William Doyle describes an emerging international consensus about the appropriate and limited use of technology in the classroom.
Doyle starts from the proposition that “Technology in the classroom has so far had little positive effect on childhood learning.”
That’s the stunning finding of the OECDs September 2015 report “Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection.” The report found that despite billions of dollars of frantic government spending, where ICTs [information and communications technologies] are used, their impact on student performance has been “mixed, at best,” in the words of the OECD’s Andreas Schleicher. “In most countries, the current use of technology is already past the point of optimal use in schools,” said Schleicher. “We’re at a point where computers are actually hurting learning.”
This supports a growing body of other research indicating that, with some exceptions like distance and special needs learning, there is little evidence that digital tools are inherently superior to analog tools in the hands of qualified teachers in teaching children the fundamentals of learning, especially in the early years.
For policy-makers, educators and parents, the implications of this research are enormous, and critical. The OECD report suggested that teachers need to be better trained in ICT. But it also found that children may learn best with analog tools first before later adding digital platforms, and that a few hours a week of classroom screen time may be optimal for children, beyond which learning benefits drop off to diminishing, or even negative, returns.
This argues not for the 100% screen-based classroom proposed by some enthusiasts, but for a far more strategic and cost-and-learning-effective model. In this vision of the “school of tomorrow,” teachers will use the analog and digital methods of their choice, including a few hours of student screen time per week – with a significant portion of school time being a “digital oasis,” where students learn through proven analog methods like paper, pencil, manipulatives and physical objects, crayons and paint, physical books, play, physical activity, nature, and face-to-face and over-the-shoulder interactions – not with digital simulations, but with the ultimate “personalized learning platform” – highly-qualified, flesh-and-blood teachers.
This kind of approach is already blossoming in many classrooms around the world, as teachers and students harness and control the power of technology, properly applied and integrated.
Hands-on learning and learning by play are staging a comeback:
In the global headquarters city of LEGO itself, inside the three-year-old International School of Billund in western Denmark, the concept of learning through play is being taken to the ultimate extreme. The LEGO Foundation-supported school offers children aged 3 to 16 an International Baccalaureate program through a curriculum based on creative play, delivered through a rich variety of analog and digital tools, including, naturally, LEGO education kits and programs.
“We want pupils to use their hands,” said the ISB’s head of school Camilla Uhre Fog to a journalist from the Times Educational Supplement. “We’re very hands-on. When hands are involved in learning, children really remember. If you’re in the middle of the creative process there is nothing worse than clearing up – if you cease the flow then you lose the dream, you lose everything.”

Under the influence of corporate lobbies, schools are being forced to adopt technology for both instruction and assessment. Computers have enjoyed “assumed relevance and success” despite the fact that little research has been conducted to confirm this assumption. The new ESSA law is full of enticements to encourage school districts to adopt “innovative technologies,” but their merit is assumed, not proven.
Technology has a role in education, and most teachers embrace it to enhance instruction. Technology is a useful tool when used under the direction of a trained teacher can move students forward in their academics. Not everything produced by a computer has merit. In fact, a lot of computer instruction is dull and not engaging. Often learning is more reductionist due to the limitations of computer technology which tends to see the world in black and white while ignoring shades of gray. A real teacher is far more useful in sparking divergent thinking about issues and consequences than any computer. Computers seem to be most effective when to supplement, not supplant instruction. Computers have their limitations in assessment as all the scrolling, pointing and clicking serves as a hindrance, not a help.
Research in the impact of exposure to technology is ongoing and incomplete. From what we do know, technology has its limits. Hands-on experiences are much more useful for young children. In fact sitting in front of a computer too long may impair brain development in young children. Computers have not been successful with poor students because their emotional needs are ignored, and they benefit from forming a relationship with the teacher. As far as I know, the only groups that can function decently with total computer instruction are motivated, mature, middle class students. Even these students prefer learning through a relationship with an adult. Computers are a useful educational tool, but they shouldn’t be used to replace teachers or force schools to purchase more products they may not need.
LikeLike
Thanks for posting this. Check out this article:
Personalized Learning: The Conversations We’re Not Having by Monica Bulger.
This would be worth a blog post!
Click to access PersonalizedLearning_primer_2016.pdf
LikeLike
I liked the point made that personalized learning is already being done everyday in classrooms via human interaction!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very important article. I agree with your recommendation!
LikeLike
“Personalized” learning – old school!

LikeLike
Interesting article that asks some important questions. I can see some value for subjects with discreet skills like math or grammar. It would be a waste for subject with “big ideas” like literature or social studies.
LikeLike
This speaks to the negative effects on social interaction.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-gave-my-students-ipads–then-wished-i-could-take-them-back/2015/12/02/a1bc8272-818f-11e5-a7ca-6ab6ec20f839_story.html
LikeLike
In the late 70’s early 80’s, I had the opportunity to teach an elective course titled “Computer Math”. It was the greatest class I ever taught! Students were not only taught programming but they would use their skills in programming to solve Math, Science and Economic problems and yes, we even wrote programs to play games. Remember, this was before the WWW even had pictures.
A few of my students went on to become programmers or to work with computer companies but I felt that they all had a better understanding of Mathematics, Statistics , number theory and most importantly, problem solving!
As with most electives, this all disappeared with NCLB. The electives were eliminated and now became required extra courses in “test prep”. The computers now became “resource” tools and libraries became “resource rooms”. The computers now became a “thing” that students would learn how to turn on and off, click on topics, and play games.
Even as a “test prep” teacher, I would sneak in a lesson or two on the binary number system and how, when and what a computer really is, just to spark their interest!
LikeLike
I so wish that my sons could have taken a class like this in middle school or at the beginning of high school, but they had to take a “mastery” course, which was really just test prep disguised as something else. A complete waste of time.
We have crowded out so many useful and fun electives. These are the courses that sometimes spark a new, lifelong interest or are just fun enough to keep a child interested in learning.
This move to get rid of fun electives is now coming to colleges. The Gates foundation is pushing the “guided pathways” approach to colleges. This is where students must pick a narrow pathway early in college. They don’t get to take anything fun. Everything is prescribed for them. Spontaneity and joy are forbidden.
So, if students can’t be trusted to pick some of their courses in college, then how can they be trusted to pick a major before they even enroll in college? Once again, another idea form the Gates people that hasn’t been thought through at all.
LikeLike
Our school district offered an elective in computer programming. The son of one our teachers that lived in the district decided to start his own web hosting business instead of going to college. His parents, both college graduates, were upset. This young man managed to develop a company worth over $2 million which he sold at age twenty-five. It is an amazing story, but those stories are few and far between. For most of us, however, computers are useful tools, not a path to wealth.
LikeLike
Technology should be used to enhance learning not as a replacement for classroom instruction. Ironically I was criticized for occasionally showing videos to my classes, the principal not realizing that the items I chose were used to highlight an author study or reinforce a skill, not for entertainment. There was also a running commentary and discussion along with any digital presentation. In the computer lab, my focus was on teaching ways to navigate the Internet or effectively utilize online databases with a focus on evaluating resources for credibility or bias. These are skills necessary so that children aren’t victims of the propaganda often found on the Workd Wide Web.
My role as an active instructor was a vital component in the effective use of the available technology. Simply seating students in front of a digital screen and expecting them to “learn” is as ludicrous as expecting a child to toilet train themselves by looking at a picture depicting the appropriate action.
While there are always exceptions, Interaction between the teacher and the student is a key component of the educational process.
This isn’t rocket science, just common sense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I appreciate this international perspective, but the recommendations are certainly not new. The policies of OECD have helped to set in motion a longstanding focus on international test scores, given huge publicity to rank order ratings of countries, and pitted countries against each other in a race to more and more test prep and tech-based testing.
So, although it is welcome news for OECD to “rediscover” the value of selective use of tech and tests, OECD has contributed to the industrial strength market created for tech solutions to education. Human beings can learn many things in and through digital representations and virtual spaces, and learning how these are created. But I am absolutely opposed to the idea that learning is always and inevitably improved by tech, and tech-based test.
As a long time worker in arts education, it is great to see some “rediscovery” of the virtues of unstructured or semistructured environments for learning–with multi-sensory exploration and some combination of solo explorations and social interaction organized around real “stuff.” Where do we find “regular” schools where students are engaged in using varied media for making images and things; redesigning spaces; creating games and gizmos; composing and making music and musical instruments; creating, producing and performing in plays or films or dances; composing poems and stories, illustrating these; investing time and energy is hybrids of these activities; studying the media, places, and spaces that attract their attention, learning why and how that is accomplished and why that matters.
I guess this sort of rediscovery could be called a case of everything-old-is-new-again.
Long live Froebel, Montessori, and Reggio Emilia among other examples of early childhood education free of that awful focus on college and career readiness. Long live schools where the arts are treated as academic subjects but never merely academic limited to those who have “talent,” or treated as little more than a bonus or reward for good behavior or meeting targets for test scores.
LikeLike
Thanks for this, Laura.
LikeLike
Let us not forget the enormous opportunity costs associated with bringing in technology to the classroom.
* Constant professional development as to how to implement or even just the nuts and bolts for how to make programs work
* lack of school infrastructure means programs do not work well and leave students staring at blank screens with spinning hourglasses – giant waste of instructional time
* constant push from administration to inject tech into lessons even if ineffective
* school systems constantly buy programs, invest in ineffective and time consuming professional development! and then phase out the program within a few years – costing millions of dollars
Our school system basically has no more money for programs or computers so they have gone to Bring Your Own Technology (BYOT). Students use their Smart phones and are supposed to access the WIFI ( which only connects them part of the time so they use their own data). So now we are supposed to have students taking notes, performing research or experiments, and writing papers on their phones. Awkward to say the least. Of course what actually happens is student social network and/or play games during 90 % of their day and we are supposed to act like are not doing this.
This devastates instruction and learning.
LikeLike
You describe the reality –as opposed to the sales pitch –of ed tech well.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on DWPost and commented:
This resonated with me: “We’re very hands-on. When hands are involved in learning, children really remember. If you’re in the middle of the creative process there is nothing worse than clearing up – if you cease the flow then you lose the dream, you lose everything.”
LikeLike
We need to hear more about the relentless marketing, overselling and hype that is behind the proliferation of ed tech and online competency-based education in the U.S. in K-12. Along with that, we need to get the word out about the overwhelming push of this by the federal government, and many states, that is serving to line the pockets of the ed tech industry, and decimating public school budgets and the expense of children. It needs to stop.
LikeLike
Amen, parent. When it comes to tech, Americans’ critical thinking ability is AWOL. We are the dupes of the Silicon Valley sales teams.
LikeLike
These are the things I think are positive additions to education brought to us by computers of sorts:
The ability to have students do fast research to answer a quick question.
The ability of teachers to keep better records about the stuff kids have learned or not learned yet and communicate this to parents
The ability of students to engage in personalized activities chosen by a teacher who knows they need them
The ability of teachers and students to find readings in the content areas unavailable before the web
In math, the ability to set kids up with activities that will involve them in the discovery of ideas way more readily than we did without those graphing applications.
These are the things I think computers have done to hurt us
These things are very expensive. Because they are soon obsolete, their cost is never really fully understood. Systems will rob the teacher salary to pay for the computers.
They have made us choose activities based not on student needs but on our delight with the medium. For example, a computer program that will publish ten versions of a mulitple choice test makes us tend to give such things.
The computer has increased the gap between the students who have money and safety and those who do not. I am not talking about the gap that shows up in testing. I am talking about the gap I sense as I get to know the children.
They have created rooms full of technological wizardry that no one can use because no one will pay to have the teachers learn how to use it.
LikeLike
What Tom Vander Ark had to say about the OECD report back in the day: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/on_innovation/2015/10/where_the_oecd_edtech_report_missed_the_mark.html. If he thought the report missed the mark, it means the report was spot-on.
LikeLike