Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home


Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Home Computers on Academic Achievement among Schoolchildren

Susan Notes:


So we get more evidence that technology might not be the miraculous game-changer in school achievement that some people claim. We might even extrapolate that human connections are more important. But school reform continues to steamroll everybody with a massive invasion of technology that has no grounding in the needs of students.

Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Home Computers on Academic Achievement among Schoolchildren

NBER Working Paper No. 19060
Issued in May 2013

by Robert W. Fairlie, Jonathan Robinson



Computers are an important part of modern education, yet many schoolchildren lack access to a computer at home. We test whether this impedes educational achievement by conducting the largest-ever field experiment that randomly provides free home computers to students. Although computer ownership and use increased substantially, we find no effects on any educational outcomes, including grades, test scores, credits earned, attendance and disciplinary actions. Our estimates are precise enough to rule out even modestly-sized positive or negative impacts. The estimated null effect is consistent with survey evidence showing no change in homework time or other "intermediate" inputs in education.



Giving Poor Kids Computers Does Nothing Whatsoever To Their Educational Outcomes

MoneyBox
May 23, 2013

By Matthew Yglesias


I'm always glad to see a null finding reported, so I liked this paper (PDF) by Robert Fairlie and Jonathan Robinson about what happened when they gave computers to randomly selected California schoolkids whose families had no computer at home. The short answer is nothing.

The slightly longer answer is that the kids reported an almost 50 percent increase in time spent using a computer, with the time divided between doing homework, playing games, and social network. But there was no improvement in academic achievement or attendance or anything else. There wasn't even an improvement in computer skills. At the same time, there was no negative impact either. The access to extra computer games didn't reduce total time spent on homework or lead to any declines in anything. They broke it down by a few demographic subgroups and didn't find anything there either. It's just a huge nada. Nothing happening.

I think this is an important finding because it helps shed some light on the socioeconomic disparities in educational outcomes. We know that kids from higher-income households do much better in school than poor kids. But that of course raises the question of why that is exactly or what one might do about it. For example, would cash transfers to low-income parents make their kids do better in school? If access to home computers was associated with improved school performance, that would be strong evidence that simply fighting poverty with money could be highly effective education policy. The null finding tends to suggest otherwise, that the ways in which high-income families help their kids in school don't relate to durable goods purchases and may be things like social capital or direct parental involvement in the instructional process thatâ€"unlike computersâ€"can't be purchased on the open market.

Technology Alone Won't Save Poor Kids in Struggling Schools

The Atlantic Cities blog
May 24, 2013
by Emily Badger

Roughly one in four children in the United States lives in a home without a computer or Internet access, and this digital divide is often cited as a factor in the intractable achievement gap between poor students and their well-off peers. Give these kids a computer, the logic goes, and you may increase their chances of succeeding in school. Entire philanthropies are built on this idea.

But a jarring new National Bureau of Economic Research working paper concludes that all of this hardware may have no effect, at least in the short term, on educational outcomes. Matt Yglesias pointed us to the research, by University of California at Santa Cruz economists Robert W. Fairlie and Jonathan Robinson. Their randomized control trial included 1,123 sixth-through-10th grade students in 15 schools across California, making this the largest study of its kind. None of the students had computers at home at the start of the study. Half were given refurbished computers (the other half, the control group, were given computers after the study was completed so as not to unfairly taunt students for science).

On average, these were schools with more students on free or reduced lunch than the California average, and they had above-average rates of minority enrollment. These are the types of schools where we'd like to think that technology might go a long way. At the end of the school year, however, Fairlie and Robinson found no real difference in grades, test scores, disciplinary actions or attendance between the students who now had computers at home and those who did not. The students with computers were also no more likely to turn in their homework on time, or to have greater computer skills.

It's possible that these students may benefit from these computers in some other way that this study didn't detect. Maybe they'll be better positioned down the road to apply for jobs requiring IT skills, or they'll simply have an easier time searching online for the right college. But, as Fairlie and Robinson write:

Our results indicate that computer ownership alone is unlikely to have much of an impact on short-term schooling outcomes for low-income children. Existing and proposed interventions to reduce the remaining digital divide in the United States and other countries, such as large-scale voucher programs, tax breaks for educational purchases of computers, Individual Development Accounts (IDAs), and one-to-one laptop programs, need to be realistic about their potential to reduce the current achievement gap.

As Yglesias writes, this suggests that "the ways in which high-income families help their kids in school don't relate to durable goods purchases." And this would be consistent with what we already know about the environments children experience before they ever even enter their first classroom: Researchers have found that by age 3, low-income children have heard 30 million fewer words spoken than their high-income peers. That means that when we give a struggling low-income kid a computer in the eighth grade, the intervention is already years too late. It may also be targeting the wrong problem.

— Matthew Yglesias & Emily Badger
MoneyBox & AtlanticCity blogs
2013-05-25
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/technology/2013/05/technology-alone-wont-save-poor-kids-struggling-schools/5694/


INDEX OF RESEARCH THAT COUNTS


FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.