Sunday Commentary: Do Students Benefit From Unplugging?

I am a huge advocate for the integration of technology into schools. When I was a student, I would often have questions about the world and would have to consult my parents’ trusty encyclopedia collection. They were a good resource, but they were static. For instance, they were written in 1981, so if I wanted to look up AIDS, there was no mention of it.

That meant that I would have to search for answers at the local library. None of this was necessarily a bad thing, but it was slow and a bit inconvenient.

These days, I can look up the latest information and more on my computer or iPad. I can read newspapers from around the world. I can look up obscure facts and information. I can even research for my latest column – all at the tip of my fingertips.

Used correctly, technology can be a huge resource and tool for education – whether it be formal education or lifelong learning. However like many tools, it has upsides and downsides.

As recent op-ed by Susan Pinker in the New York Times, writes, “More technology in the classroom has long been a policy-making panacea.” However, she argues, “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.”

Part of the problem, I suspect, stems from educators lacking a comfort level with the technology itself. Many lack a clear sense of how to use it as a tool. And then there is the problem of unmonitored use by the students.

The research cited is a bit dated, but it is disconcerting nevertheless.

She notes, “In the early 2000s, the Duke University economists Jacob Vigdor and Helen Ladd tracked the academic progress of nearly one million disadvantaged middle-school students against the dates they were given networked computers. The researchers assessed the students’ math and reading skills annually for five years, and recorded how they spent their time. 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.

The researchers found that the students’ scores dropped and remained low during the course of the study. Moreover, it seems that technically created an achievement gap with the weaker students, statistically boys and African-Americans “more adversely affected than the rest.” Ms. Pinker notes, “When their computers arrived, their reading scores fell off a cliff.”

The problem, she speculates, is one of supervision. “With no adults to supervise them, many kids used their networked devices not for schoolwork, but to play games, troll social media and download entertainment.” She notes, “And why not? Given their druthers, most adults would do the same.”

She continues, “The problem is the differential impact on children from poor families. Babies born to low-income parents spend at least 40 percent of their waking hours in front of a screen — more than twice the time spent by middle-class babies. They also get far less cuddling and bantering over family meals than do more privileged children. The give-and-take of these interactions is what predicts robust vocabularies and school success. Apps and videos don’t.”

She adds, “If children who spend more time with electronic devices are also more likely to be out of sync with their peers’ behavior and learning by the fourth grade, why would adding more viewing and clicking to their school days be considered a good idea?”

“An unquestioned belief in the power of gadgetry has already led to educational snafus. Beginning in 2006, the nonprofit One Laptop Per Child project envisioned a digital utopia in which all students over 6 years old, worldwide, would own their own laptops. Impoverished children would thus have the power to go online and educate themselves — no school or teacher required. With laptops for poor children initially priced at $400, donations poured in,” she continues.

The program, however, didn’t work.

None of this is to suggest that technology does not have a place in education. She writes, “Technology does have a role in education.”

However, it must be as Randy Yerrick, a professor of education at the University at Buffalo, told her, “It is worth the investment only when it’s perfectly suited to the task, in science simulations, for example, or to teach students with learning disabilities.”

The other key is must be deployed by a well-trained teacher.

As we know from our recent discussion on sleep issues, the problem of technology extends beyond the classroom.

An August 2014 release from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in addition to recommending a later start time, noted that sleep deprivation has reached epidemic proportion, as a “National Sleep Foundation poll found 59 percent of 6th through 8th graders and 87 percent of high school students in the U.S. were getting less than the recommended 8.5 to 9.5 hours of sleep on school nights.”

The report cites a number of reasons for teens’ lack of sleep, including “homework, extracurricular activities, after-school jobs and use of technology that can keep them up late on week nights.”

“The AAP recommends pediatricians counsel teens and parents about healthy sleep habits, including enforcing a media curfew,” they write.

Increasing research shows that children and teens who surf the internet or text prior to bedtime are likely to have problems falling asleep, and also “experience mood, behavior and cognitive problems during the day.” That is according to research from Dr. Peter Polos and colleagues at the JFK Medical Center in New Jersey.

As the school district looks at a later start time, Board Vice President Madhavi Sunder also vowed to look into these issues as well.

“Changing our bell schedule is a critical step. And we can do more. Our curriculum should make sure to educate children about good sleep habits and sleep science,” Ms. Sunder told the Vanguard. “We need to educate parents on what they can do to help children fall asleep at a decent time.”

“One very helpful recommendation shared at a recent DJUSD Parent Engagement Night was to turn electronics off an hour before bedtime — and to even ban electronics from the bedroom during sleep hours,” she said. “We will need to take a holistic approach to this critical public health issue facing our teens and our society at large.”

The issue here is not that technology is bad or that we should stop attempting to integrate technology into the curriculum. Instead, we have three key suggestions.

First, do not integrate technology for the sake of technology. As Professor Yerrick suggested, use technology in places where it is suited for the task.

Second, incorporating technology does not and should not mean unmonitored access to the technology around the clock.

Third, educate parents on the importance of sleep and the impact of technology on sleep. As we have noted, studies increasingly show that the use of electronic devices impacts sleep patterns and alters chemistry.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Categories:

Tags: