Students who use digital devices in class 'perform worse

in exams'
Study finds use of computers by students in lectures and seminars has ‘substantial
negative effect’ on performance

Richard Adams Education editor

Wed 11 May 2016 19.58 BST

Allowing students to use computers and the internet in classrooms substantially harms their
results, a study has found.

The paper published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that students barred
from using laptops or digital devices in lectures and seminars did better in their exams than
those allowed to use computers and access the internet.

The researchers suggested that removing laptops and iPads from classes was the equivalent of
improving the quality of teaching.

The study divided 726 undergraduates randomly into three groups in the 2014-15 and 2015-16
academic years. The control group’s classrooms were “technology-free,” meaning students were
not allowed to use laptops or tablets at their desk. Another group was allowed to use computers
and other devices, and the third group had restricted access to tablets.

“The results from our randomised experiment suggest that computer devices have a substantial
negative effect on academic performance,” the researchers concluded, suggesting that the
distraction of an electronic device complete with internet access outweighed their use for note-
taking or research during lessons.

The research had an unusual twist: the students involved were studying at the West Point
academy in the US, where cadets are ruthlessly ranked by exam results, meaning they were
motivated to perform well and may have been more disciplined than typical undergraduates.

But even for the cream of the US army’s future crop, the lure of the digital world appears to have
been too much, and exam performance after a full course of studying economics was lower
among those in classes allowed to use devices.

“Our results indicate that students perform worse when personal computing technology is
available. It is quite possible that these harmful effects could be magnified in settings outside of
West Point,” the researchers concluded.

“In a learning environment with lower incentives for performance, fewer disciplinary
restrictions on distracting behaviour, and larger class sizes, the effects of internet-enabled
technology on achievement may be larger due to professors’ decreased ability to monitor and
correct irrelevant usage.”

Tom Bennett, founder of the ResearchED education group, who is leading a UK government-
commissioned review of smartphone use in classrooms, noted the research found that even the
brightest students appeared to be distracted by the presence of digital devices, in contrast to
previous studies.

“Of course, nothing about this is conclusive and it needs to be read in the context of the
undergraduate experience, but there are some interesting reflective points for all educators. Do
you need to use tablets? How do you compensate for the possibility of distraction?” Bennett
said.

Research published last year by the London School of Economics found that banning mobile
phones affected school pupils according to their ability. “Banning mobile phones improves
outcomes for the low-achieving students … and has no significant impact on high-achievers,” it
concluded.

The new research is distinctive because it analysed the results of students in classroom
conditions rather than as part of an artificial experiment.

“In contrast to the laboratory-style research, our study measures the cumulative effects of
internet-enabled classroom technology over the course of a semester, as opposed to its impact
on immediate or short-term recall of knowledge,” the researchers said.

“We want to be clear that we cannot relate our results to a class where the laptop or tablet is used
deliberately in classroom instruction, as these exercises may boost a student’s ability to retain
the material,” they added.

Since you’re here …

… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but advertising
revenues across the media are falling fast. And unlike many news organisations, we haven’t put
up a paywall – we want to keep our journalism as open as we can. So you can see why we need to
ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time,
money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters –
because it might well be your perspective, too.
The Guardian is editorially independent, meaning we set our own agenda. Our journalism is free
from commercial bias and not influenced by billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. No
one edits our Editor. No one steers our opinion. This is important because it enables us to give a
voice to the voiceless, challenge the powerful and hold them to account. It’s what makes us
different to so many others in the media, at a time when factual, honest reporting is critical.

If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to support it, our future would be much
more secure. For as little as $1, you can support the Guardian – and it only takes a minute.
Thank you.

Support The Guardian

Topics
Students
Teaching
news