Commentary
If you walk into a typical school classroom, there’s a good chance you’ll see plenty of electronic devices. Although most provinces have restricted the use of personal phones, many school boards still provide electronic devices to students.
For example, in the Toronto District School Board, every student in grades 5 to12 receives a board-issued Chromebook to use for their schoolwork. There are similar programs in other parts of the country where school boards provide students with tablets or laptops.
This rush to equip students with the latest technological gadgets has led to a profound shift in what learning looks like. For example, fewer students receive printed copies of textbooks, and it’s become increasingly common for students to type their answers to questions on a keyboard rather than write them by hand. Even many standardized tests are administered via computers. In fact, the Alberta government is transitioning to a digital platform for diploma exams and provincial achievement tests.
However, there’s good reason to be skeptical of this wholesale embrace of technology. The latest Programme for International Assessment (PISA) report, which tests the academic skills of 15-year-old students around the world, found a negative correlation between excessive student use of digital devices and academic achievement in math, reading, and science.
It’s easy to see why. Electronic devices are very distracting. Whether it’s the temptation to play games, the desire to check out new websites, or the wish to chat with friends, the distractions of these devices are nearly irresistible for students. No matter how many filters school boards put on the devices, resourceful students easily find ways around them.
Related Stories
Fortunately, some countries are starting to recognize the problem. For example, back in 2009 the Swedish government replaced printed textbooks with digital versions. However, as more electronic devices found their way into classrooms, evidence began piling up that this was a move in the wrong direction. Not only did students experience eyestrain from staring at screens, but research shows that students are far more likely to retain what they read on paper than what they read on a screen. As a result, Sweden is going back to basics and giving students regular textbooks.
Schools in Canada would do well to follow Sweden’s lead. While it would mean spending more money on textbooks, the extra funds could be reallocated from the money currently spent on electronic devices. Fortunately, there’s no need to reinvent the wheel. Schools that wish to improve academic achievement should focus on the essentials of learning—a content-rich curriculum, sound lessons, and purposeful reading and writing in every discipline.
A content-rich curriculum means ensuring that curriculum guides are structured in such a way that students systematically acquire the knowledge they need from grade to grade. To provide sound lessons in classrooms, teachers must take charge of their classes with focused lessons and plenty of corrective feedback. And purposeful reading and writing means exactly what it says—plenty of practise reading complex text and writing analytical essays.
In his book, “Focus: Elevating the Essentials to Radically Improve Student Learning,” educator Mike Schmoker shows that schools that focus on these three things substantially outperform schools that do not. According to Schmoker, too much emphasis on technology interferes with these learning essentials. Thus, there’s no educational reason for schools to spend millions providing electronic devices to students—particularly in the earlier grades.
Schools across Canada should look at what’s happening in Sweden right now. There’s no shame in acknowledging that something isn’t working and then changing your approach. The only shame is when we refuse to change even when the evidence points in the opposite direction. Students need more textbooks and fewer tablets. It’s time to make this happen.
Michael Zwaagstra is a public high school teacher and a senior fellow with the Fraser Institute.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
