Article in the Telegraph 21 March 2005 by John Clare, Education Editor
Computers 'hinder progress of pupils in maths and
literacy'
THE less pupils use computers at school
and at home, the better they do in international tests of literacy and maths, the largest
study of its kind says today.
The findings raise questions over the Government's decision, announced by Gordon Brown in
the Budget last week, to spend another £1.5 billion on school computers, in addition to
the £2.5 billion it has already spent. Mr Brown said: "The teaching and educational
revolution is no longer blackboards and chalk, it is computers and electronic
whiteboards."
However, the study, published by the Royal Economic Society, said: "Despite numerous
claims by politicians and software vendors to the contrary, the evidence so far suggests
that computer use in schools does not seem to contribute substantially to students'
learning of basic skills such as maths or reading."
Indeed, the more pupils used computers, the worse they performed, said Thomas Fuchs and
Ludger Wossmann of Munich University.
Their report also noted that being able to use a computer at work - one of the
justifications for devoting so much teaching time to ICT (information and communications
technology) - had no greater impact on employability or wage levels than being able to use
a telephone or a pencil.
The researchers analysed the achievements and home backgrounds of 100,000 15-year-olds in
31 countries taking part in the Pisa (Programme for International Student Assessment)
study in 2000 for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Pisa, to the British and many other governments' satisfaction, claimed that the more
pupils used computers the better they did.
It even suggested those with more than one computer at home were a year ahead of those who
had none. The study found this conclusion "highly misleading" because computer
availability at home is linked to other family-background characteristics, in the same way
computer availability at school is strongly linked to availability of other resources.
Once those influences were eliminated, the relationship between use of computers and
performance in maths and literacy tests was reduced to zero, showing how "careless
interpretations can lead to patently false conclusions".
The more access pupils had to computers at home, the lower they scored in tests, partly
because they diverted attention from homework.
Pupils tended to do worse in schools generously equipped with computers, apparently
because computerised instruction replaced more effective forms of teaching.
The Government says computers are the key to "personalised learning" and
computers should be "embedded" in the teaching of every subject. Ruth Kelly, the
Education Secretary, has said: "We must move the thinking about ICT from being an
add-on to being an integral part of the way we teach and learn."
Computers wasted in class
The electronically challenged will chortle at the news that computers may contribute
nothing to pupils' skills in maths and literacy. But in fact the study published today by
the Royal Economic Society is more serious than that. It suggests that the vast sums of
money spent on equipping state schools with computers - £2.5 billion so far, with £1.5
billion more promised in last week's Budget - are largely a waste of money.
The Government believes that computers are the key to "personalised learning"
and should be "embedded" in the teaching of every subject. The study, by
contrast, concludes that the less pupils use them at home and school, the better they do.
in international maths and literacy tests. Moreover, familiarity with them at work has no
more effect on employability or earning power than being able to use a telephone or a
pencil.
The Government should realise that academic learning is different from gazing at a
computer screen in class, in much the same way as one would watch television at home.
Information and communications technology is taking up too much of pupils' and teachers'
time. New Labour's obsession with it is ripe for review.