside the classroom to begin with. By the time they sit down in class, their brains are already on information overload and when the brain gets time to “take a break” by listening to a teacher, or staring at a book, they naturally start to lose alertness because this is not the brain’s preferred modality of taking in information.
“Despite several positive aspects of digital media, which include the capability to effortlessly communicate with peers, even over a long distance, and their being used as training tools for students and the elderly, detrimental effects on our brains and minds have also been suggested. Neurological consequences have been observed related to internet/gaming addiction, language development, and processing of emotional signals.”
The impact of the digital revolution on human brain and behavior: where do we stand? – NIH
I can speak from experience on this as a 20+ year veteran educator. That is not to say it is bad to use paper books, packets, and such, but it is a completely different way to take in information and typically a less preferred one by the brain of information age children due to neuroplasticity. So the question is then, how to maximize the positive effects, while minimizing the negative.
The Pure Educational Fundamentalist Approach
Every teacher, homeschool parent, and instructor of any type will have to decide how they will present materials to their learners. The pure educational fundamentalist approach would suggest using strictly only textbooks, paper and pencil materials, as well as paper/pencil tests. There is substantial support for this in academic research especially in relation to language development in younger children as well as older ones:
In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) published strict guidelines about children’s screen time. And—announced a law (Assembly Bill 272) that permits schools to restrict smartphone usage. These actions were taken after results were published implicating intensive digital media use in reducing working memory capacity1–3 ; in psychological problems, from depression to anxiety and sleep disorders4,5 ; and in influencing the level of text comprehension while reading on screens.6,7 The latter is a rather surprising example showing that reading complex stories or interconnected facts in a printed book leads to better recall of the story, of details, and of the connection between facts than reading the same text on screen.7–9 The reason for the astonishing results, considering that the words on a light emitting diode (LED) screen or in a printed book are the same, seems to be related to how we use associations of facts with spatial and other sensory cues: the location on a page in a book we read something in addition, for instance, to the fact that each book smells differently seems to boost recall.9
The impact of the digital revolution on human brain and behavior: where do we stand? – NIH
The Pros of Pure Educational Fundamentalism
In addition to these benefits students would presumably not have the multitude of distractions that come from computing devices, especially cell phones with internet ready capabilities. The hope is that with less distraction and more hands on materials, students will do better in regards to critical thinking and literacy as well as potentially more social connection in classrooms, deeper discussions, and a heartier cognitive process in general (no instant answers). The instructor would also not need to worry about whether students were using A.I. in class to complete work, although once the work went home, there would be no way to effectively monitor this. It is also would be relatively easy to tell who is on and off task.
Instructors would have a more hands on approach to grading as well as assessing student progress potentially. Handwriting issues are a key way to spot learning difficulties and/or diagnose learning disabilities to the trained eye. Typed writing tends to make these issues less apparent. According to research conducted at Baylor University:
- Devices lead to multitasking. With computers or tablets, the distractibility of multitasking results in poorer focus and attention, negatively affecting the quality of their notes (Fried, 2008; Fisher, 2015; May, 2017). Even when students know they are being monitored, they use the internet for non-learning-related activities (Ravizza, Uitvlugt, & Fenn, 2017).
- Devices distract students’ neighbors. When students are seated close to another student’s laptop, their potential to be distracted by their fellow classmates significantly increases (Sana, Weston, & Cepeda, 2013).
This seems to indicate that technology itself is a major distraction for students. Multi-tasking with multiple tabs open on a screen is inherently distracting. Not only that, but the devices themselves may distract others, especially if students are doing “non-learning” related activities.
The Cons of Pure Educational Fundamentalism
Some problems with this approach include: limiting student access to potential current information via internet sources, lack of guidance in navigating the internet in a social academic context, missing out on building on one’s technological skills such as building websites, collaborative projects, and student not benefiting from more Lexile appropriate (reading level)customizations in the curriculum.
This also could require much more prep and grading time for the instructor depending on the material. Most teachers are not against working harder for better results from students, but there are only so many hours in a day. Additionally, many classrooms range from crowded to overcrowded with inequalities in access to expensive materials such as textbooks commonplace. Getting paper copies of key materials is time consuming and expensive in the best of circumstances. Limited on site copy machines that are frequently jammed can be a huge logistical problem for schools and districts.
Another potential problem is student boredom. Students do not typically read paper books in their spare time unless it is a requirement in my observation as a 20+ year high-school educator. It is something most of them find tedious and boring because they are used to the “eye candy” of digital media. According to the groundbreaking research of John Hattie and his measurements of yearlong effect size of certain observable characteristics of classrooms based on thousands of classrooms over decades of time, boredom will cause students to lose on average a half a grade level of literacy per year with a negative effect size of -0.49.
“John Hattie developed a way of synthesizing various influences in different meta-analyses according to their effect size (Cohen’s d). In his ground-breaking study “Visible Learning” he ranked 138 influences that are related to learning outcomes from very positive effects to very negative effects. Hattie found that the average effect size of all the interventions he studied was 0.40. Therefore he decided to judge the success of influences relative to this ‘hinge point’, in order to find an answer to the question “What works best in education?” – Hattie Ranking: 252 Influences and Effect Sizes Related to Student Achievement
Further….
“Academic boredom is a “silent” but complex and non-trivial aspect of achievement emotion that is negatively associated with optimal learning in formal educational settings (Pekrun et al., 2002, 2010; Pekrun, 2006; Acee et al., 2010). It can impair learners’ physical and psychological health, which, in turn, can harm their perceptions of their abilities, leading to feelings of inadequacy .”
The Happy Learner: Effects of Academic Boredom, Burnout, and Engagement – NIH Database
It would therefore follow that whatever strategies the instructor decides on using, must be able to hold students attention first and foremost. This could be a tall order given student pre-conditioning to digital media as a means of holding attention for teachers to overcome in an often already challenging under resourced setting.
The Best of Both Worlds? The Hybrid Approach…
To be continued…. Let me know what you think if you got this far 🙂
What are your thoughts on this?