7 Research Findings About Technology and Education

Do students perform better on digital or paper assessments? Does the amount of time spent on an app correlate to learning growth? How much valid and reliable research is typically behind an educational application? These are questions that busy educators often wonder about, yet they may not have an easy way to find answers. Fortunately, there is research on education apps and devices as well as learning growth and outcomes in the research journals. Below are seven things that educators should know about the research on the effectiveness of technology for learning—note that research findings can evolve over time, and the points below are not definitively settled.

Advantages and disadvantages of Tech

1. When screens are present but not being used for learning, students tend to learn less. Whether it’s a laptop or a smartphone, studies have found that the mere presence of these devices reduces available cognitive capacity in college students. Long-term recall and retention of information decreases when students at the university level have screens present during direct instructional time. Just having a laptop screen open or a cell phone next to a student (but not being used) is enough to distract their brain from fully focusing on the class activities.

Further, studies found that students in college who send off-task text or IM messages during class or engage with social media on their devices typically take lower-quality notes, and their overall academic performance is worse than that of those who didn’t engage in those activities during class. It’s important to note that when a student doesn’t have a device but is near another student who is using a device during class, both students’ grades will likely be negatively affected.

2. Literacy applications often have little valid and reliable research associated with them. A number of applications in the app stores (such as Google Play) do not have much, if any, valid and reliable research associated with them. According to a study looking at the top-rated early literacy applications, 77 percent of the applications have zero reliable research behind them. And the few apps that did have research only considered the look and feel of the application (such as ease of navigation or visual appeal), rather than if the child was likely to learn foundational literacy skills from the app.

There are apps that are effective, but finding them in the sea of all available apps—many of them poorly designed, with inadequate backing evidence—is a daunting task.

3. Neither the amount of time spent on an app nor the number of sessions in an app correlates with effectiveness. A recent study found that the “dosage” of the app, such as the number of sessions, time spent per session, and duration of the study, did not predict effectiveness of the app. Thus, learning outcomes did not change if a student spent more or less time in an application. The quality of the application matters more in determining learning growth or outcomes than the amount of time or number of times an application is used.

4. Students who read online tend to comprehend less than those who read via paper. Studies have shown that when it comes to comprehension and reading online versus on paper, the type of text matters. One study discovered that when it comes to leisure reading, the more complex the text, the more likely students will comprehend the content better when reading on paper.

Print reading over a long period of time could boost comprehension skills by six to eight times more than digital reading. The same study found that younger children (ages 6–12) seem to benefit the most from print reading over online. Further, another recent study found that university students tend to annotate more when reading on paper versus digital text, though this does not improve their subsequent memory of the text.

5. Students tend to perform worse when testing online compared with those who test on paper. While many standardized tests have moved online, there’s research that doesn’t support this as the best medium for optimal outcomes. A 2018 study determined that students tend to score worse when testing online versus paper in both math and English language arts. In particular, English language learners, children from lower-income homes, and students on individualized education programs perform worse online than on paper.

Some studies are finding that the use of computers in formal assessments creates an obstacle for students who need special accommodations like text-to-speech readers or language translators. For example, students with visual impairments tended to perform worse on computer-based tests that provided a digital reader, compared with similar students who took paper tests with a human reader.

6. Online classes are best for students who can self-regulate and are independent learners. The Brookings Institution’s Executive Summary on online learning finds that online learning is best suited for students who are high achievers and self-motivated. The research they reviewed found that academically strong students can benefit from fully online courses, while students who are not academically strong tend to do worse in online courses than they would in in-person classes.

One example is the Back on Track study, which looked at ninth-grade students taking credit recovery algebra. The study compared students in a fully online algebra credit recovery course with students in an in-person credit recovery algebra course; the fully online students had worse overall academic outcomes and were less likely to recover credit. Additionally, students in fully online courses with no face-to-face instructor interaction typically fared worse than students in face-to-face classes. The good news is that students in blended courses (part online and part in-person) appear to do about the same as those in fully in-person classes.

7. The type of device matters. While schools often shop for the least expensive option for student devices, it is important to note that a recent study looking at remote learning found that the type and quality of student devices matters in learning outcomes. Students who used devices that were older and had slower processors had a worse quality of learning experiences than those who had newer devices with stronger specifications.

These are some highlights from recent studies that can inform teachers and school districts when it comes to decision-making with purchasing technology, creating policies, or devising alternative academic offerings. It is important to understand the evidence behind any edtech-related decisions that could impact many students.