Interestingly, I don’t share your presumption. Personally, I’d start from the opposite end and ask where is the evidence that using computers is good for education. Anything that’s computer specific can be taught with computers as necessary. But generally everyone has computers now and so the basics likely don’t need to be covered by forcing complete use across the board.
I’ve only skimmed the paper, but this line in the conclusion captures my impression so far:
the results should not lead to premature decisions in school practice or completely replace other existing teaching methods. In fact, digital tools show the largest positive effects on student learning outcomes if they are used in addition to non-digital material. Despite the potential of using digital tools in mathematics and science classes, teachers should always assess additional benefits in regard to the context they want to use it in, and learning content should still take center stage
…
there was only one variable that significantly influenced the overall effect due to differences between content-related categories, which was teacher training.
Additionally, their analysis highlights that the following are more impactful: simulation/ smart-tutorial tools, getting students working together (rather than using tools solo), and shorter durations of tool use (or, studies that ran for shorter times had better results).
All of which indicates to me that this study may well support the notion that digital tool use in schooling can be overdone and that a correction could very well be reasonable, especially if prior policies have focused on student-laptop provisioning all encompassing digital platforms.
Beyond all of that (and general scepticism I’d naturally have with any reaearch) … I’d still wonder whether it’s reasonable to combat the negative effects of saturated computer usage by leaning into non-digital education approaches, however “worse” the educational outcomes may be. Especially if digital education could be optimised with specialised and intermittent exercises and tools.
Interestingly, I don’t share your presumption. Personally, I’d start from the opposite end and ask where is the evidence that using computers is good for education. Anything that’s computer specific can be taught with computers as necessary. But generally everyone has computers now and so the basics likely don’t need to be covered by forcing complete use across the board.
Here’s a meta-analysis of 92 studies showing overall a benefit for using digital tooling in classes.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131520300968
Thank you and interesting!
I’ve only skimmed the paper, but this line in the conclusion captures my impression so far:
…
Additionally, their analysis highlights that the following are more impactful: simulation/ smart-tutorial tools, getting students working together (rather than using tools solo), and shorter durations of tool use (or, studies that ran for shorter times had better results).
All of which indicates to me that this study may well support the notion that digital tool use in schooling can be overdone and that a correction could very well be reasonable, especially if prior policies have focused on student-laptop provisioning all encompassing digital platforms.
Beyond all of that (and general scepticism I’d naturally have with any reaearch) … I’d still wonder whether it’s reasonable to combat the negative effects of saturated computer usage by leaning into non-digital education approaches, however “worse” the educational outcomes may be. Especially if digital education could be optimised with specialised and intermittent exercises and tools.