‘Our children are less cognitively capable,’ says neuroscientist who wants to cut screen use in schools
Neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath argues that the widespread use of educational technology in schools is making children less cognitively capable, citing falling IQ scores and international test results.
Intelligence analysis by Gemini 2.5 Flash
Horvath, author of 'The Digital Delusion,' claims that a generational decline in cognitive ability, marked by falling IQ and test scores since 2000, is directly linked to the meteoric rise of edtech, a multi-billion dollar industry. While he advocates for significantly reducing screen time for academic learning, other experts caution against confusing correlation with causation, sugge…
Imagine your brain is like a muscle, and learning is like exercising it. A scientist named Jared thinks that using too many screens in school, like laptops and tablets, is making kids' brain muscles weaker, so they're not as good at thinking deeply as kids used to be. He says that even though schools use more tech, kids' test scores are going down. But other smart people say it's not so simple; a little bit of screen time might even help, and the real trick is figuring out how to use computers in a smart way, not just getting rid of them all.
Analysis
Jared Cooney Horvath's Alarm
Neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath is spearheading a movement to drastically reduce screen use in schools, asserting that educational technology (edtech) is actively undermining children's learning and development. In his book, 'The Digital Delusion,' Horvath posits a stark and challenging truth: 'Our children are less cognitively capable than we were at their age.' He argues that a historical trend of steady generational progress in health, happiness, and education in the West has reversed since approximately the year 2000.
Horvath attributes this decline directly to the proliferation of edtech, noting a concurrent fall in IQ scores and international test results, despite increased time spent in school. He points to the massive scale of the edtech market, valued at around £6.5bn annually in the UK and a staggering $400bn in the US, as evidence of its pervasive integration into schooling. The Covid-19 pandemic further accelerated this digital pivot, with 88% of US school districts now having one-to-one computers, a shift that largely persisted even after the immediate crisis subsided.
Pisa Data Insights
Horvath's argument is bolstered by his interpretation of data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa), which tracks the academic performance of 15-year-olds globally. He highlights findings from 2012, 2015, and 2018, which show a clear correlation: 'The more time students spent on screens at school, the further their scores fell.' Specifically, he notes that students using computers for over six hours per day scored an average of 66 points lower than their peers who avoided screen use entirely.
However, this interpretation of the Pisa data is not universally accepted. Rose Luckin, an emerita professor at the UCL Knowledge Lab, offers a more nuanced perspective. While acknowledging that much edtech was initially sold on promises rather than robust proof, Luckin points out that 'moderate school device use is associated with better results than no school device use.' She clarifies that only the heaviest daily screen use appears to be detrimental, suggesting that a blanket condemnation of all educational technology might be an oversimplification.
UCL Knowledge Lab's Perspective
Experts like Rose Luckin and Dylan Wiliam, an emeritus professor of educational assessment at the UCL Institute of Education, urge caution against conflating correlation with causation when evaluating edtech's impact. Wiliam emphasizes that while technology 'may well be harming student achievement,' current correlational studies cannot definitively support such causal claims. He also highlights the existence of numerous well-designed studies demonstrating a positive impact of technology on student achievement.
This perspective underscores that the question of whether edtech negatively impacts learning does not have a simple yes/no answer. Instead, Wiliam suggests the critical inquiry should be, 'when does edtech help learning?' This reframes the debate from an outright rejection of technology to a more sophisticated exploration of effective integration, pedagogical strategies, and appropriate usage levels to maximize educational benefits while mitigating potential harms.
Key points
- Neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath argues that educational technology is making children 'less cognitively capable,' reversing generational progress.
- He links falling IQ scores and international test results since 2000 to the rise of edtech, a multi-billion dollar industry.
- Pisa data showed students using computers for over six hours daily scored 66 points lower than those with no screen use.
- Experts like Rose Luckin and Dylan Wiliam caution against confusing correlation with causation, noting moderate tech use can be beneficial.
- The debate highlights the complex question of 'when does edtech help learning?' rather than a simple yes/no answer.
If educators and policymakers heed the nuanced advice, they could develop evidence-based guidelines for technology integration, ensuring that screens are used strategically to enhance learning without hindering cognitive development. This could lead to innovative educational models that leverage technology's benefits while prioritizing deep, transferable knowledge.
Should Horvath's warnings prove accurate and widespread screen use in schools continue unchecked, future generations may indeed face diminished cognitive capabilities, impacting societal progress and individual potential. The financial incentives of the edtech industry could further entrench problematic practices, making it difficult to reverse the trend.
