What's Best for Our Young Learners? The Answer May Not Include Digital Technologies

You may have noticed that many of my recent posts have been critical about generative AI, and especially what I see as the negative impact it's having in education, both on learners and teachers, and obviously more widely on society and the environment. But I'm also looking more closely at why it is that we are exposing our young learners to EdTech in the primary school classroom in the first place. My first post on this, focused on how I view the current primary school EdTech landscape in Wales and then at the commonly held beliefs of from the tech industries and governments as to why schools should be engaging with EdTech and what they see as the potential benefits to the learners in doing so. Part 2 will look at these beliefs and see how they actually hold up to scrutiny. 

With this currently on my mind it was a coincidence that I happened upon a fascinating book by Dr Jared Cooney Horvath called 'The Digital Delusion - How Classroom Technology Harms Our Kids' Learning and How to Help Them Thrive Again'. He begins the book with the assertion that our children are less cognitively capable than we were at their age. Something that hasn't happened for nearly two hundred years, traditionally each new cohort of children normally growing up, on average, to be healthier, happier, and better educated than the last.

"Generation Z (born 1997 - 2012) is demonstrably less healthy, less happy, and less cognitively developed than their parents were at the same age."

For the first time in the history of standardised cognitive measurement, children are consistently scoring lower on many key measures of cognitive development - form literacy and numeracy to deep creativity and general IQ. Also pointing out that this downturn is not slowing, it's actually accelerating. What reason does Dr. Horvath provide for this accelerating downturn? - educational technology. The book then looks aspects such as the myths that built EdTech; what data says about EdTech's impact on learning; smartphones; AI and what learners, parents and educators can do about it. Watch the video below of Dr. Horvath speaking recently before a senate committee. It will provide you with a good introduction to his reasons for the impact EdTech has had on the cognitive decline in our learners.

For the rest of this post I'm going to quote some things from part 1 of his book that I found surprising, maybe shocking, or just resonated with things that I've seen or experience in the world of EdTech over the last 30 years. Alongside some of these quotes from the book you will also see some of my thoughts.

"(M)ore than 50 years of research show that when screens enter the classroom, learning almost always suffer." - page xviii I'm  sure you'll agree that this a big opening statement from Dr. Horvath.

"An OECD international review of EdTech concluded: 'Students who use computers very frequently at school do a lot worse in most learning outcomes.'" page xviii

"After reviewing 126 research studies, the MIT-based Poverty Research Centre found: 'Initiatives that expand access to computers.... do not improve K-12 grades and test scores. Online courses lower student academic achievement compared to in-person courses.'" page xix  

"An analysis of early 300,000 students across the US reported: '...even small daily amounts of use of digital devices in the classroom (here, 30 mins) are negatively related to scores on a reading comprehension test.'" page xix

"A separate series of analyses shows: '...investing in air conditioning has a more beneficial impact on learning than investing in a laptop for every student.'" page xix Now that's a real eye-opener. 

"In the UK, schools spend over three times more on digital technologies each year than on teacher development. In Australia, there are roughly 450,000 more computers in classrooms than students to use them." page 4. I'm really not surprised with this finding from the UK. Just looking at the amount of time and money spent on creating a new curriculum in Wales when in my opinion, a new curriculum could have been developed in a fraction of the time and the rest of the time and money spent on teacher development in how to teach it! According to the Welsh Government, they have invested £167m in "enhancing school digital environments" since 2019. But the question for me remains, what were the outcomes for the learners? From my experience of working with primary schools, many teachers still struggle with effectively understanding and delivering the DCF and other than dabbling with coding, hardly any teacher is addressing the computation aspects of the Science and Technology AoLE. A fact that was made absolutely clear when I recently attended a 'national conversation' meeting in Wrexham to discuss the way forward for the DCF. Much of the conversation that day from digital lead practitioners from all education phases, was around the problems they have in developing staff digital skills and confidence in their settings. I actually made it clear in the meeting that what they were saying was exactly the same conversations that I was having with colleagues over 20 years ago! What is the point in having an updated digital competence framework if it appears many teachers can't actually teach the current one?

Myth 2#: Multimedia Enhances Learning. "Core Misconception: The more stimulating the experience, the better the learning." page 9. As I wrote in my recent blog, this has been the belief that I've most come across in my 25+ years of supporting schools in their using of digital technologies in the classroom. By using this technology, this piece of software, this application, pupils are more enthused and motivated, so they surely must be learning something??

"(D)ecades of research reveal that multimedia on its own doesn't enhance learning. What matters is the teaching that surrounds it: good teaching with multimedia yields the same results as good teaching without it. It's not the technology that makes the difference; it's the pedagogy." page 9. Definitely no surprise in this finding, this research has been around for a long time. Thinking back to BECTA (British Educational Communications and Technology Agency) and the work of the Education Endowment Foundation from around 2011, which if my memory serves me well, found that digital technology does not on its own improve learner outcomes, it's the teacher pedagogy around its use. As Dr. Horvath writes, "It's not the technology that makes the difference; it's the pedagogy." I still much think that it was this finding that helped hasten the 'death' of BECTA. 

"Unfortunately, poorly designed multimedia has long been shown to actively undermine learning. By distracting students and diverting attention away from core material, unnecessary audiovisual elements often interfere with understanding rather than deepen it." page 9

"Engagement is not the same as learning." page 10. 

"Your child may spend hours on digital learning tools that feel fun and engaging-but that doesn't guarantee they're actually learning. Long-term retention and deep understanding require sustained focus. If an EdTech product looks and feels like entertainment, that should be a red flag: it's likely prioritising engagement over education." page 11

"Many EdTech tools promise "personalised learning", but deliver little more than "customised comfort." This creates a dangerous illusion: your child may feel confident in their comprehension while retaining very little. Over time, this false sense of mastery can open serious knowledge gaps that stall your child's academic progress. True learning is effortful - and often uncomfortable." page 14 

Myth 4#: Kids Learn Best on Their Own "Core Misconception: Increased student autonomy will yield better outcomes." page 14

"The belief that children learn best when they're in charge has become the blueprint for much of EdTech culture. Unfortunately it relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of how learning actually works." page 15 

"When students are left to their own devices (both literally and figuratively), they often flounder through trial-and-error. Some may thrive, but the majority will struggle. They'll click through lessons, play with interactive elements, and answer practice questions-but when tested later, they'll show little retention and even less understanding." page 16

"Self-directed learning sounds empowering-but beyond early childhood, it rarely works. Without expert guidance, most students waste time by mistaking activity for progress. What looks like independence is often just trial-and-error in disguise. Your child doesn't need to figure everything out alone-they need skilled teachers who can channel effort into growth." page 17

"Algorithms can identify wrong answers, but they can't sense confusion, interpret tone, or tell the difference between deep understanding and lucky guessing. Human teachers do this every day. They read facial expressions, observe hesitation, and field spontaneous questions. Digital tools may be able to adapt instruction, but only teachers can humanise it." page 18. Here is a personal example of this that is slightly different to EdTech 'intelligent tutors' that this above quote refers to, but I think with the same issues between a teacher and learner. I am refusing to deliver any of my teacher sessions via video calls. I want to be in  the room with the teachers, reading faces, looking at body language and taking those spontaneous questions. From my own experience of having to do these types of sessions in a video call, these are extremely difficult for me to do via a camera and screen. For example, some people may have their camera off and if they have their camera on they could easily be distracted by something else (looking at their phone or another device), and from my own experience working in this way don't cater well for the spontaneous question from the learner / audience. UNESCO in their recent report, "An EdTech Tragedy", says that communicating through screens were "poorly suited for forging thick interpersonal bonds" between teacher and learner.

"(S)ome now argue that artificial intelligence will soon be able to mimic everything a teacher can do. And while that maybe true in a limited, technical sense, one crucial human ingredient will always remain out of reach: empathy.....without empathy, intelligent tutors will always fall short, especially for struggling students." page 19. This is a pertinent statement at the time when the UK (England) government are forging ahead with "inviting EdTech companies and AI labs to bid to develop safe, personalised AI tutoring tools designed to improve learning outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged pupils." According to the press release, these "AI tutoring tools will be developed for pupils in Years 9 to 10 across English, maths, science and modern foreign languages. The tools will adapt to individual pupils’ needs, providing extra help when they get stuck and identify where they need more practice to master their lessons." I think many people are going to be looking at this project very closely.

"(W)ere we duped by clever salesmanship, or did EdTech developers simply never bother to understand how learning actually works before flooding classrooms with devices." page 20

This has been just a sample from the first section of The Digital Delusion. There were so many other quotes I could have added in here. I'll write about section 2 in a future post. Much of what Dr. Horvath says is aligning with how I am currently thinking about digital technologies in our primary school classroom. As educators I think it is time to look critically at digital tech, which for the last 30 years we have been putting in the hands of our young learners, and begin to question, based on evidence, what the impact has been and what the best approaches are to improving learner outcomes. I am beginning to think that the answer may not include the use of much digital technology.