General – Learning Aloud

Damage from time online?

The benefits and harms done by our devices and the ways we use them is one of those topics likely of at least marginal interest to most people. We wonder whether we have become too dependent and whether existing interests and capabilities have deteriorated. If we are a parent or educator we likely have additional unique interests. Have I messed up my kid by letting him or her use a phone without supervision? How do I keep my students on track in the classroom and are they using AI to complete my assignments quickly without any actual educational benefits?

My personal interest goes a bit further in that I spent my career preparing educators to use technology in their classrooms and I by training feel responsible for understanding the science behind recommendations made to others. So, I review the research on many topics. From this perspective, I would offer the following observation – it is seldom as simple as it seems. I know this to be true in the social sciences which would be the field covering phone use and the impact on development and learning. This is the case for many reasons and far from a topic I can thoroughly consider here. One comment I used to make to my own students may be helpful. For context, I was trained as a biologist who became a psychologist. My comment was – students tend to see a discipline like chemistry as more sophisticated and complicated than psychology. Consider that the chemicals in that beaker don’t decide whether they feel like reacting today. People are different.

Back to the issue of our devices and the research on how we are being impacted. I recently read a book by Jonathan Haidt titled The Anxious Generation. Many people must have read this book because it topped the New York Times best-seller list for several weeks which I interpret to mean many parents and educators are concerned and were attracted by the topic. Recommendations made in the book, for example, no phones in schools, have been implemented in many schools. I read Haidt’s book in response to such changes concerned my pro-technology advocacy should be tempered. I admit my initial reaction was that Haidt made a reasoned and evidence-based case. However, I have learned that such secondary sources need to be vetted and I was concerned by some of Haidt’s rationale which I would describe as “what else besides iPhones and Instagram” could explain the mental health issues of adolescent females. The “what else could it be” logic just seems weak. In reaction, I read a related, but less well-known book by Pete Etchells and as I suspected the issue is complicated.

What follows is my summary of the two books with some related comments.

Comparing Perspectives on Screen Time and Mental Health

Haidt’s “The Anxious Generation”

In “The Anxious Generation,” Jonathan Haidt really covers two broad problems he contends have changed the mental health development of children and adolescents. Children have been overprotected in their daily lives resulting in a lack of play and autonomy involving risks and consequences. In contrast, the author argues that the rise of smartphones and social media have been largely unmonitored and unrestricted with negative consequences to mental health. I will comment on both claims, but emphasize technology use.

Haidt highlights the following key points:

Slow-Growth Childhood: Human children have an extended childhood compared to other mammals, providing them with time to learn through play and social interactions. This extended childhood is crucial for emotional and cognitive development.

Importance of Play: Play-based childhoods are essential for healthy development, fostering skills such as emotional regulation, social competence, and creativity.

Safetyism: Haidt argues that the overprotective parenting style prevalent in the 1990s, termed “safetyism,” limited children’s opportunities for risk-taking and independence, further contributing to anxiety. Haidt uses example older folks will find familiar – e.g., playground equipment that is no longer allowed for safety reasons and reduced independence in moving about the neighborhood or in solo trips to the store.

Negative Impacts of Smartphones: These problems include:

Social deprivation: Replacing face-to-face interaction with screen time.

Sleep deprivation: Late-night phone use cutting into sleep at ages when necessary. The early school start for adolescents is an example of when this becomes a problem.

Attention fragmentation: Constant notifications and multitasking impairing focus.

Addiction: The design of social media platforms promoting addictive behaviors. Etchells will reject this notion if understood as a physiological addition as in drug use.

Puberty as a Sensitive Period: Puberty is a critical period for brain development, making adolescents particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of social media. Hence, experiences allowed at other ages may do less damage.

What evidence suggests that puberty is a “sensitive period” for social media use?

Brain Development: Puberty to a greater degree than the earlier period of childhood involves the pruning of neurons and the strengthening of connections, processes influenced by experiences. This heightened neuroplasticity implies that experiences during puberty, including social media use, can have a greater and more enduring impact on brain structure and function.

Orben’s Research: Amy Orben, found that negative correlations between social media use and life satisfaction were more pronounced in the 10-15 age group, encompassing puberty, compared to older individuals (16-21). This finding directly supports the idea of puberty as a sensitive period for social media’s influence on well-being.

Social Learning and Conformity: Adolescents are conformers, a process that social media platforms can strongly influence. Puberty marks a time when individuals are particularly sensitive to social cues and peer influence, seeking to establish their identity and social standing. Social media platforms, with their emphasis on likes, followers, and influencers, can hijack this natural drive for social learning, potentially leading to distorted perceptions and unhealthy comparisons. Giirls are most vulnerable to social media’s negative effects between 11 and 13, while boys experience this heightened vulnerability between 14 and 15. This timeframe aligns with typical puberty onset, further suggesting that the hormonal and social changes during this period make adolescents more susceptible to the pressures and comparisons prevalent on social media.

In conclusion, the sources provide converging evidence pointing to puberty as a “sensitive period” for social media use. This sensitivity stems from the interplay of rapid brain development, heightened social awareness, and the drive for conformity, all characteristic of adolescent development. This information suggests that social media use during puberty requires particular attention and potentially different approaches compared to other age groups.

Haidt makes use of historical data linking changes in mental health data over the years to changes in the technology available to young people. Much of Haidt’s argument about the damage done by access to the Internet is made by tracking mental health outcomes against dates associated with changes in technology. Gen Z started to reach puberty in 2009. iPhones became available in 2009. Social media capabilities such as retweets and likes became available in 2009. Front facing cameras in 2010. Facebook acquired Instagram in 2012. His challenge to critics is what else could have accounted for the changes in adolescent mental health that correspond to this time frame.

Recommendations: Haidt proposes four solutions to address this issue: no smartphones before high school, no social media before age 16, phone-free schools, and promoting more unsupervised play and childhood independence.

Etchells’ “Unlocked”

Pete Etchells, in his book “Unlocked: The Real Science of Screen Time (and how to spend it better)” offers a more nuanced view of screen time and its relationship to mental health.

Etchells first notes that the consequences of technology and social media likely include both positive and negative impacts so explanatory models must take into account both possible outcomes. Etchells’ key arguments include:

Screen Time is Complex: Etchells argues simply measuring the total amount of screen time is insufficient to understand its impact on well-being. What matters is how screen time is used, the specific apps and content consumed, and the context of use.

Limited Evidence for Strong Negative Effects: While some studies have shown correlations between screen time and mental health issues, the evidence is mixed, with many studies showing small or inconsistent effects. The existence of correlations even if the correlation reflected a causal relationship with negative changes in mental health as a consequence do not necessarily show large effects. The impact is typically small.

Etchells critiques the reliance on anecdotal evidence and highlights methodological limitations in much of the research. One of the most important methodological limitations appears to be whether self-reports versus verifiable behavioral data are used. Even though digital devices are great at recording data on use (consider your iPhone and your daily report of time spent on different apps) many studies ask users to estimate their time spent and activities experienced. When studies using self-report data are compared with studies using the more accurate data collected by the devices used, significant relationships are typically found only with the self-report data. Etchells speculates that user awareness of screen time issues and potential negative consequences results in participants in these studies interpreting negative personal experiences as an indication of too much screen time. How individuals feel about their screen use and their perceived self-control are more strongly related to well-being than objective measures of screen time.

Importance of Habits over Addiction: Etchells argues that framing excessive screen use as “addiction” is unhelpful, as it focuses on abstinence as the only solution. Instead, he advocates for viewing screen use as a set of habits that can be modified to promote well-being. The author argues that the assumption of a physiological explanation (probably dopamine) within the framework of addictions such as drug abuse is what readers of many of the negative books assume. Addiction tends to ignore agency and motivation. This is where the notion of habits also fits and solutions that are more nuanced with a focus on decision-making and awareness.

Oversimplification of “Screen Time”: Etchells argues that simply measuring the total amount of time spent in front of screens is too crude a metric to be meaningful. He emphasizes that “screen time” encompasses a vast range of activities, from educational apps to social media to video games, each with potentially different effects on well-being. He contends that focusing solely on duration ignores the crucial factors of content, context, and purpose of use.

Reliance on Anecdotal Evidence: Etchells criticizes the prevalent use of anecdotal stories to support claims about the negative impacts of screen time. While these stories can be compelling and relatable, he argues they often lack scientific rigor and can lead to biased conclusions. We like stories because we often can relate to such examples and do not necessarily make the same connections with the data in graphs and statistics. Of course, coming up with examples that fit a perspective does not necessarily fit what is most common in a sample of participants. He points out that reliance on anecdotes is particularly problematic in a relatively new field like digital technology research, where robust, longitudinal data is still limited.

Methodological Issues in Correlational Studies: Much of the research on screen time relies on correlational studies, which can only demonstrate associations, not causal relationships. Etchells highlights the problem of “third variables,” unaccounted-for factors that might influence both screen time and mental health, leading to spurious correlations. For example, pre-existing mental health conditions, family dynamics, or socioeconomic factors could contribute to both increased screen time and negative well-being outcomes, creating the illusion of a direct link where none exists. Correlations showing relationships do not necessarily convey the magnitude of an effect. A significant correlation in a large population may be associated with a very small impact.

Lack of Theoretical Framework: Etchells argues that the field lacks a robust theoretical framework to guide research and interpret findings. He suggests that without clear theoretical models, researchers are left to “grasp at straws,” making tenuous connections between screen time and a wide range of outcomes without a solid foundation for understanding the underlying mechanisms. This lack of theoretical grounding makes it difficult to develop testable hypotheses and draw meaningful conclusions. Haidt’s “what else could it be” argument fits here.

Ambiguous Terminology: Etchells points out the imprecise use of terms like “addiction” and “attention” in screen time research. He criticizes the tendency to label excessive screen use as “addiction” without sufficient evidence of a true physiological dependence. He also argues that “attention” is often used interchangeably with “self-control,” leading to conceptual confusion and misinterpretations of research findings.

Insufficient Attention to Positive Effects: Etchells argues that the focus on potential negative consequences of screen time has overshadowed research on its potential benefits. He acknowledges that excessive or problematic screen use can be detrimental, but he emphasizes the importance of recognizing the many ways in which technology can enhance learning, communication, and social connection. He encourages a more balanced approach that considers both the positive and negative aspects of screen time.

In conclusion, Etchells urges caution against drawing sweeping conclusions about the impact of screen time based on the existing research. He advocates for more nuanced investigations that consider the complexities of technology use, adopt rigorous methodologies, and develop strong theoretical frameworks to guide future research.

Comparing Haidt and Etchells

While both Haidt and Etchells acknowledge the potential downsides of excessive screen time, they differ significantly in their overall perspectives and conclusions:

Emphasis on Negative Effects: Haidt emphasizes the negative impacts of smartphones and social media, attributing a rise in mental health problems directly to these technologies. Etchells, on the other hand, acknowledges the potential for harm but argues that the evidence for strong negative effects is weak and often overstated.

Role of Social Media: Haidt sees social media as a particularly harmful force, promoting conformity, comparison, and addiction. Etchells recognizes these potential issues but maintains that social media can also have positive benefits, depending on how it is used. The existence of both positive and negative outcomes argues against simplistic abstinence/avoidance and urges more careful personal awareness and control.

Solutions: Haidt proposes strict limitations on smartphone access and social media use, advocating for a return to a more play-based childhood with less adult supervision. Etchells focuses on promoting healthy screen habits, emphasizing individual agency and self-regulation rather than strict restrictions.

Conclusion

Haidt’s “The Anxious Generation” presents a compelling, albeit alarming, argument about the potential downsides of technology for young people. However, Etchells’ “Unlocked” offers a more balanced perspective, urging caution against oversimplifying the complex relationship between screen time and mental health. The key takeaway is that understanding the nuances of screen use and focusing on developing healthy habits is crucial for mitigating potential harms and maximizing the benefits of technology. Both books highlight the importance of critical thinking and evidence-based approaches when evaluating the impact of technology on our lives.

Sources:

Etchells, P. (2024). Unlocked: the real science of screen time (and how to spend it better). Hachette UK

Haidt, J. (2024). The anxious generation: How the great rewiring of childhood is causing an epidemic of mental illness. Random House.

Hooked on Online Writing

I have been reading Robert Haidt’s “The Anxious Generation”. This post is not a description of that book, but the book’s focus and content were the origin of my present topic. The book, which has topped the New York Times best-seller list for some weeks, focuses on the mental health damage of the way kids are raised in combination with the negative impact of social media. Haidt is particularly concerned about young girls and their susceptibility to the negative consequences of what becomes a damaging addiction to social media. While male and 75, I had an uneasy feeling Haidt could have been describing me and my preoccupation with a different online environment. Before I get to my personal insight, allow me to describe the characteristics Haidt argues drive the general problem that is the focus of his book.

Haidt proposes that the writings of B.J. Fogg have served as the bible guiding many social media entrepreneurs. I usually read the core literature associated with what I write, but Fogg’s book was priced at textbook levels and I decided I was very familiar with the central content (a different source). Fogg successful persuasion can be accomplished based on behavioral principles any college student who has taken the Introduction to Psychology course will recognize. His terminology is a little different. When I taught the Intro course, I described the process Fogg and Haidt emphasize as operant conditioning. A very simple version of the way operant conditioning changes behavior is captured in the sequence – stimulus – response – consequences. Behavior changes (response) are encouraged by positive consequences. When used to account for what seems an addiction to online social media in children, the response might be frequent checking of a social media account and the positive reinforcers (likes, comments, attention, etc.). Access to a phone (the stimulus) triggers the initial behavior generating the consequences.

The Fogg version is described in the following model.

Fogg uses a little different vocabulary. The external trigger is his term for stimulus and action is the behavior. Variable reinforcement is another concept from behavioral psychology that translates as a situation in which a behavior does not produce a consequence every time it is produced. This unpredictability increases the frequency of behavior. A common example is the way a slot machine works. A gambler would soon quit if previous experiences were always wins and now the machine stops paying out. You tend quit putting coins into a vending machine if the first attempt or maybe the second produces no soda or candy bar. If however, a slot machine generates wins now and then people keep feeding their coins.

Fogg and Haidt add one additional component to the model – investment. Social media often has another characteristic increasing holding power. The example of investments are everywhere online. Do you play that online game where you have to guess the spelling of a mystery word within so many tries? If you have a streak of days going, you have an investment that makes it very likely you will not miss a day. Do you take photos or use AI to create photos to embellish your posts? You are making an investment. Do you pay to add weapons or clothing (skins) in an online game? You are investing. When your identity becomes part of your participation in an activity, you are heavily invested. I would suggest making political comments on social media are a good example of being invested. Our political affiliations are part of our identities. Haidt argues that Instagram has such a powerful impact on young females (often negative) because the photo-heavy nature of the platforms triggers the role appearance has in the identity of young women.

Social media involves a switch from external triggers to internal triggers. Once you are involved, you don’t have to be sent a message that you have a new like or comment. You don’t have to see your phone sitting on your desk. Your thoughts lead you to get your phone out of your pocket or purse to check your accounts to see if anything new has shown up.

Haidt emphasizes the powerful impact of social media on the attention and mental health in children and adolescents. I saw a similarity in the application of the model and the arguments made to adults who write on blogs, Substack and Medium. I don’t think the negative impact holds in the same way because of the life experiences and brain maturity (frontal cortex and metacognition) of adults and draw the following parallels more out of amusement than concern. If there was one insight that triggered me to write this post, it was the recognition of identity in motivating behavior more so than the behavioral explanation. For those who write, writing for public consumption is part of personal identity. I think the behavioral impact on behavior is more powerful because of this self view.

Here is my attempt to apply the cycle of engagement (Haidt and Fogg) to writing:

1. Trigger

The cycle starts with a trigger that prompts users to take an action. Triggers can be:

External triggers: Notifications, emails, messages, ads, or reminders that tell users to open an app or take action. For example, a push notification letting you know someone liked your post.
Internal triggers: Emotions, thoughts, or desires that come from within, like boredom, curiosity, just wondering if there is something there. These feelings push users to check their phone or social media without an external prompt.

2. Action

After the trigger, the user performs an action. The action may be simple such as seeing if anyone has read your post or liked your content. There may be statistics or charts to check. The actions that are triggered can be more involved such as researching and writing another post.

3. Variable Reward

Once the action is taken, the user receives a reward, but to keep engagement high, the reward is often variable or unpredictable. This uncertainty makes the reward more powerful or resistant to extinction in behavioral terms.

Social rewards: Users may get more or fewer likes, comments, or shares on their posts each time, keeping them hooked. In some writing platforms, there is financial compensation to check.

4. Investment

The final stage of the cycle is investment, where the user puts something of value back into the platform. This investment can be time, effort, data, or emotional input, and it increases the likelihood that the user will return to the platform. Examples include:

Creating content: Posting a photo, video, or comment.
Personalization: Customizing a profile or favoriting the work of others.
Building relationships: Adding friends, replying to messages, or participating in communities.This investment helps users feel more connected to the platform because they’ve contributed, and it primes them for future triggers. As they invest more, they become more likely to engage again, as their investment increases the value of the platform to them
Financial commitment: Payment of a fee to participate.
Affirmation of identity: The content I generate and share demonstrates I am a writer.

5. Repeat

Once users have invested in the platform, they receive new triggers, starting the cycle all over again. Over time, this cycle builds a habit, with users increasingly relying on internal triggers, such as boredom or curiosity, to engage with the platform.

If you are a writer who contributes content online, you may see yourself in this description. With social media, such models are used to describe how participants are drawn into spending more and more time in such environments sometimes with negative emotional consequences. I will leave it to your own analysis to determine whether being drawn into a platform to which you contribute your writing impacts your emotional well-being.

Reference

Fogg, B.J. (2003). Persuasive technology: Using computers to change what we think and do (Interactive Technologies).

The Science of Reading: A Review of Three Recent Books

I read a lot, but aside from posting short reactions to Goodreads I seldom write longer reviews. I was able to get the book club I attend that typically focuses on history, economics, and writing to read my suggestion – Adrian Jones’ The Science of Reading. Despite the departure from our standard fare, the breadth of the issues covered using reading and learning to read as a base resulted in many engaging discussions. The present political interest of some states in mandating how children should be taught to read, the history of the “reading wars”, the big money up for grabs in school purchases of instructional materials (books), how digital technology changed reading, and why this particular skill is so important have encouraged broader interest in how best to prepare readers and in how we all engage with text. There is something for nearly everyone here.

The three books I will comment on cover these topics with different emphases. The Science of Reading (Jones) offers the strongest historical perspective. Reader, Come Home (Maryann Wolf) emphasizes a brain-based perspective. Willingham’s The Reading Mind approaches the set of topics from a cognitive perspective. All are approachable and as an educational psychologist with a cognitive background, I see value in how different perspectives support and supplement each other.

Adrian Johns’s “The Science of Reading: Information, Media & Mind in Modern America”

Johns covers the scientific study of reading from the 1880s to the present and argues that understanding the history of the science of reading is essential to understanding broader historical changes in knowledge, information, and technology. He achieves this by tracing the evolution of how reading has been perceived and taught, particularly in the United States, where reading has been closely linked to concerns about effective participation in a democracy. The assumed connection between reading and the economy and reading and informed citizenship are reflected in the long-term interest of politicians in this subject area.

The book begins by examining the origins of the science of reading, which can be traced back to the late 19th century, and the interest of scientists in the movement of the eyes (saccades) while reading. Early researchers like James McKeen Cattell (a name many might recognize from an Introduction to Psychology class) focused on the psychophysical aspects of reading, conducting experiments to measure reaction times and investigate how the human eye processes visual information. Cattell’s research led him to advocate for teaching reading through whole-word identification, a method that gained traction in American schools. For those involved in or recognizing the battle over how best to teach reading, the alternative extremes are to emphasize word recognition or sounding out words by what most would describe as phonics.

However, as Johns illustrates, the science of reading was not solely driven by laboratory findings. An emphasis on mass literacy further fueled the development and adoption of different reading methods, reflecting the intertwined nature of scientific inquiry and societal needs.

Edmund Burke Huey’s influential 1908 book, “The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading”, marked a crucial shift in the field, arguing that reading was not merely a mechanical skill but a complex social activity shaped by readers’ experiences. Huey emphasized the importance of “apperceptive filling in,” where readers constantly make inferences based on clues from the text, highlighting the active and constructive nature of reading comprehension. Huey remained influential and my own introduction to reading as a fascinating area of study included my reading of an updated edition of Huey’s book in the 1960s. The word recognition position became integrated with the use of context to form one of the two alternative positions proposing how kids should be taught to read.

Johns dedicates considerable attention to the “reading wars,” the ongoing debates between proponents of phonics-based instruction and those favoring whole-language approaches. He argues that these debates, often framed as a simplistic this or that options, fail to capture the complexity of reading acquisition and the nuances of effective teaching methods. However, as one might recognize from recent media accounts of mandated methods in different states, the methods to be used and the commercial materials to be purchased with state money are often described to parents and the general public in similar simplistic ways.

The book examines key figures and events in the reading wars, including Rudolf Flesch’s scathing critique of whole-language instruction in his 1955 bestseller, “Why Johnny Can’t Read”. Flesch’s book ignited a public debate, pushing back against the prevailing emphasis on whole-word recognition and advocating for a return to phonics-based instruction.

Johns also discusses the work of Jeanne Chall, whose research, culminating in her 1967 book “Learning to Read: The Great Debate,” offered a more complex perspective on the reading wars. Chall argued that a balanced approach incorporating both phonics and whole-language strategies was crucial, particularly in the early stages of reading development. I was pleased to see that my friend Dick Anderson who once headed the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois also received some space in Jones’ book as a supporter of a similar balanced approach.

The latter part of the book explores the impact of technology on reading, examining the development of teaching machines, programmed learning, and the rise of computers. Johns discusses the work of visionaries like Alan Kay, whose Dynabook project, though never fully realized, envisioned a portable computer designed to replace school textbooks and transform the learning process. Today’s iPad could represent the type of device Kay could only imagine.

Johns concludes by reflecting on the enduring challenges of reading in the digital age, posing questions about the differences between reading on paper and screens, and the implications of new technologies for literacy and learning.

While providing a thorough historical overview, Johns occasionally delves into intricate details of specific experiments or research methodologies, which may not be of interest to all readers. I find the description of actual studies of great interest and the answer to the question of how researchers study something as invisible as the processes of a mental skill such as reading and come up with explanations of what exactly is going on.

Reader, come home: The reading brain in a digital world

Maryanne Wolf’s *Reader, Come Home* presents a critical examination of how the digital age is reshaping the human brain’s ability to read deeply. She reviews the brain science of her previous book (Proust and the Squid), but then spends time on whether new technologies presenting text and multimedia alter how the brain adapts to the processing of text. There is more brain science in her first book for those wanting that focus and more focus on screen time, changes in attention span, and reading from a screen versus from paper in the book I am reviewing here.

The central argument of *Reader, Come Home* is that the human brain was not initially designed for reading; instead, reading rewired our brains in ways that changed our thinking. Wolf is deeply concerned that excessive exposure to screen-based media is now rewiring our brains in a different, less beneficial way. The skimming style of reading encouraged by digital platforms, where information is processed quickly and often superficially, is contrasted with the deeper, more reflective reading associated with print books. Wolf stresses that while the brain is highly plastic and can adapt, the quality of that adaptation depends on the stimuli it is exposed to regularly.

Wolf does not argue for a wholesale rejection of digital reading. Instead, she advocates for a balance, calling for the development of what she terms “biliterate” brains. These are brains that are adept at both skimming digital media and engaging in deep, reflective reading. Her emphasis is particularly on children, who, she argues, are especially vulnerable to the negative impacts of digital reading due to the greater plasticity of their brains. If children are exposed only to skimming on digital platforms, they may miss out on the profound cognitive and linguistic benefits that come from deep reading.

The book also provides practical advice for parents and educators. One of Wolf’s key suggestions is to encourage parents to read to their children from printed books rather than relying on digital devices that often come with built-in distractions. The concern is not just about reading comprehension, but also about how children learn to engage with and reflect on complex information, skills that are crucial for higher-order thinking.

A recurring theme in Reader, Come Home is that we are becoming passive consumers of information rather than active, critical thinkers. Wolf’s fear is that if we continue down this path, future generations will lose the ability to think deeply and critically. She draws on cognitive science to show how the brain’s attentional systems are being rewired in ways that diminish our capacity for sustained attention, a vital component of deep reading.

For those who enjoy scientific debates, contrast Wolf and Willingham’s perspective on this issue. Willingham explains the resistance to reading long-form content more as a decreased tolerance for boredom rather than the brain being shaped biologically.

The Reading Mind: A Cognitive Approach to Understanding How the Mind Reads

The Reading Mind is a comprehensive exploration of the mechanics of reading, offering both a cognitive and a practical perspective on how our brains process text. Willingham draws from a wealth of psychological research to explain the nuances of reading, from identifying phonemes to building meaning from full texts.

At its core, The Reading Mind breaks down reading into stages, beginning with letter and sound recognition and culminating in full comprehension of texts. Willingham explains that the ability to match letters to phonemes (basic units of sound) is crucial to reading development, particularly for children. As readers become more proficient, their ability to decode words becomes more automatic, freeing cognitive resources for understanding the meaning of sentences and paragraphs. In other works, the sound of words is initially quite important, but gives way to more automatic recognition of words. This cognitive model serves as a foundation throughout the book as Willingham discusses the importance of both bottom-up processes, like letter recognition, and top-down processes, such as using background knowledge to comprehend texts. I read somewhere that this simultaneous bottom-up and top-down processing can be described as interactive, compensatory processing. This means that multiple processes are going on simultaneously and they work both to support each other. Letter recognition is information by word recognition (the word provides a context that speeds up letter recognition). Words are more quickly recognized and their meaning is more effectively retrieved within meaningful sentences (sentences provide a context that informs word recognition and understanding). Understanding what we read is assisted by what we already know in general and what we know more specifically about the topic we are reading about (again a context effect improving more basic processes).

One of the more powerful demonstrations I know of considers the relative contribution of reading proficiency and subject knowledge to comprehension. Willingham provides an example based on soccer knowledge. The research study I was familiar with used baseball knowledge. Anyway, young readers were classified as more and less proficient readers and more and less knowledgeable of baseball. This gives you four groups – high skill, high knowledge; high skill, low knowledge; low skill, high knowledge; and low skill, low knowledge. All readers were asked to read a description of half an inning of a baseball game and later write what they remembered. This method allows the impact of reading skill to be teased apart from the impact of subject knowledge. The findings demonstrate that existing knowledge had a larger impact on recall than reading skill.

One of the book’s strengths is its emphasis on the role of motivation in reading. Willingham makes the case that motivation is as critical as cognitive skills when it comes to becoming a proficient reader. Readers who enjoy reading tend to read more, which in turn improves their reading abilities, creating a virtuous cycle. This insight is particularly valuable for educators and parents trying to encourage reluctant readers. Willingham argues that ease of access makes a big difference

A notable section of The Reading Mind addresses the potential impact of technology on reading habits. Willingham acknowledges the concern that digital distractions, such as social media and video games, might reduce the amount of time young people spend reading. However, he points out that these activities have not necessarily displaced reading time for most youth. Instead, he suggests that the issue lies in a reduced tolerance for boredom, which could make sustained reading more difficult for some. While Willingham does recommend limiting screen time, he is skeptical of alarmist claims that technology is fundamentally altering how children’s brains process information. His balanced view on this topic is refreshing in an age of widespread concern about the effects of digital media on cognitive development.

Conclusion:

My efforts here were to give enough of the flavor of each of these books to perhaps convince you to take a look. As I tried to suggest in the beginning of this post, all books are very approachable and take you in multiple directions addressing several topics that seem of current interest.

Processing video for Personal Knowledge Management

John’s “The Science of Reading” explores the historical and scientific journey of reading as a science and a practice. Much of my professional life as a researcher focused on reading and reading skills and as a consequence, I was aware of some of the history of the research and theory. What I found my perspective lacked was the broader perspective on what was expected of reading as a determinant of culture and as the basis for citizenship and commercial and scientific advancement. The political perspective associated with assumptions about what specific skills were necessary for the general advancement of nations was an angle I had not considered.

The closest I can come to explaining some of the insights I encountered might be compared to present assumptions concerning political arguments over why “educated” citizens can believe the things they believe and even what should be excluded from classroom consideration to prevent what some see as undesirable outcomes. Those of us involved in the nitty-gritty of the learning and improvement of the skills of reading are often oblivious to broader questions of what the general population may expect the skill to accomplish or the problems the acquisition of a skill may create.

A historical perspective provides both a way to see transitions in a skill and how that skill is developed, but also how in this case to consider that a skill exists in a reciprocal relationship with that knowledge and culture. For example, political values, arguably a part of culture, have varied in demanding that a specific form of communication be prioritized and thus justifies support as a means for accomplishing prioritized goals. Who needs to develop a specific communication skill, what information should this skill target, and how will the use of this skill be controlled? More to the point of this post, are we in an era in which reading is coming to the end of its reign in this broader capacity and are we seeing the early stages of a transition to a different means for recording and transmitting knowledge and culture? Are we in the midst of this transition without acknowledging it and perhaps more importantly supporting and shaping the direction of this transition?

Perhaps asking whether we are moving on from reading seems radical, but these thoughts came to me as I have watched my grandchildren and truthfully most of my relatives spend hours exploring videos on their phones. The time children and adolescents spend on YouTube and other video content exceeds by a considerable margin the time they spend reading. It seems this reality has to be acknowledged. I tried to locate some specific data and found that the results of a recent Gallup poll indicate adolescents report spending an average of 1.9 hours daily on YouTube alone. Adults may be different, but I would wager when they encounter a skill they must execute they are far more likely to see if YouTube has something to offer rather than search for and read the manual that provides related information. I understand that what may seem a similar reaction has been associated with television viewing because everyone spent and spends so much time watching television, but how we make use of televised content seems different and less responsive to transitory personal interests than online video.

A modest proposal

OK. I have not abandoned reading and I rely on reading professionally. I must read journal articles and books to perform my occupational role. Scientific research demands the sharing and reading of text documents in a specific format and with a required approach to citing related sources so that any arguments made can be evaluated based on existing research findings and theory. At this point, I am bound by this approach. However, the process by which the findings of this formal research process reaches potential practitioners is not so rigid. Classroom educators can read articles and blog posts in which proposed instructional activities based on the findings of the research community are offered, but they can also listen to and watch podcasts and YouTube presentations. They can take courses (e.g., Coursera) and interactive classes (e.g., Zoom) that rely on video. We all have been taught to read (and write), but what about the development of skills that optimize learning from video.

For several years now, I have been interested in the role of Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) in self-directed learning. Part of this interest has involved the exploration of specific digital tools that support the processing of information within the context of PKM. The PKM perspective can be applied to traditional educational settings, but it also encourages a long-term perspective which is the environment all of us face once no longer involved in courses that require us to learn to pass examinations and produce projects that demonstrate our learning. Our challenge is remembering specifics earlier exposure to information sources have provided when potentially useful and finding personally useful connections within this great volume of information.

PKM is about tools and tactics. What processes (tactics) allow us to store (internally and externally) a residue from our reflection on the information we have experienced? What external activities (tools) can facilitate storage and processing?

There are plenty of tools and plenty of related suggestions for tactics proposed by the PKM community. My focus here is on the less extensive focus on video and the even more limited focus on digital tools that are used during the initial video experience. How does a video viewer capture ideas for later use? How can skills unique to this approach be learned?

Why an integrated digital note-taking tool?

While watching an informative video, why not just take notes in a notebook next to your laptop or tablet? Why not just open a second window and simple word-processing app in a second window on your laptop? My answer would be you use an integrated digital tool to link the context between the original video and individual notes in ways that recognize future issues and uses. Note-taking is a far from perfect process and being able to recover a missing piece of information necessary to fix a confusing note requires being able to reexamine a specific segment of the original video. I first wrote about the importance of the preservation of context when describing apps that allowed the sound from lectures to be recorded within note-taking apps. These apps automatically establish a link between any note taken with a time-stamp connecting the note to a specific point in the audio recording. I even suggested that when a note-taker realizes she has missed something she knows she should have written down as a note, they simply enter something like ??? in their notes as a signal to later check the recorded audio for something not mentioned in the notes that may have been important.

I have a different reason for proposing the importance of digital notes. I use digital note-taking systems that allow me to quickly search and find notes I may have taken years ago. Students are not in this situation, but the delays say in a course with only a midterm and final exam involve delays that are long enough to be related to a sizable amount of content to review and a time frame likely to increase memory retrieval challenges. Digital notes make searching simple and allow integration and cross-referencing of content over time to be relatively easy. For those of us now functioning to manage large amounts of information outside of a formal and short-term academic setting, such challenges are now often described and addressed as Personal Knowledge Management (PKM).

Reclipped

There are several tools available to annotate videos. My favorite is ReClipped. This tool is an extension that is added to the Chrome browser and is activated when a video source the tool can be used with appears in the browser. When the extension has been added, an icon will appear in the icon bar at the top of your browser and the appearance of this icon will change when it has been activated by the presence of video content within the browser. When active with YouTube, additional icons will appear in YouTube below and to the right of the window displaying the video (see the following image with ReClipped icons identified by a red box). (Note: the video used in this example was created by Dr. Dan Alosso and associated with an online book club he runs.)

I have written about ReClipped before in my series about layering tools. I define a layering tool as a tool that allows additions overlayed on existing online content without actually modifying that content as sent from the host server. I wrote previously about ReClipped as a way an instructor could add content (questions, comments) to a video so that the composite of the original video and the additions could be presented to students and supplement their learning. The difference here is that a learner is adding the additions for personal use.

To keep this as simple as possible, I will focus on one tool — the pencil. The pencil represents the note tool (see the icons with the pencil tool enclosed in a red box below the video window). Clicking on the pencil creates a time stamp in the panel to the right of the video window allowing the user to enter a note associated with that time stamp (see examples in the image). I tend to click the pencil, pause the video, and then enter my notes. Pausing the presentation is obviously an option not available when listening to a live lecture and solves all kinds of issues that learners face in the live lecture setting.

The save and export buttons are also important. ReClipped will archive your annotations for you when you save, but I am more interested in exporting my annotations so I can use them within my broader Personal Knowledge Management strategy. I use a tool called Obsidian to collect all of my notes and to work with this large collection in other ways (reworking, linking, tagging). I also make use of an AI tool ( Smart Connections) to “chat” with my collection of notes.

ReClipped allows the notes associated with a given video to be exported in several formats (e.g., pdf). I export notes in markdown because this is the format Obsidian likes for import. Markdown is a formatting style something like html if you are familiar with the formatting style used in creating web pages. Such additions allow the incorporation of other information with text (e.g., links). For example one of the entries included in the example I have displayed is exported as the text string that appears below.

– [08:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukJtbtb8Tb4&t=523s) levels of notes — fleeting, literature, permanent — literature vs permanent is a matter of connecting to what you already know vs summarization. Permanent note has been “filtered by our interest”

When stored in Obsidian it appears as the following image (this is an image and not active).

Within Obsidian, the link is active and will cause the browser to return to the video stored in YouTube at the location identified by the time stamp. So, if necessary, I can review the video I saw when first creating the note at the point associated with that note. This link will simulate that experience. One issue with time stamps — the creation of a time stamp follows the content the stamp references. You listen and then decide to create a note. To reestablish the context for a note it thus requires that you use the link to a time stamp to activate the video and then scrub backward a bit to view the relevant material.

ReClipped allows other content (e.g., screen captures) from a video to be collected while viewing. Taking and exporting notes is straightforward and easy for me to explain in a reasonable amount of time.

There is a free version of ReClipped and the paid unlimited version is $2 a month. Note that ReClipped is presently free to teachers and students.

Research

I try to ground my speculation concerning the application of digital tools and techniques in unique learning situations with links to relevant research. In this case, my preference would be for studies comparing traditional note-taking from video with taking notes using integrated digital note-taking tools similar to ReClipped. I have been unable to locate the type of studies I had hoped to find. I did locate some studies evaluating the effectiveness of scratch-built tools typically incorporating some type of guided study tactic (see Fang and colleagues reference as an example). Though important work, learner application of more flexible and accessible tools seems a different matter and need to be evaluated separately.

Putting this all together

If you agree with the argument that we will increasingly rely on video content for the skills and information we want to learn, my basic suggestion is that we think more carefully about how to optimize learning from such content and teach/learn skills appropriate to this content and context. Digital tools such as Reclipped allow notes to be taken while viewing videos. These notes can be exported and stored within a Personal Knowledge Management system for reflection and connection with information from other sources. This post suggests that experience with such tools under educator supervision would provide learners the skills needed to take a more active approach to learning from videos they encounter.

References:

Fang, J., Wang, Y., Yang, C. L., Liu, C., & Wang, H. C. (2022). Understanding the effects of structured note-taking systems for video-based learners in individual and social learning contexts. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(GROUP), 1–21.

Johns, A. (2023). The Science of Reading: Information, Media, and Mind in Modern America. University of Chicago Press.

Adolescent mental health, phones, and schools

I recently listened to Kara Swisher interviewing Jonathan Haidt the author of The Anxious Generation. I checked on this book and it is #1 on the New York Times nonfiction list this week. I provide a comment on the ranking because the ranking would indicate the book was receiving a great deal of attention from the general public and the message must have substantial appeal.

Briefly stated, the book argues that rising anxiety and mental health issues of adolescents are significantly determined by overparenting and the amount of time spent, especially by adolescent females, on social media. I have personal comments related to this issue particularly Haidt’s recommendation for phone use in schools, but I would encourage you to listen to the interview because Swisher pushes back and the interchange offers some useful insights into whether cellphone activity is responsible for an increase in mental health problems.

Certain facts are well established: a) adolescents spend a great amount of time on their cellphones since the introduction and wide purchase of iPhones (this specific event figures heavily in some arguments), and b) beginning before the Covid shutdown and continuing to the present adolescents, particularly females, have shown an increase in mental health issues. The big question, the focus of Haidt’s book, and lots of research (citations will be included) is whether there is a causal relationship such that a significant proportion of the increase in mental health problems can be accounted for by the great amount of online activity mostly using personal phones.

The amount of time adolescents and many of the rest of us spend online is staggering. PEW has done regular surveys of teens to quantify their online activity and provides the following data points.

YouTube (95%), TikTok (67%), Instagram (61%), and Snapchat (60%) are among the most popular social media platforms used by teens.
On average, teens spend 1.9 hours daily on YouTube and 1.5 hours on TikTok, with males spending more time on YouTube and females on TikTok.
Around 35% of teens say they use at least one of the top social media platforms “almost constantly”.

As an aside, one of the “quality studies” Haidt mentioned to support his claim in the Swisher interview involved adult use of Facebook (Allcott et al. 2022). Swisher asked for examples of manipulative research showing that phone use and depression were related and Haidt provided this study. PEW doesn’t have much to say about Facebook activity among adolescents because the level has dropped so low. Haidt acknowledges that few quality studies exist with adolescents because doing manipulative research before the age of 18 is very difficult. This is why so many researchers use college students – they are available and they can participate.

Adolescent mental health issues have increased year by year with a big jump during the COVID years. Data from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention tracking depression provide a good example of this trend. The following chart was taken from this report.

So, facts demonstrating adolescents’ heavy use of phones and increasing mental health issues are solid. Now, are these two variables related and how? All I can say is that the research or perhaps more accurately the interpretation of the research is messy. I understand that parents, educators, and policymakers just want the researchers to provide a clear summary, but this just isn’t happening.

You have books such as Haidt’s (I would also recommend Jean Twenge) and medical experts (this summary of research from the National Library of Medicine) offering analyses of the research that come across placing a heavy burden of blame on cell phone use. I can also recommend scholarly meta-analyses of the phone-mental health students to reach just the opposite decision (e.g., Ferguson, et al. 2022). I admit summaries of many of the same research publications that come to very different conclusions are challenging. I read and comment about this type of controversy in other areas (should notes by taken on paper or laptop, are books better understood on paper or from the screen) in which I have read most of the relevant studies and can offer a personal opinion. I am not a clinical psychologist and in this case, I do not want to go on the record telling parents or teachers what they should do about kids and cell phones. If you are interested, I hope I have offered some of the resources you can use to get started.

What I do want to talk about

Getting back to Haidt’s book. Haidt makes several specific recommendations based on his conclusion that cellphone use is damaging.

Schools should be phone free zones
Children should first be provided a phone specialized for communication and not Internet use (e.g., a flip phone)
Adolescents should not have access to a smartphone until high school (but see #1)
Access to social media should be changed from 13 to 16.

Some additional Haidt comments on schools as phone free zones are:

The agreement of schools to ban smartphones is important because a total ban applies to all students and avoids the problem of some students having access and some students not.
School policies such as having access only during class or having phones in backpacks or lockers don’t work.

I do not support classroom bans on smartphones. In part my logic is based in research experience I do have and this work involved cyberbullying. A couple of things I remember from the research are that cyberbullying very rarely originated using school equipment (cell phones were less of an issue at the time), but the targets and originators of cyberbullying typically involved students from the same schools. For this second reason, most assumed schools were in the best position to address the problem. The key point here is that bullying actions originated outside of schools (homes and homes of friends), but schools were in the best position to provide “educational remedies”. Some aspects of the cellphone and mental health issues are similar.

I see classroom use of cellphones as a convenience not that different from the use of laptops, chromebooks, or tablets. All devices could be used to access damaging or useful experiences. However, students would be in a supervised environment, unlike the situation in the home or other locations outside of the classroom. In allowing the use of phones (or other digital devices) teachers do not only monitor use, but have opportunities to focus on productive uses AND explore the damaging issues in a group setting.

You may not agree with my position, but I think the logic is sound and recognizes that phone use is far more frequently unsupervised outside of classrooms than within classrooms. It is easy to target schools and ignore the reality that parents are more likely to ignore what their children are doing on their phones for much longer periods of time. Experiences within schools are not the core source of problems that may exist.

The importance of a whole group experience also has two sides. Yes, if no student can use a phone in school then there are no haves and have nots. Nothing about this solves what happens outside of classrooms. Addressing the issues of what students experience online is going to be more consistent and probably effective when all students experience issues as part of a formal curriculum.

So, I don’t think banning phones in classrooms solves a mental health problem. I think the science on mental health and adolescence is still unclear. I disagree with what Haidt said in response to Swisher’s probing. His position eventually came down to “if it isn’t cellphones then what is it”. When there are positives and negatives associated with an activity (perhaps causally and perhaps not), simple solutions rarely produce a substantial advantage.

References:

Links are provided when possible. Other sources are cited below.

Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S., & Gentzkow, M. (2020). The welfare effects of social media. American Economic Review, 110(3), 629-676.

Ferguson, C. J., Kaye, L. K., Branley-Bell, D., Markey, P., Ivory, J. D., Klisanin, D., Elson, M., Smyth, M., Hogg, J. L., McDonnell, D., Nichols, D., Siddiqui, S., Gregerson, M., & Wilson, J. (2022). Like this meta-analysis: Screen media and mental health. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 53(2), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000426

Solving the three party online content problem: Party rights and responsibilities

I want to offer an analysis of what I think the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved in producing, sharing, and consuming online content should be. The parties that make up this system seem obvious. What I propose is that we consider the rights and responsibilities of these three parties more carefully.

Content creators: Whether it is text, images, or videos delivered as part of a blog or social media site, content is present because someone created it. I suppose I now have to amend this claim to add “unless it was created by AI”. I created this post. I assume you have created content as well.

Content consumers: Those who view or listen to online content are consumers of that content.

Infrastructure Providers: Infrastructure providers provide the bridge between content creators and content consumers. Providers offer hosting services that accept input from creators and provide it to consumers. Infrastructure providers would include companies such as Google (Blogger), Facebook, X, Medium, Substack, companies that rent hosting services to creators (I use Bluehost), etc.

The identification of these three interconnected parties seems straightforward. Now, what about rights and responsibilities? I think of rights and responsibilities as related to the flow of information. A party either accepts the conditions established earlier in the flow or refuses to participate. A lack of participation may encourage the parties already involved to modify their expectations. When describing the rights and responsibilities among these parties, what I propose here is what I consider ethical rather than what is possible. There are ways around nonparticipation as the only option. I regard these approaches as unethical.

Content creators and infrastructure providers have early roles in this flow. At this point, what are the expectations of the infrastructure provider? What are the conditions to be assumed by the content creator? Does the infrastructure provider assume content presentation is their exclusive opportunity or can the content creator offer the same content under other conditions by other providers? Does the provider assume any editorial control beyond the rejection of obvious inappropriate material? Does the infrastructure provider pick and choose what they will accept? Revenue opportunities must be clearly understood. Are decisions made independently (e.g., ads can be added, subscription fees charged) or are such decisions collaborative and are the parties subject to a specified method for sharing any income generated?

As for the infrastructure provider and the consumer, the flow of content must be based on transparency. The ethical options for the consumer are to use the content as provided or not, but this must be an informed decision. In situations in which personal information is being collected to compensate the provider and the content creator, the consumer must understand what information is being collected and for what purpose. An important distinction here is between the use of information to target ads that directly support the infrastructure provider and content creator and the collection of information for a secondary purpose (e.g., third party ads that collect information that is used by or sold to other parties not associated with the exchange between the consumer and the infrastructure provider). Consumers should have a way to determine if either or both methods for collecting their information are being used.

The content creator and the consumer have a similar relationship. If the content requires a subscription, it is obvious what the consumer is expected to provide in compensation for the content. Including ads to generate revenue is murkier. I don’t accept that the consumer has a right to block an ad as both the infrastructure provider and the content creator have a right to compensation for content that is being consumed.

Are arrangements that work available?

The only arrangements that work in satisfying what I consider the rights and responsibilities of all parties are subscription services (e.g., Substack, Medium). It is clear what all parties contribute and get with subscription services.

I do think ad-supported system can work unless purposefully misused. Ad revenue used to work in other industries (television), but cable successfully challenged this approach by offering subscription content. In that case, consumers wanted more than a system that worked at one level. but did not provide enough.

The example I would offer to support a better ad-based approach is Brave. Brave allows content creators to sign up to receive compensation when content consumers using Brave view ad-supported content from these providers. When consumers make this commitment, they can receive compensation from companies using Brave to display ads. Yes, I said consumers receive compensation for viewing ads. Brave then provides a way those receiving this revenue can compensate the content creators. Brave takes a cut when users make this commitment.

The Brave system works when content creators are paying to share their content. Then, if consumers accept ads (they can use the system to just block ads) and if these consumers then share revenue generated with content creators, the system works. So, I pay Bluehost to provide infrastructure for sharing my blog. I have enrolled my blog with Brave. If consumers make use of Brave and use the revenue they receive for viewing ads to compensate content creators, then I should receive compensation based on how frequently my content is viewed.

I like this system as an example of what is possible. I am also realistic and will indicate that I spend far more to rent the infrastructure I use to share content than I receive from the Brave system. Part of my deficit is my responsibility. Whether readers visit my content or not is not the responsibility of the infrastructure I rent or Brave. However, I also cannot control whether a content consumer uses the Brave browser and that part of the system is not my responsibility. This is what I mean by a system that potentially address what all contribute and receive from a system.

Those readers not using Brave see Google ads rather than Brave ads on my blog.

Here is an earlier post I wrote about the Brave environment

Summary

I think there are long-term realities that will control the online experience related to how the parties involved are compensated. There are legitimate concerns related to the collection of personal information to target ads and there are legitimate concerns for how costs of operation and the compensation of content creators will be covered. Subscription-based services are one solution. This seems to be what is happening with television and more and more with online content. I think a different ad-based approach is also possible. This post attempted to offer an analysis of the factors that are responsible for the pressures for change.

Tutoring and the Big Picture

The period since the end of the COVID lockdown has been difficult for K-12 schools. Students have struggled to attain traditional rates of academic progress. Student absenteeism has reached alarming levels. Where we live some districts have struggled to find teachers to fill vacant positions and other districts are now cutting staff because of massive budget overruns. Educators feel a lack of support from politicians and groups of parents complaining about various issues and sometimes pulling their children out of one school to enroll them in another.

I certainly have no answer to this collection of challenges as it seems a proposed solution to one problem only leads to complaints due to consequences from that recommendation for a different issue. I look to educational research for potential solutions and there are certainly strategies with proven positive consequences in specific areas, but this is as far as it seems practical to go.

Tutoring has been one of the recent areas I have been investigating. My specific interest has been in the potential of AI as a substitute for human tutors, but the ample research on the effectiveness of human tutors has also been a fruitful ground for considering what proven experiences and roles AI might be applied to approximate. I have continued to review what we know about the effectiveness of human tutors and what it is tutors provide that students do not receive from their traditional classroom experiences.

For those wanting to review this research themselves, I recommend a fairly recent working paper by Nickow and colleagues (2020). This paper is both a general descriptive review of how tutoring is practiced and a meta-analysis of a large number of quality studies (96) of the effectiveness of this addition to K12 instruction. The meta-analysis considers only the impact of adult tutors, but the descriptive review does include some comments on both peer tutoring and technology-based tutoring. The technology comments were written before recent advances in AI. My summary of this paper follows.

Key Findings

I will begin with the overall conclusion. While there are more and less effective implementations and situations, adult tutoring consistently results in positive outcomes. The authors concluded that tutoring was responsible for substantial and consistent positive effects on learning outcomes, with an overall effect size of 0.37 standard deviations. The results are the strongest for teacher-led and paraprofessional tutoring programs, with diminished but still positive effects for nonprofessional and parent-led tutoring. Notably, tutoring is most effective in the earlier grades and shows comparable impacts across both reading and mathematics interventions, although reading tends to benefit more in earlier grades and math in later ones. A large proportion of the studies and tutoring activity appears focused in the first couple of years of school and in the subject area of reading. There are also far more studies of tutoring in the early grades than in secondary school. Only 7% of the studies included students above 6th grade.

Categories of tutors

The study by Nickow, Oreopoulos, and Quan (2020) identifies four categories of tutors:

Teachers: These are certified professionals who have undergone formal training in education. They are typically employed by schools and likely have a deeper understanding of the curriculum, teaching strategies, and student assessment.
Paraprofessionals: These individuals are not certified teachers, but they often work in educational settings. Paraprofessionals may include teaching assistants, educational aides, or other support staff in schools. They often work under the supervision of certified teachers.
Nonprofessionals: This category typically includes volunteers who may not have formal training in education. They could be community members, older students, or others who offer tutoring services. Their level of expertise can vary widely.
Parents: Parents often play a tutoring role, especially in the early years of a child’s education. Parental involvement in a child’s education can have a significant impact, but the level of expertise and the ability to provide effective tutoring can vary greatly among parents.

The study found that paraprofessionals are the largest provider of tutoring services, followed by nonprofessionals. The effectiveness of tutoring was found to be higher when provided by teachers and paraprofessionals compared to nonprofessionals and parents. Tutors who have teaching certificates and classroom experience were rare, but most effective in the research studies. As mentioned in the introduction to this post, the question of how schools must apply their budgets appears highly influential in whether known sources of impact can be applied.

Mechanisms of Tutoring Effectiveness

This paper reviewed mechanisms potentially responsible for the effectiveness of tutoring. While these hypothesized mechanisms were not evaluated in the meta-analysis, I find such lists useful in considering other approaches such as AI. Which of these mechanisms could AI tutoring address and which would not be possible?

The paper discusses several mechanisms through which tutoring enhances student learning:

Increased Instruction Time: Tutoring provides additional instructional time, crucial for students who are behind.
Customization of Learning: The one-on-one or small group settings of tutoring allow for tailored instruction that addresses the individual needs of students, a significant advantage over standard classroom settings where diverse learning needs can be challenging to meet. The authors propose that tutoring might be thought of as an extreme manipulation of class size. I know that studies of class size have produced inconsistent results extremely small class sizes are not investigated in such research.
Enhanced Engagement and Feedback: Tutoring facilitates a more interactive learning environment where students receive immediate feedback, enhancing learning efficiency and correction of misunderstandings in real time.
Relationship Building: The mentorship that develops between tutors and students can motivate students, fostering a positive attitude toward learning and educational engagement.

Program Characteristics

The document evaluates the variation in the effectiveness of tutoring programs based on several characteristics:

Tutor Type: Teacher and paraprofessional tutors are found to be more effective than nonprofessionals and parents, suggesting that the training and expertise of the tutor play a critical role in the success of tutoring interventions.
Intervention Context: Tutoring programs integrated within the school day are generally more effective than those conducted after school, possibly due to higher levels of student engagement and less fatigue.
Grade Level: There is a trend of diminishing returns as students age, with the most substantial effects seen in the earliest grades. This finding emphasizes the importance of early intervention.

Summary

This research and analysis paper might be summarized by proposing that schools cannot go wrong with tutoring. The paper suggests several policy implications based on its findings. Given the strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of tutoring, especially when conducted by trained professionals, the authors advocate for increased investment in such programs. They suggest that education policymakers and practitioners should consider tutoring as a key strategy for improving student outcomes, particularly in early grades and for subjects like reading and mathematics

Reference

Nickow, A., Oreopoulos, P., & Quan, V. (2020). The impressive effects of tutoring on prek-12 learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. https://www.nber.org/papers/w27476.