Can Students Have Too Much Tech?

theodp writes: In a NY Times Op Ed, developmental psychologist Susan Pinker goes against the conventional White House wisdom about the importance of Internet connectivity for schoolchildren and instead argues that students can have too much tech. "More technology in the classroom has long been a policy-making panacea," Pinker writes. "But mounting evidence shows that showering students, especially those from struggling families, with networked devices will not shrink the class divide in education. If anything, it will widen it." Tech can help the progress of children, Pinker acknowledges, but proper use is the rub. As a cautionary tale, Pinker cites a study by Duke economists that tracked the academic progress of nearly one million disadvantaged middle-school students against the dates they were given networked computers. The news was not good. "Students who gain access to a home computer between the 5th and 8th grades tend to witness a persistent decline in reading and math scores," the economists wrote, adding that license to surf the Internet was also linked to lower grades in younger children.

Comments

Tools make it easier to accomplish tasks.

[Anonymous Coward]

A general purpose computer is a powerful tool for many tasks. However like all tools some personal discovery and possibly training to aid that discovery are required to make the best use of the tool.

Just throwing money, or tools of any kind, at a given problem isn't going to inherently address the problem. Tools need actual critical thinking and artistry of use taught to be effective.

Re:Tools make it easier to accomplish tasks.

[TWX]

A general purpose computer is only useful if the student is willing to use it for a certain specific purpose. Given that there's a whole lot of temptation to use it for things that the student wants to do, rather than the things that the student is supposed to do, it can be incredibly easy to not be productive with the very machine that was intended to increase productivity.

I don' think that general-purpose computers should be used in schools without software to limit the use of the computers. That can be for a duration, like during class time or during the school day, or it can be full-time, so that a computer is still limited to its intended function in its entirety, but leaving computers open to do anything just means that much more opportunity to not do work.

Re:Tools make it easier to accomplish tasks.

[Livius]

Just throwing money, or tools of any kind, at a given problem isn't going to inherently address the problem.

Throwing money at a problem generally leads to a well-funded problem, not a solution.

Who did they compare against?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who were these "one million disadvantaged middle-school students" compared to in order to determine that there was a "persistent decline in reading and math scores"?

Were they compared against their own scores from earlier testing?

What's to say that the decline wouldn't have happened anyway over the same time period, even if they hadn't been exposed to computers and the Internet?

Ages 11 to 15 are when many "disadvantaged" (that is, black) youth start to get involved with gangs, drugs, violence, and not going to school. We can see this in any major American city, and even most smaller ones. With over 95% of black youth being affiliated with one or more gangs in some areas, which usually results in a failure to attend school, I can't see how there wouldn't be a decline.

What's the real problem here? Is it computers and the Internet, or is it really just the toxic modern black culture that glorifies harmful behavior and shuns self-improvement? Are the researchers unable or unwilling to admit what the real problem is?

This pays credence to my rant about tech

[bogaboga]

Yes, I have never liked tech in class. Never!

"Students who gain access to a home computer between the 5th and 8th grades tend to witness a persistent decline in reading and math scores," the economists wrote, adding that license to surf the Internet was also linked to lower grades in younger children.

About me: I am a former full-time teacher:

Now my $0.02.

That's why kids from the so called "third world," that come here consistently beat our own kids in all subjects that really matter. Why? Their brains were conditioned to think. They only used PCs if they had any, at home. And only when homework was complete. Homework done the "old fashined" way.

Look folks, there's so much distraction in class that kids can't really learn. It's hard for such young minds to focus. The trouble is that our learned colleagues submit studies that are clearly biased, and what can you say? The contract to supply the latest gadget is inked! It's a sad state of affairs now. The so called "third world kids" when here, quickly catch up with tech and do even better. Is anyone listening?

The web can be a great tool...

[Radical Moderate]

...or a great distraction. Not too surprising that handing a kid a tablet and turning him loose doesn't work out too well, but what do I know, I've only work in educational IT for 20 years. A properly supported computer (don't try to make teachers into sys admins) supervised by a properly trained teacher can be very useful in a classroom setting. But training and support are expensive and unsexy, so who the hell wants that?

The tests are the problem.

[blue trane]

Students can be motivated in other ways than by tests and grades. Using tests and grades really teaches kids that they should dislike school.

Alfie Kohn makes The Case Against Grades.

A favorite passage:

although teachers may be required to submit a final grade, there's no requirement for them to decide unilaterally what that grade will be. Thus, students can be invited to participate in that process either as a negotiation (such that the teacher has the final say) or by simply permitting students to grade themselves. If people find that idea alarming, it's probably because they realize it creates a more democratic classroom, one in which teachers must create a pedagogy and a curriculum that will truly engage students rather than allow teachers to coerce them into doing whatever they're told. In fact, negative reactions to this proposal ("It's unrealistic!") point up how grades function as a mechanism for controlling students rather than as a necessary or constructive way to report information about their performance.

Re:This is not new.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can read a Superman comic or a physics book. You can watch the A-Team or the Science Guy. You can play Call of Duty or write a recursive descent parser. Technology isn't the problem, but it's also not the great equalizer. It's what you do with it that advances you or holds you back. Technology is an accelerator, an amplifier, in every direction.

Re:This is not new.

[ShanghaiBill]

TFA is conflating very different issues:
1. "Tech in the classroom" is NOT the same thing as "teaching tech". Just dumping a bunch of laptops and iPads into a classroom accomplishes nothing. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't teach programming to kids. They are completely different issues.
2. "The digital divide" is NOT a problem. It is a symptom. The problem is dumb/poor kids doing poorly. The fact that other kids are doing well is a good thing, not a bad thing. We should focus on ALL kids doing better, not closing the gap by pulling the smart kids down.