I keep trying to put down the topic of technology in the classroom, and I keep finding it impossible. Last week two things arrived in my inbox.
The first is a short article summarizing decade long research comparing reading comprehension from a screen with comprehension from paper. The conclusions were unambiguous: reading from screens harms comprehension compared to reading from paper. This is one of the first articles I’ve read in some time offering such clear conclusions:
“More evidence is in: Reading from screens harms comprehension.”
“One likely reason: Readers using screens tend to think they’re processing and understanding texts better then they actually are.”
Virginia Clinton, heading up the study says, “Reading from screens had a negative effect on reading performance relative to paper.”
and,
“There is legitimate concern that reading on paper may be better in terms of performance and efficiency.”
Reading this threw me back into memory. Sitting in the Henier auditorium, at the community college where I work part time, listening to a recent PhD graduate from the University of Washington (forgive me for forgetting her name), report her research findings on reading comprehension and technology. Her findings seemed contradictory to me. She reported finding that young readers reading from iPads comprehended the content at similar levels but were slower in reporting it because they were interested in describing the technology.
For example, if a student read a paper copy of a picture book and was asked comprehension questions they immediately discussed the content. If a student read the same picture book from an iPad and was asked the same comprehension questions, they discussed what buttons they pressed, and the interactions with technology before they discussed content. The researcher presenting dismissed the delay, but it stood out as alarming to me. As a parent and as a teacher efficiency is important to me. My top rules for technology in my personal life and in my classrooms are:
- It must add to life
- It must not distract from life
Her conclusions were that reading from the iPad added nothing additional to reading from a book, and that it distracted from content.
This experience was confounded further when I raised my hand and asked her about the thirty-year study called The Elephant in the Living Room: Making TV work for your family, that came out of the University of Washington. She hadn’t read it.
I have tried to be very measured in my analysis of technology and its impact on learning. It becomes increasingly harder to understand why some schools insist on continual use of screens. I have been grateful to my district. The attitude form my district tech office is this:
- Technology must add to student learning
- Technology must not distract from student learning
Sounds familiar. I think my district has found a solid balance. The reality is technology is here and ubiquitous in a way we cannot deny the need for students to become savvy users of it. But I’m increasingly concerned that key, critical thought, is glossed over or ignored in other places. My children’s district has adopted a 1:1 policy. Students now spend hours and hours in front of screens. All assignments are on screens, homework is on screens, pictures of students working on science, math, social studies, and language arts sent home in newsletters largely feature students looking into the windows of their laptops. Students study local landforms, metabolism, and character analysis through Google maps, One Note handouts, and by watching Harry Potter films. I asked my son what book he has been required to read as a seventh grade student and he had to think about it, for a few beats (mostly because he is a voracious reader and I’m sure he was working through the list of books he has recently completed) and then said: The Maze Runner.
Then this document arrived in my inbox: The Healthy-Tech Promise. It is a nicely worded document acknowledging that technology is not always healthy, that it is part of our world, and that my children’s school district is committed to teaching healthy usage. Well written, from the heart, and very well intended, this document seems like solid educational policy. What concerns me are the things it glosses over and the deep assumptions that run through it.
The main assumption I find concerning is this document assumes the only negative impact of technology is human use. It focuses its concerns around bullying and distraction, both human elements. If one assumes the technology is inherently good, then the problems must come from the people using it. Bullying. Distraction from the over use of entertainment. These are problems, but from where I sit they miss the deeper, and larger, problem. The medium itself should concern us.
When was the last time a school district had to create a healthy use policy for something it required of students? Is there a “use books/pencils/bodies/brains in healthy ways policy?” It wasn’t necessary because for the first time schools are putting a tool in student’s hands, requiring them to use it, that potentially can harm their learning—despite what teachers teach.
That last phrase is the key. All knowledge is powerful. All learning tools powerful. All minds can impact the world for good and for evil, but every piece of educational technology or educational tool prior to screens required an individual to make choices, to take conscious actions and enact them on the world. Now, as the above research shows, the educational tool both harms and creates the double bind of inefficiency, which is muddled with the belief that it works better than it does.
Does that alarm you? It sends reverberations of panic through my body. The science is proving the naysayers right. Orwell. Huxley. McLuhan. Postman. Birkerts. Carr. These individuals providing warnings since the industrial revolution have continually had their predictions play out in concrete reality. This research is not ambiguous.
Why is there not more concern and outrage on this? How is it groups willing to ban books are not willing to fight to ban screens? State test scores are dropping, because reading comprehension from screens is inefficient. The decision of the state to use technology in this way is directly impacting student lives in negative ways. For the life of me, I cannot find a way to see this problem as anything less than ethically irresponsible. The district feels the opposite, that they are being ethically responsible because they are using the tools of our time and attempting to keep kids from hurting each other with it. I get it. I just think they are wrong.
I, with the support of my district tech department, have made a commitment to students using technology for production over consumption. Computers are fantastic for producing (here I am typing away). I limit consumption on a screen in every way I can in my classroom. I also limit time on chrome books and restrict cell phones. I promise students will put their faces in books, challenging books, and towards each other every single day. As a mentor and good friend once said to me, the number one rule of teaching is: do no harm. So when I read “screens harm comprehension…” alarm bells are set ringing.
Restricting students from screens during the day (especially cell phones) can feel like trying to keep the tide from coming in—with your hands. I understand 1:1 as a way of joining society’s willingness to anesthetize itself with screens and trying to control it, trying to maximize the benefits of specific types of screen time, to emphasize the productive possibilities over the entertainment screens provide, to make the best educational opportunity out of a tough situation. But, while schools must react to society and culture, they can also influence it. Mindful use of technology is absolutely necessary. The research is also showing that limiting time on screens is just flat out better for both mind and body. The more I read, write, think about this situation, the more I cannot help but implore educators everywhere to ask themselves every time they put student faces into screens: What distinct advantage does the screen add to this learning? Can it be done equally with face to face or face to paper interactions? Do I have a balance of screen time vs people time in my classroom? Is the screen work better, or just easier? Of course everyone will have different answers, differing degrees of what is acceptable. I just hope we don’t stop asking.