Metadata
Title:: The Use of Digital Technologies at School and Cognitive Learning Outcomes: A Population-Based Study in Finland
Author:: Aino I.L. Saarinen, Jari Lipsanen, Mirka Hintsanen, Minna Huotilainen, Liisa Keltikangas-Järvinen; Year:: 2021 Item Type:: journalArticle
Citekey:: saarinen_use_2021 Tags::
#Note-making, #👨🎓-PhD-Note-taking, #🔬LitReviewzotero Keywords:: Note-making, 👨🎓 PhD Note taking, 🔬LitReview Related::Journal:: International Journal of Educational Psychology Issue:: 1 Volume:: 10
Read start:: Read end::
URL:: https://hipatiapress.com/hpjournals/index.php/ijep/article/view/4667 DOI:: 10.17583/ijep.2021.4667
Zotero Link
Abstract
Recently, the use of information and communications technology (ICT) at school has been extensively increased in Finland. This study investigated whether the use of ICT at school is linked to students ‘learning outcomes in Finland. We used the Finnish PISA 2015 data (N=5037). Cognitive learning outcomes (i.e. science, mathematics, reading, collaborative problem-solving) were evaluated with computer-based tests. ICT use at school, ICT availability at school, and students’ perceived ICT competence were assessed with self-rating questionnaires. Frequent ICT use at school predicted students’ weaker performance in all the cognitive learning outcomes, when adjusted for age, gender, parental socioeconomic status, students’ ICT competence, and ICT availability at school. Further, the effect of ICT use on learning outcomes was more negative in students with higher than lower ICT skills. Frequent use of ICT at school appears to be linked to weaker cognitive learning outcomes in Finland. This may be explained by working memory overload and task-switching during the use of digital technologies. This finding also suggests that even though students with ICT skills are good at mechanical use of digital device, they may not have abilities for a goaloriented and self-directed use of digital technologies that could promote their learning.
Key Concepts & Evergreens
Highlights
ICT linked to weaker cognitive outcomes
« Frequent ICT use at school predicted students’ weaker performance in all the cognitive learning outcomes, when adjusted for age, gender, parental socioeconomic status, students’ ICT competence, and ICT availability at school. Further, the effect of ICT use on learning outcomes was more negative in students with higher than lower ICT skills. Frequent use of ICT at school appears to be linked to weaker cognitive learning outcomes in Finland. This may be explained by working memory overload and task-switching during the use of digital technologies. This finding also suggests that even though students with ICT skills are good at mechanical use of digital device, they may not have abilities for a goaloriented and self-directed use of digital technologies that could promote their learning » (Page 3)
Digitalization is a threat to the state
« The increasing inequality in learning outcomes is of great societal importance since school drop-out composes a major risk for the accumulation of other risk factors and social marginalization later in life. There is evidence that school failure predicts delinquent behavior, lower socioeconomic status, and social exclusion in adulthood (Chen & Kaplan, 2003; Kokko et al., 2003). Further, poor school performance is found to predict risky health behavior in adulthood, such as smoking (Bryant et al., 2000), excessive alcohol use (Huurre et al., 2010; Pitkänen et al., 2008) and obesity (Alatupa et al., 2010). » (Page 5)
Digitisation lowers the potency the of state in general. Or not?
Misguiding assumption
« The program states that “digitalization enables the use of novel pedagogical methods for learning and teaching as well as new ways of working that will essentially increase educational effectivity, productivity, and efficacy” » (Page 6)
What could actually mean “digital technologies”?
« Specifically, it has been emphasized that there exist a variety of practical challenges in how the use of digital technologies is organized in the classroom » (Page 7)
What do they mean when they mentions digital technologies? Teacher student interactions. The way student access material? The way teacher delivers material? Will see.
return to Tannaver’s pyramid
« Importantly, the use of digital learning methods includes a certain type ofpedagogical ideology and learning concept. This appears to have remained without sufficient societal awareness in Finland. Specifically, digital learning methods aim to promote student-oriented learning, so that the responsibility for directing student’s learning process is largely transferred from teacher to student. In this way, efficient use of digital technologies for learning purposes requires a high level of self-directedness and goal-directedness from the student. In practice, students need good abilities to set their learning goals, to select appropriate digital applications in order to reach their goals, and to maintain their attention in the content of the digital learning material (not merely in the technical use of the device). » (Page 7)
Tannaver’s piramid
How frequent? How stupid?
« The aim of the present study was to investigate (i) whether the frequency of using information and communications technology (ICT) at school is linked to cognitive learning outcomes in the PISA 2015 test (i.e. reading literacy, mathematical literacy, scientific literacy, and collaborative problem-solving), and (ii) whether the association of ICT use at school with cognitive learning outcomes could be modified by availability of ICT device at school or students’ ICT competence » (Page 8)
Index of stupidity
« Information and communications technology (ICT). The index of ICT (information and communications technology) use at school was evaluated with 9 self-rating items filled by students. The items measured how often the students used digital devices for the following activities: (i) “at school”; (ii) “using email at school”; (iii) “browsing the Internet for schoolwork”; (iv) “downloading, uploading or browsing material from the school’s website (e.g.)”; (v) “posting [their] work on the school’s website”; (vi) “playing simulations at school”; (vii) “practicing and drilling, such as for foreign language learning or mathematics”; (viii) “doing homework on a school computer”; and (ix) “using school computers for group work and communication with other students”. The items were rated with a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never or hardly ever) to 5 (every day). A higher value of the index of ICT referred to more frequent use of ICT at school. » (Page 9)
Perceived stupidity (competence)
« The index of students’ perceived ICT competence was assessed with 5 items rated by students. The items were the following: (i) “I feel comfortable using digital devices that I am less familiar with”; (ii) “If my friends and relatives want to buy new digital devices or applications, I can give them advice”; (iii) “I feel comfortable using my digital devices at home”; (iv) “When I come across problems with digital devices, I think I can solve them”; and (v) “If my friends and relatives have a problem with digital devices, I can help them”. The items were rated with a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The index was scaled so that a higher value indicated a higher perceived competence with ICT. » (Page 9)
Annotation
« The index of ICT availability at school was evaluated with a 10-item questionnaire filled by students. The questions measured whether the » (Page 9)
Availability of pacifiers
« following digital devices were available at school: (i) desktop computer; (ii) portable laptop or notebook; (iii) tablet computer; (iv) internet connected school computers; (v) internet connection via wireless network; (vi) storage space for school-related data; (vii) USB (memory) stick; (viii) ebook reader; (ix) data projector; or (x) interactive whiteboard. The items were answered with a 3-point scale (1=”Yes, and I use it”; 2=”Yes, but I do not use it”; 3=”No”). The total score of the questionnaire was scaled so that a higher value referred to higher ICT availability of the school. » (Page 10)
Pen is mightier that a keyboard
« The association of frequent ICT use with weaker cognitive performance in the PISA 2015 is highly in line with previous studies conducted in other countries. For example, it has been found that frequent computer use in classroom (Carter et al., 2017; Fried, 2008, Hembrooke & Gay, 2003) and writing notes with computer rather than by hand (Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014) are linked with weaker school performance. » (Page 20)
Find the paper of Oppy
Don’t drink you’ll turn into a goat. Or don’t use laptops in the class
« Importantly, it has also been demonstrated that using a laptop during a lesson predicts weaker learning outcomes both for the laptop-user and also for the other students who can view their peer using a laptop (Sana et al., 2013). Hence, one student using ICT in a classroom may negatively affect the learning of several other students, too. » (Page 20)
We are stupid because our working memory is busy processing more than it capable
« The negative association between ICT use at school and weaker learning outcomes may likely be accounted for by working memory overload. Specifically, the most important phase of learning occurs in working memory. Using working memory, a student selects relevant pieces of information from the learning material, compares them to the previous knowledge, and organizes the new pieces of information into coherent schemas (26,41). Next, the new schemas can be moved to the long-term memory, where a learner can retain the new information later when needed (Van Merriënboer &Ayres, 2005; Kirschner, 2002). Importantly, however, the working memory has a highly limited capacity, so that overloading working memory substantially reduces the opportunities for efficient learning (Kalyuga et al., 2003; Kirschner, 2002; Mayer & Moreno, 1998). » (Page 20)
What overheats our brain
« The use of digital technologies is suggested to compose a substantial strain for the working memory in many cases (Kirschner & Bruyckere, 2017). That is, the use of digital learning applications requires a variety of cognitive tasks, such as processing the content of the learning material, the technical handling of the device, listening to teachers’ guidelines, and cognitive inhibition of » (Page 20)
Annotation
« using the device for personal purposes (e.g. social media). However, since multitasking is not possible for the cognitive architecture of the human brain (Kirschner & Bruyckere, 2017; Sweller et al., 2011), different tasks compete with each other for the limited resources of the working memory, so that performing one cognitive task interferes with concentrating on the other tasks(Kirschner & Bruyckere, 2017). Hence, use of digital learning applications may result in continuous task-switching, where resources are not available for the content of the learning material (Kirschner & Bruyckere, 2017). As a result, new information may not be moved to the long-term memory » (Page 21)
Digital tools are meant for entertainment
« That is, most digital learning applications are characterized by a large amount of interacting elements (Van Merriënboer & Ayres, 2005). For example, a single learning task may simultaneously include verbal and pictorial, auditory and visual, dynamic and static pieces of information » (Page 21)