Tablet use was again negatively correlated with reading scores nationwide, and in some states on ... [+]
Research released today by the Reboot Foundation sheds new light on the effect of devices on learning.
The new analysis builds on an earlier study. Last summer, the foundation released a paper that showed a weak link between technology use and student learning.
For example, Reboot’s earlier analysis of data from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) found little positive correlation between self-reported classroom technology use and student performance — and some evidence of a negative correlation.
The more worrying results were drawn from 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data, and they showed a clear negative correlation between tablet use and reading test scores. Fourth graders who reported tablet use in “all or almost all” of their classes scored 14 points worse on the exam — equivalent to a full grade level.
At the Reboot Foundation, the research team studied the most recent NAEP data, which were released on October 30 of this year, and found many of the same disturbing trends.
Tablet use was again negatively correlated with reading scores nationwide, and in some states on some indicators, there were highly alarming trends. In Rhode Island, for example, fourth-graders who used tablets “in all or almost all classes” performed 38 points worse on the reading exam than those who “never” used it. Other areas with large gaps included Arkansas, Missouri and the District of Columbia.
The Reboot team also found troubling results in classrooms where students used computers for English. Students in D.C., Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan who used a computer for reading and writing work for four or more hours a day did 29 or points worse than their peers who used computers for language arts work for 30 minutes or less.
These data match up with other studies, and it’s clear that reading on screens doesn’t offer the same experience as reading on paper. It’s difficult to say exactly why but studies have suggested that the missing tactile experience can cause deficits in comprehension. These differences may be even more keenly felt with young students who don’t yet have a wealth of reading experience — and who perhaps already spend too much time on screens outside of school.
The Reboot team also found evidence of a “ceiling” on the benefits of technology. Students who report some technology use in their classrooms perform better than those who use none at all. But those gains have limits, and those who report using technology often or all the time perform worse than students who use it less frequently.
There are many caveats. For one, the data the Reboot team analyzed is correlational, and so the research can’t establish definitive proof that technology use is the cause of the test score deficits. Still, the analysis clearly suggests that educators and policymakers exercise caution with ed-tech.
What’s more, the data showed that educational technology can offer benefits, and the data showed more promise for technology use in math education, for instance. More broadly, technology can also bring other advantages, and devices can allow students of differing abilities to work at different paces — and can enable teachers to track individual student progress more easily.
In short, the data is no reason for Luddism. Instead, educators, students and parents need to exercise caution as analysts explore more deeply the educational potential of devices — and devote more resources to better understanding how students learn best and what tools are most beneficial.
In the end, my hope is that educators can take advantage of the potential of technology to supplement learning without letting it transform classrooms for the worse.
