In 1953 B.F. Skinner visited his daughter’s math class. The Harvard psychologist found every pupil learning the same topic in the same way at the same speed. A few days later he built his first “teaching machine,” which let children tackle questions at their own pace. By the mid-1960s similar gizmos were being flogged by door-to-door salesmen. Within a few years, though, enthusiasm for them had fizzled out.
Since then education technology, aka “edtech,” has repeated the cycle of hype and flop, even as computers have reshaped almost every other part of life. One reason is the conservatism of teachers and their unions, but another is that the brain-stretching potential of edtech has remained unproven.
Today, however, Skinner’s heirs are forcing the skeptics to think again. Backed by billionaire techies such as Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Microsoft’s Bill Gates, schools around the world are using new software to “personalize” learning. This could help hundreds of millions of children stuck in dismal classes—but only if edtech boosters can resist the temptation to revive harmful ideas about how children learn. To succeed, edtech must be at the service of teaching, not the other way around.
The conventional Western model of schooling emerged in Prussia in the 18th century. So far alternatives have failed to teach as many children as efficiently. Classrooms, hierarchical year-groups, standardized curricula and fixed timetables still are the norm for most of the world’s nearly 1.5 billion schoolchildren.
Too many do not reach their potential. In poor countries only a quarter of secondary schoolchildren acquire at least a basic knowledge of math, reading and science. Even in the mostly rich countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, about 30% of teenagers fail to reach proficiency in at least one of these subjects.
That share has remained almost unchanged for the past 15 years, during which billions have been spent on IT in schools. By 2012 there was one computer for every two pupils in several rich countries. Australia had more computers than pupils. Handled poorly, however, devices can distract. A Portuguese study from 2010 found that schools with slow broadband and a ban on sites such as Youtube had better results than higher-tech ones.
What matters is how edtech is used. One way it can help is through customized instruction. Ever since Philip II of Macedon hired Aristotle to prepare his son Alexander for greatness, rich parents have paid for tutors. Reformers from São Paulo to Stockholm think that edtech can put individual attention within reach of all pupils.
American schools are embracing the model most readily. A third of all pupils are in school districts that have pledged to introduce “personalized, digital learning.” The methods of groups such as Summit Public Schools, whose software was written for nothing by Facebook engineers, are being copied by hundreds of schools.
In India, where about half of all children leave primary school unable to read a simple text, the curriculum goes over many pupils’ heads. “Adaptive” software such as Mindspark can work out what a child knows and pose questions accordingly. A recent paper found that Indian children using Mindspark after school made some of the largest gains in math and reading of any education study in poor countries.
The other way edtech can aid learning is by making schools more productive. In California schools are using software to overhaul the conventional model. Instead of textbooks, pupils have “playlists” which they use to access online lessons and take tests. The software assesses children’s progress, lightening teachers’ marking load and giving them insight into their pupils. Saved teachers’ time is allocated to other tasks, such as fostering pupils’ social skills or one-on-one tuition. A 2015 study suggested that children in early adopters of this model score better in tests than their peers at other schools.
Such innovation is welcome, but making the best of edtech means getting several things right.
First, “personalized learning” must follow the evidence on how children learn. The second imperative is to make sure that edtech narrows, rather than widens, inequalities in education. Third, the potential for edtech will be realized only if teachers embrace it.
© 2017 Economist Newspaper Ltd., London (July 22). All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
Image credits: Doug Mills/The New York Times