How laptops affect learning—and why the medium is the message!
Years have passed since media guru Marshall McLuhan declared “the medium is the message.” Nonetheless, his insights about technology remain relevant to this day. In particular, his ideas about media can shed light on an ongoing debate in education. Does using laptops and computers in the classroom help or hinder student learning?
On one hand, programs such as One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) initiatives aim to provide all students with laptops. Programs like OLPC posit that once all students have a computer, they’ll be able to learn on their own, and in-person instruction can take a back seat. On the other hand, some teachers oppose these programs. They argue that laptops have too many built-in distractions, which divert attention from learning.
Laptops and learning
Hence, the question arises: Does giving laptops to students improve their academic performance? Surprisingly, a growing body of research seems to say no. In several cases, laptops and computers have affected student learning negatively, not positively. For example, one of the most comprehensive studies on this topic comes from the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international organization of policy researchers).
In 2015, the OECD released an international assessment of digital learning. The researchers found, to the surprise of many, that many digital technologies contribute “no noticeable improvement” to student learning (as measured by international literacy tests on math, science, and reading, which come from the Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA). Among the findings,
- Students who frequently use laptops or computers get worse results.
- Students who moderately use laptops or computers have “somewhat better learning outcomes” than students who rarely use computers.
According to OECD education director Andreas Schleicher, those results look “disappointing” because they “show no appreciable improvements in student achievement in reading, mathematics or science in the countries that had invested heavily in information and communication technology (ICT) for education.” In fact, schools in countries with better results have lower levels of laptop and computer use.
Why don’t laptops or computers help student learning?
So, after putting laptops and computers in classrooms, there’s really no evidence that these digital technologies boost academic achievement. Multiple studies actually suggest the reverse, since providing the latest devices leads to no significant improvements in reading and math skills (Campuzano, et al., 2009; Fried, 2006).
Psychologist Susan Pinker has done a decent job explaining why in her book, The Village Effect: How Face-to-Face Contact Can Make Us Healthier, Happier, and Smarter.
One explanation is that the computers displace other activities such as homework and face-to-face social contact. Many of the kids used their newly acquired networked devices to surf the net, play video games, and download music, movies, and porn rather than attacking that book report on Great Expectations. Even worse, instead of leveling class differences in education, access to a laptop and the Internet seemed to widen them. Even within an economically disadvantaged group, the relatively weaker students … were more adversely affected than other kids. After their computers arrived, their reading scores fell even further.
For the majority of students, the impact of the latest gadgets on reading, writing, and math skills—compared to students’ performance in less wired classrooms—can be summarized in three words: no significant differences (Pinker, 2014, p 190).
So, if there’s a takeaway for educators, it’s likely this insight: In-person interaction with a teacher makes more of a difference to students than cutting-edge technology. However, I believe there’s at least one other takeaway …
Different types of technologies are better (or worse) for different kinds of learning
On one hand, it appears information-processing technologies haven’t helped students process information. On the other hand, I wouldn’t suggest chucking their laptops out the window. After all, keep in mind that just about any kind of learning requires some type of technology. Books are technologies for reading. Pencils and papers are technologies for writing. Calculators are technologies for mathematics.
The real question, then, is what types of technologies work best for which kinds of learning? We’re in interesting times, because learning experiences today offer wide varieties of media, both old and new—analog and digital. Should we use books or computers, notebooks or laptops? Surely, the answer will depend on what we’re trying to learn. Which brings us back to Marshall McLuhan’s idea that the medium is the message.
Why the medium is the message
McLuhan arrived at this insight in his book Understanding Media, where he coined the aphorism:
the medium is the message (McLuhan, 1964/2003, p 19).
By proclaiming the medium is the message, McLuhan simply meant that media and technologies do more than communicate information. They shape how our minds process and learn information. Hence, Neil Postman’s eventual reworking of McLuhan’s saying:
the medium is the metaphor (Postman, 1985, p 3).
That is, technologies and media are metaphors for thought itself, because different types of media can help (or hinder) different ways of thinking and learning. (See my article on Media Ecology for a primer on McLuhan and Postman’s ideas.)
How the medium is the message in screen vs. print
For example, in his earlier book, The Gutenberg Galaxy, McLuhan wrote about a striking difference between print media (such as books and newspapers) and screen media (like computers and laptops). He referred to this difference as “light-on” vs. “light-through,” by which he meant reflected light vs. direct light (McLuhan, 1962, p 105). In other words, does the light reflect on and off a page, or does the light come directly at you through a screen?
Why would reflected light versus direct light make a difference to how we process information? Essentially, when print media such as books reflect light, they’re easier to focus on for long periods of time, because the light doesn’t tire your eyes. Screen media like laptops, in contrast, emit direct light, so staring at them for too long can lead to digital eye strain.
This difference—reflected light on print vs. direct light from screens—helps explain why it’s easier to read and peruse books, whereas it’s more natural to skim or scan screens. As a result, books typically work better for learning focused or deep reading (e.g., comprehension, reflection, long-term memory).
In contrast, screens tend to exercise scanning or searching for patterns, making them better suited for, say, visual and spatial learning (e.g., navigating maps, visualizing spatial patterns, illustrating abstract concepts).
The moral of the medium is the message: Match the technology to the task!
Therefore, my suspicion is that laptops or computers have contributed “no noticeable improvement” to education, because students probably aren’t learning the right kinds of lessons with the right types of technologies (and not necessarily because laptops or computers are useless in education).
For instance, schools that try to teach traditional literacy skills with laptops probably won’t succeed. Nevertheless, laptops would likely help students learn skills associated with spatial orientation, navigation, and visualization, such as geography, driver education, and physics concepts. Those are the nuances that policy makers in education should consider while integrating new digital technologies into the classroom.
In sum, if the medium is the message, optimal student learning will take place only when we match the right type of technology to the right kind of task.
References
Campuzano, Larissa, et al. (2009). Effictiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from Two Student Cohorts. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Evaluation and regional Assistance. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20074005.pdf
Fried, Carrie B.. (2008). In-class laptop use and its effects on student learning, Computers & Education, 50, 906-914. doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.006
McLuhan, Marshall. (1962). The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
McLuhan, Marshall. (2003). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man: Critical Edition. (W. Terrence Gordon, Ed.). Berkeley: Gingko Press. (Original work published 1964.)
OECD. (2015). Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en
Pinker, Susan. (2014). The Village Effect: How Face-to-Face Contact Can Make Us Healthier, Happier, and Smarter. New York: Spiegel & Grau.
Postman, Neil. (1985). Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin Books.
Feel free to share your thoughts below, or explore other Educational Topics on this site.