A growing number of studies conclude that students perform worse on tests when they take them online than when the questions are on paper.
A study published by MIT and conducted at the U.S. Military Academy found that the students who did not use computers scored significantly higher than those who did.
The researchers suggested that removing laptops and iPads from classes was the equivalent of improving the quality of teaching.
The study divided 726 undergraduates randomly into three groups in the 2014-15 and 2015-16 academic years. The control group’s classrooms were “technology-free,” meaning students were not allowed to use laptops or tablets at their desk. Another group was allowed to use computers and other devices, and the third group had restricted access to tablets.
“The results from our randomised experiment suggest that computer devices have a substantial negative effect on academic performance,” the researchers concluded, suggesting that the distraction of an electronic device complete with internet access outweighed their use for note-taking or research during lessons.
The research had an unusual twist: the students involved were studying at the West Point academy in the US, where cadets are ruthlessly ranked by exam results, meaning they were motivated to perform well and may have been more disciplined than typical undergraduates.
But even for the cream of the US army’s future crop, the lure of the digital world appears to have been too much, and exam performance after a full course of studying economics was lower among those in classes allowed to use devices.
“Our results indicate that students perform worse when personal computing technology is available. It is quite possible that these harmful effects could be magnified in settings outside of West Point,” the researchers concluded.
The Hechinger Report reported that writing online essays may contribute to a widening of the achievement gap.
The U.S. Department of Education launched a study of fourth graders using computers for writing compared to fourth graders using paper and pencil.
High-performing students did substantially better on the computer than with pencil and paper. But the opposite was true for average and low-performing students. They crafted better sentences using pencil and paper than they did using the computer. Low-income and black and Hispanic students tended to be in this latter category.
“(T)he use of the computer may have widened the writing achievement gap,” concluded the working paper, “Performance of fourth-grade students in the 2012 NAEP computer-based writing pilot assessment.” If so, that has big implications as test makers, with the support of the Department of Education, move forward with their goal of moving almost all students to computerized assessments, which are more efficient and cheaper to grade.
In the study, high-performing students — the top 20 percent of the test takers — produced an average of 179 words per assignment on the computer, three times the number of words that the bottom 20 percent produced. They also used spellcheck, backspace and other editing tools far more often. The researchers found that these high-performing students were more likely to have access to a computer and the Internet at home.
But these high achievers were in the minority. More than two-thirds of fourth-graders’ responses received scores in the bottom half of a 6-point scoring scale that rated grammar and writing quality. Overall, the average fourth-grader typed a total of 110 words per assignment, far less than the 159-word average on the 2010 paper test.
In looking for explanations for the disparity in performance, it seems likely that the high-performing students are more familiar with computers than low-performing students or even those in the middle.
But it is also likely, at least to me, that it is easier to read and re-read a passage when it is on paper than to read it online. Some young children may have difficulty scrolling up and down the page.
And there may be a difference in recall associated with the medium. That requires further study.
Let me confess that I have tried and failed to read books on a Kindle or similar device. It is easy to lose your place; it is hard to find it again. Maybe the difficulty is age-related; after all, I have only been using a computer for 32 years and began using it as an adult. Children who grow up in the digital age may not have the same visual problem that I have in reading large blocs of text. But it will take more studies to figure out when it is beneficial to use the computer and when it is not. Unfortunately policymakers have rushed into online instruction and online assessments on the assumption (untested) that there are no downsides. They do this, as the Hechinger Report says, because the computer makes it easier and cheaper to grade tests. Standardization has some benefits. But it also has drawbacks. We should be aware of both.
I am not sure the high performing students do better on a computer because of familiarity with the devices.
In my experience, higher performing students tend to edit their work and editing via a computer is much easier. It seems they take advantage of the affordances of the computer. I do get better work from them when they work on a screen.
Average and lower students often just want to get the work done and the computer is a quick way to do that. Perhaps the pencil and paper slows them down enough to promote more thought in their ideas.
Perhaps our obsession with quick and easy is not always a positive thing, especially in education.
Student do edit well on computers as long as the testing software works. We had an error, this past spring on the new science test in IL, that every time a student hit the word count limit, the test no longer allowed them to edit their answer. It was a state wide problem, that as far as I know was never resolved. So even if a student want to go back and make their answer more consise and less wordy, they couldn’t.
I have a lot of unsubstantiated, unproven theories as to why this may be the case.
In standardized testing, online text doesn’t allow for underlining or highlighting. When I made the move to a one-to-one classroom, students didn’t like annotating in the margins on a computer. They can’t articulate why but they have told me their retention is poorer.
At the community college level, I have found that students who write notes rather than type notes do better on average. Again, no idea why. Maybe the engagement level is higher.
Above all, however, I think students lean too heavily on technology. I don’t blame them. Everyone enjoys simplification and fewer tasks and conventions to think about. But in the process, they lose the ability to learn from mistakes. The ability to use Spellcheck is helpful, but will they spell it right the next time? Unlikely. (Plus, students often choose the wrong word in spellcheck.)
Perhaps, technology streamlines the process of writing and thinking but doesn’t deepen it. I’m not anti-tech but understanding the limitations of technology is important. Teenagers often don’t see those limitations.
I did read an article about note taking on an electronic device vs. paper. Retention of material seemed to be better on paper. The author reported that notes taken on a computer tended to be closer to verbatim records of lectures, whereas notes taken on paper required paraphrasing and summarizing. Because there was not time to take verbatim paper and pencil notes, the writer had to think about the content rather than just record it.
I read an article in The New Yorker in 2013 called “E-books versus P(print)-books” that suggested one of the reasons for the decline in the rise of e-books’ popularity to be that readers eyes tend to wander across a screen with less focus than on paper. Computers are distracting.
LCT,
If you’ve not read it here is an interesting article from Scientific American:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reading-paper-screens/
Paper covers screen, wins hands down.
Thanks for the article. That was interesting.
I have always suggested to my students that they take notes by hand in class and rewrite them afterwards. My reasoning is that the more times things go through their brains and then out to the paper, the more stays in their brains. It’s the thinking of what they are writing and (in math) solving the problems – the more it goes through the brain, etc. As for me, I read for pleasure most often, but not always, on a Nook but when I am reading professional journals, a textbook, or a student paper, I need a hard copy in front of me. For those, I tend to highlight, make notes in margins, and so forth so I recall easily what I have read or can comment on student work. After all, according to William Glasser, we learn 10% of what we read.
Actual studies have been done to suggest what you are saying here: using the hand to write down information somehow tends to help hard-wire thought in the brain. It’s one of the reasons that cursive writing, a writing style which allows thought to move more freely from the brain to the paper and back again to the brain, is argued to be a necessary academic tool.
I am 52 and I have noticed that I don’t seem to retain as much information as I used to. I was always considered a very “smart” person. Intellectually I thought I was pretty average, but I had a “photographic” memory and I used that ability to my advantage all of my life. It seems that I can’t carry this ability over to computer generated text? I could close my eyes and read sentences in books because I could remember the page# or a picture on the page. Anything handwritten (notes, facts) were etched into my mind. It could be a decline due to my age, but this ability seems to be drastically fading and it scares me. I can remember that I read something, but I can’t recall where I read it and I am unable to close my eyes and “search” for the text. I really think that there is something “hand/eye” related when it comes to learning and it’s missing with computerized learning. Boy, I’m glad others are noticing this is happening, but I’m sad that it’s happening to children.
Lisa,
See above reference to screen vs paper reading. It may hold some keys in explaining what you relate. I too, used to be able to do tests and other activities requiring “spit back” answers by reading the page on which the answers were found-in my mind. I could literally “see” the page, word for word and know where to look on the page. I believe the difference for screen reading is, as you suggested, lies in the kinesthetic and other sensory involvement of more than just our eyes when reading paper.
Reblogged this on Mister Journalism: "Reading, Sharing, Discussing, Learning" and commented:
A growing number of studies conclude that students perform worse on tests when they take them online than when the questions are on paper.
A study published by MIT and conducted at the U.S. Military Academy found that the students who did not use computers scored significantly higher than those who did.
Did anyone ask students if they prefer taking tests online? I noticed my 13 year old uses pencil and paper beside the online math test prep he’s assigned because it’s faster and more convenient than the (clunky and laborious) text entry. He can both figure and transcribe faster than entering directly and he flies on a keyboard so it isn’t that he can’t type. I also noticed he uses a prior calculation to answer a new question- if it’s a question that calls for the same approach he looks back on the paper and plugs in the new numbers. He can;t do that if the prior figuring disappears when he hits enter.
I hope they didn’t all rely upon the tech industry promotion of the “digital native” theory, which sounds like marketing to me. People don’t don’t turn into completely different entities when they’re using a new tool. That’s just silly.
“If so, that has big implications as test makers, with the support of the Department of Education, move forward with their goal of moving almost all students to computerized assessments, which are more efficient and cheaper to grade.”
If our goal is to have more cheap tests, we may achieve it using computers. However, the costs of iPads, laptops, tablets, infrastructure, wireless connectivity, re-licensing of software and the glitches we have seen this testing season are extremely expensive – Alaska spent $5 million for its cancelled tests. Most of that money goes out of the classroom and into the private pockets of corporations for which public schools are a new revenue stream.
Speaking of which, Capital Roundtable of NY is offering a Master Class:
“Life After November —
The New Reality for For-Profit Education Investors
Will a new administration head in a more conservative, free-market direction? Or will it intensify a more liberal, hands-on approach?
Even as the sprawling sector is caught between the two extremes, savvy middle-market PE investors see solid opportunities.
While there’s a chilly market in for-profit higher education as the parent of the struggling University of Phoenix works to go private, the education-technology sector is bustling amid a surge in young companies with new answers to old challenges.
In between, investors are surveying a diverse field that includes K-12 education services, vocational schooling, corporate training, testing security, career placement, and more.
And federal regulators’ role also has a distinct ripple effect. The potential impact of the new administration’s policies — whichever candidate is elected president — is enormous.”
http://capitalroundtable.com/masterclass/CapitalRoundtableForProfitEducation2016B.html
Many school systems do not have the funds to provide enough computers to students for daily class work and instruction. Computers are typically used for TESTING and occasionally for typing a project report.
Keyboarding is not taught, as was required in the past.
Not taught K-12!
Just expected to have the skills.
MILLIONS OF CHILDREN IN POVERTY, NEAR POVERTY, OR FOLKS LIVING PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK cannot afford all the bells and whistles related to online reading, writing and research.
Often, administrators refer to students having a cell phone as having online access. What? Dare them to do their own university assignments on their phones.
Now, we have students who are EXPECTED to have keyboarding proficiency, access textbooks online, and perform geniusly on TESTING because the school, the system, the teacher and their LIVES depend on it.
All the research done identifying learning differences, proficiencies, learning influences, POVERTY, and taking online exams vs. paper/pencil…is not what the Corporate Profiteer$ care about.
They laugh at that, because the $M are the benchmark of success.
Data points are worth $M, and how they got those data points means nothing.
Accuracy? Nothing!
Validity? Nothing?
All testing and measuring constructs mean nothing.
Just, GIVE ME THE MONEY!
Remember, the genius brain of Gates & Co. is all about $B and solving poverty with
a-chicken-in-every-pot mentality. Wait till tomorrow…eating worms, swallowing air?
Guys, it is not about our precious children.
We must get their green stained BILLIONAIRE hands off our children.
When you stare at the computer screen it’s passive “learning”. If you write it down and then “re-type” your notes, then print them out, it is much more interactive. So taking a test on paper & pencil is not much different. It forces you to focus on what you are putting down on the page, and not your typing ability.
I’m now teaching technology in a small border town. We took the state tests online. In the elementary school, the big push now is keyboarding, because of the test. I stressed about this and had nightmares that I hadn’t pushed the kids hard enough. Then, when I watched them take the test, I could see that it was not the typing they couldn’t do. They just couldn’t read multiple selections and compose an essay (all but the top kids; and we have many ells) in one sitting that would even challenge their typing skills. We had our students write their rough drafts on paper and that was a good thing. The computerized test kicked some of the students out half way through the day and they had to start over! The testing took over three weeks for my very small school district and only three days for a larger town nearby that took it on paper. Reporting in AZ showed that schools testing on paper did do better. When teachers here asked why we couldn’t do it on paper, the administration’s response was that the state was GONNA require testing on computers SOMEDAY SOON
After reading a book I can recall where on the page I read something, even if I can’t recall the detail, so I know where on the page to look for the information I’m trying to find. In digital reading, there is no permanence to the words in relation to the physical page, so if I’m trying to find a quote or detail, I can’t just look on the lower third of the left hand pages of the book; instead I have to basically reread it.
Just a social studies teacher here in the trenches. Deep down in the trenches.
I truly believe that the Internet is a gift to social studies teachers. Absolutely. But…it is very difficult to stop teenagers from drifting into social media during class time. How could it not make a difference?
I have some questions for parents. Do you want your child to play games on their phones during class time? Do you want them texting you or others during instruction? Do you want your child videotaping classroom activities, each other, or fights in the restroom? Do you realize how much cell phones have come to dominate your child’s life at school?
These are some of the issues we teachers are up against.
Testing online is all good and well when the students are familiar with the software being used. Every online test is different. The ‘P-test’, this year, wanted to see student work & the answer, how do you show math notes when you have to type everything? Try teaching a third grader this, they have been writing math by hand all their lives. Also, as a technology teacher, I know third graders hands are, usually, to small to type competently consistently.
Ironic that the test-makers and policy makers demand we differentiate, differentiate, differentiate – yet they are doing away with giving teachers the option of taking a paper-and-pencil test! I am sure that failure rates are higher for online tests – hence, more profit$$$ for the test makers!
These computerized tests also are a detriment to teachers seeking certifications. With paper and pencil, one can read the question and easily return to the page to double check. My paper-and-pencil strategy has always been to answer the m/c questions that I could easily answer, and write down the question numbers of the ones I couldn’t. Then, I would return to those questions and answer them in sequence. The ones I couldn’t answer on the second round, I would write down, and return a third time, and so forth, until I answered all the questions.
This allowed me to weigh the answers, and giving a well-thought out reply.
Now, one has to have both their palms scanned and have a photo i.d before taking the test. One has to have a webcam watching every breath you take, every expression on your face, as you take the test. One has to have their palm re-scanned and their I.S. re-checked before re-entering the test area after a bathroom break. One has to “flag” a question one is not sure of, and then click through several screens to return to, wasting precious seconds and minutes as the timer continues running in the upper-right hand corner.
The test have become invasive and oppressive – I have to wonder what data base my palm scans are being sent to, sold to and stored. I truly felt more like I was on trial than I was trying to demonstrate content mastery.
As an adult, I felt dehumanized and oppressed – I can’t imagine what in God’s name this is doing to our children.
This has been a thoroughly exciting conversation to me. How often during the past 30 or so years have I contemplated the relationship between thoughts and the written word. Students who can carry on an intelligent conversation with you about a subject have a rough time making it look like they know things on paper. Students practically mute might write beautifully. How could I know that they knew? Was that not the fulcrum of all debate about how to evaluate students? What if the students who received a lower grade really knew more but could not tell me?
Now added to my wonderings comes the issue of interaction with technical methods of communicating thoughts. How can we ever tell? It has always seemed to me that I feel better about the writing I do with my grandfather’sold fountain pen. It has long been unable to pull the ink into its bladder, but a dip into an inkwell makes me feel like I am going to do something right. When I read the stuff I have saved that was the product of this pen, it seems better to me. Is this just a mirage? Can we even say anything truly scientific about this complex interaction.
Electronic devices have done so much for us. This one makes it possible for me to have contact with some like-minded people all over the country and some who probably wish I would just shut up (they would not pull away as fast if I could just write on this thing with my grandfather’s pen). Of course, this is a web site which is a place to discuss policy.
Which brings us to a point. The best policies would seem to be the ones who do the most good for the largest number of people. This technology, these computers, pads, phones, and such, are exactly like all the other technology we humans have made. It is good for some things, and bad for others. I am watching a man build a house as I type this. He sometimes uses a hammer instead of a nail gun. No one tells him when he should use one or the other. He is obviously a good enough worker to get the job.
I need the state, the principal, and the parents to get out of my face. I know more about which tools to are good for the job than they do. I can sense whether a student is nursing a computer for the Arab Spring or the rise of ISIS. Do I need tech? You bet. Give me the tools, and I’ll finish the job (roughly, Churchill). But get out of my class. Quit mandating that students have to be familiar with a particular platform to prove they can learn from me.
Another problem with all of this online testing is that it takes over computer labs and libraries for huge amounts of time. At my school, we couldn’t use the computer lab OR library for the entirety of 4th term because of the online testing. And Utah has been doing online testing for seven or eight years now.
Wireless devices emit RF-Radiation
Is “it” educating our children or is “it” consuming wireless devices?
The following is a quote from a letter addressed to the LAUSD Board of Education from Martha Herbert, MD., PhD.:
“I am a pediatric neurologist and neuroscientist on the faculty of Harvard Medical School and on staff at the Massachusetts General Hospital.”
“EMF/RFR from wifi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function. This will make it harder for some children to learn, particularly those who are already having problems in the first place.”
The 1971 Naval Medical Research Institute Report, a bibliography on microwave radiation listed as observed disorders: ‘lack of concentration’, anxiety, and loss of memory.
The Defense Intelligence Agency 1976 Report on Biological Effects of EMF showed that military personnel exposed to microwave radiation experienced “fatigue, irritability, sleeplessness, depression, anxiety, forgetfulness and lack of concentration.”
Common health effects that are currently being linked through research are:
Impaired Brain Function: concentration problems, inability to focus, short-term memory problems, brain fatigue, loss of alertness, brain fog, ADD/ADHD
Impaired Mental Processing: Reduction in the ability to form judgments, make decisions, process information, develop intellectually, respond to the environment, acquire and develop insights, make connections, learn.
Conclusion: Wireless devices have no place in our children’s classroom.
Naval Medical Research Institute
Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (‘Effects’) and Clinical
Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation
https://www.emfanalysis.com/research/
Martha Herbert, Ph.D., M.D., Harvard Pediatric Neurologist
Letter to LAUSD, February 8, 2013
https://www.emfanalysis.com/research/
The Defense Intelligence Agency 1976 Report on Biological Effects of EMF
https://www.emfanalysis.com/research/