YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Viral Neuroscientist: School Screens Are RUINING Education

Viral Neuroscientist: School Screens Are RUINING Education — Transcript

by Breaking Points · 4,273 words · 636 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Very excited now to be joined by Jared
0:02Cooney Horvath. He is the author of the
0:04digital delusion, a tremendously
0:06influential book. How classroom
0:08technology harms our kids learning and
0:10how to help them thrive again. He is a
0:14neuroscientist and has extensively
0:16studied this issue and I'm excited to
0:18talk to him. Jared, thank you so much
0:19for joining us. Appreciate it.
0:21>> Thank you for having me on.
0:22>> So, Jared, you have been again one of
0:24the leaders in this movement to remove
0:26technology from the classroom. We have
0:28seen examples of this pervade both from
0:31K through 12 all the way up to college.
0:33F2, guys, just the latest example of
0:36something we're seeing. College kids are
0:38using AI agents to take entire online
0:41classes for them, logging themselves
0:43directly into course management
0:45software. So, they get the grade, but
0:47they're not actually doing the work. We
0:49see, you know, the cascading in
0:50different types of these effects as
0:52technology has entered the classroom.
0:54So, big picture, why did you decide to
0:56write this book? What what data what
0:58inspired you?
0:59>> Yeah, my [snorts] my background is just
1:00in human learning. How do humans learn?
1:02So, I've worked with schools for 15
1:04years on just if this is what learning
1:06is, what does that mean for teaching?
1:07What does that mean for students
1:08studying and parents? And it was really
1:11around COVID. We've known for a long
1:12time that digital tech wasn't great for
1:14learning, but it was always somewhat
1:16peripheral until COVID hit. Everyone
1:19went digital, rightly so, you had to do
1:21something, but when COVID ended, no one
1:23ripped that band-aid off. Everyone
1:24stayed heavy digital and kept pushing
1:26forward and all we've seen is is
1:28literacy, numeracy scores really just
1:30continue to drop lower and lower. So,
1:32that's why I figured now's the time to
1:34just put the data out there and say,
1:35"Look, we know that tech isn't great for
1:37learning. We know why tech isn't good
1:39for learning. Maybe we make different
1:41decisions in schools now."
1:42>> Yeah.
1:42>> put F3 up on the screen. This is some of
1:44the latest data about the way US test
1:47scores in most states in the union have
1:50been declining. Why US test scores are
1:52in a generation-long
1:54decline and there's only a handful of
1:56states, it's like Mississippi, Hawaii,
1:58maybe one more, that have bucked this
2:00trend over the past decade and a half.
2:03Um, you're pointing to the advent of
2:05EdTech in the classroom. How do you
2:07separate that though from There's a lot
2:09that's happened over that time period.
2:11We had a reduction in the No Child Left
2:13Behind standards. We've had the
2:15introduction of personal smartphone use
2:17outside of the classroom, so kids are on
2:20their screens in an unstructured way
2:22outside of school. So, how do you look
2:24at all you of course had COVID and you
2:26pointed to the the more significant
2:29learning loss that occurred during that
2:30time period. So, how do you look at all
2:32of those things that happened and
2:34pinpoint in-classroom EdTech as the
2:37single most significant factor here?
2:40>> Well, this is in To be fair, everything
2:41you've just said completely matters. For
2:43emotional development, for social
2:45development. When we just focus on
2:47cognition,
2:49I think an important thing to remember
2:50is we're not stuck in the US. We've got
2:52data from over 90 countries now over the
2:54last about 25 years from international
2:57exams, from their own countries' testing
2:59regimes. And what you can see is in each
3:01country, as digital technology moves
3:04from a peripheral to a central feature
3:06in education, that's when their scores
3:09will start to go down. not tacked to any
3:11one year. It's unique to when schools,
3:14and in the US as well, when those states
3:16adopt digital technology. We can also
3:18then go back since 1962 we've been doing
3:21academic research, which is causative,
3:23directly linking digital tech and
3:25learning, and showing that when a screen
3:27enters learning, learning compared to
3:29say analog methods tends to go down.
3:31And then you can also with COVID you can
3:33start to see
3:34do what we call regression analyses,
3:37where you can take the hit of COVID,
3:39remove that from data sets, and say is
3:41there anything left remaining. Take SES
3:44out of the equation. Take non-classroom
3:47tech use. Be very specific about what
3:49you're using. Use statistics, and we
3:50still find the same thing. But I always
3:52say, "Look, the data is one thing um, um
3:55and that's very much in our favor, but
3:57it's the mechanisms. It's what Once you
3:58get down to biology, we have better
4:00explanations for why tech doesn't work
4:03than anyone else does." And that seems
4:05to be the kind of the sealing factor is
4:07we can kind of explain why it's
4:09happening and no one else can really do
4:11that as well as we can.
4:12>> Can you go into that? So, like I think I
4:14in particular, so I'm 34, so when I was
4:16uh coming through K through 12, that was
4:19really the height of every student gets
4:21a laptop, the interactive PowerPoint.
4:24This was seen as a boon to the teacher
4:26in the classroom. I was telling you
4:27before the segment, my own mother's
4:29professor of early childhood education,
4:31a big proponent uh of educational
4:33technology, has some uh challenging
4:35questions she wants me to ask you. But,
4:37just generally, what's wrong with that
4:40mechanism that you just talked about
4:43about technology itself as a medium for
4:46learning? Why isn't it the hope that we
4:48thought, let's say, 20 years ago?
4:51>> So, there there's going to be dozens of
4:52of different mechanisms, but let's just
4:54stick with kind of the reading one. Um a
4:56big aspect of human memory is spatial
4:59location. Where in space does something
5:02occur becomes a massive aspect of our
5:04memory for that thing and ultimately
5:06determines how we can access that
5:07information later.
5:09Now, think of a book. Until this book
5:11here burns into dust, every word has a
5:13clear, rigid, unchanging
5:14three-dimensional location. Till this
5:16book disappears, the word saddle will be
5:1810% of the way through left page, top
5:20left-hand side, it ain't going nowhere.
5:22That will become part of the memory I
5:24form and will ultimately determine what
5:26I learn from it. So, this is why if
5:28you're an avid reader of books, you know
5:29when you finish a book, you might not
5:31know verbatim everything you read, but
5:33you will know where in the book
5:35everything occurred. Like if there's a
5:36quote you're looking for, you can almost
5:37flip right to it.
5:39Now, take that same thing to a screen.
5:41All of a sudden, the word saddle is
5:43going to start at the bottom of the
5:44screen, pull through the middle,
5:46disappear out the top. There is no
5:47three-dimensional location. So, an
5:49entire aspect of human memory gets it
5:51dumped. So, this is why when people read
5:53from a screen at about the 4 or 5 minute
5:55mark, the brain will send you a signal
5:57saying, "I'm not getting this. Like, I
5:59don't know where any of this belongs."
6:00And we just start skimming. Rather than
6:02actually reading, we just start looking
6:03for keywords. Off we go. So, this is one
6:05of those easy mechanisms where we can
6:08say, "If you have the exact same thing
6:10on a piece of paper versus a screen,
6:12people will will remember more,
6:14comprehend better from the piece of
6:15paper than the screen just by the way
6:17biology and memory works."
6:19>> Super interesting.
6:20>> So, let me get you to respond to one of
6:22the critiques I read. This is from
6:24Chalkbeat. We can put this up on the
6:25screen. So, they were talking about the
6:28way you analyzed the impact of EdTech
6:31specifically. And the writer says that
6:34the overall impact of EdTech in the
6:36studies that you cite is actually
6:38positive. Horvath says the effect is too
6:41small to justify the use of tech because
6:43it's smaller than the effect of typical
6:45classroom instruction. Taking that into
6:48account turns the EdTech results
6:49negative. He says this is a key
6:51methodological decision on which you
6:53your conclusion rests. But, according to
6:56Elizabeth Tipton, who's a Northwestern
6:57University statistician, counts herself
6:59as an EdTech skeptic, she says this is
7:01not the right approach. Your benchmark,
7:03she says, is wildly unrealistic in
7:06carefully designed studies in which two
7:07groups are both receiving some sort of
7:09instruction, most effects are quite
7:11small. In that context, an effect above
7:14zero would be encouraging. So, my
7:16understanding of this critique is
7:17basically when you just look at the
7:19impact of EdTech without comparing it to
7:23what would be happening if you weren't
7:25using the EdTech, the impact is either
7:27negative or somewhat positive. And so,
7:29it's your choice to say, "Okay, but
7:31instead of the EdTech, if we were doing
7:32this other instructional method, that
7:34the learning gains would be more." That
7:36leads to the result. And again, this
7:39statistician is saying that this is not
7:41the right approach to do the study. So,
7:42what is your response to that critique?
7:44>> Uh it's there are multiple ways to run
7:47statistics, and I hear everyone, but
7:50the point we're trying to make is
7:52every educational study over So, there's
7:55a man named John Hattie down in
7:57Australia who's looked at over 350,000
8:00studies in education. Over 95% of them
8:02have a positive effect. Basically, his
8:05argument is everything works.
8:07It's And this is why because learning is
8:09biological. If you change your hat, a
8:11kid will learn. If you sing a song, a
8:13kid will learn. If you put a kid in a
8:15closet for a day, take him out, they
8:16will come out cognitively more developed
8:18than when they went in because
8:20biologically you can't stop it. So, the
8:22argument from that side of the equation
8:23is always we cannot use nothing as a
8:26baseline in education, otherwise
8:27everything goes. So, you have to have
8:30some sort of different baseline in our
8:32field to figure out what's better than
8:35average. And in his argument, and if you
8:38look at any statistician, that value's
8:39going to sit somewhere between 0.4 and
8:410.5. Now, that that that number doesn't
8:43have to mean anything to anyone. Just
8:45know that ed tech really undershoots
8:47that value. Whereas things like reading
8:49from a book, having a discussion with a
8:51teacher, doing a pair and share with
8:52your peers, those have values way above
8:55that. So, you could start to see when we
8:56compare different strategies, yeah,
8:58well, some are going to be far better
8:59than others. But if you can go down to a
9:02study where you are comparing one tool
9:04to something without that tool in an
9:06equivalent condition, you hit what's
9:08called a randomized control trial. Now,
9:11those are really, really easy to do. Not
9:13easy, but doable in fields like
9:16medicine, in fields like physics.
9:18They are almost impossible to do in
9:20social level fields like school. So,
9:23imagine you give one school a group a
9:26bunch of laptops and you don't give
9:28another school a bunch of laptops, then
9:30you can say laptops were better or worse
9:32than no laptops, right?
9:34Wrong cuz now we got to worry about what
9:36were the pedagogies each school was
9:38using.
9:38>> Right.
9:39>> Were these teachers asking kids to
9:40recall and these weren't? Were these
9:42teachers giving homework and these
9:43weren't? There are so many competing
9:45variables that when you want to look at
9:47the social level, you have to use these
9:49higher level values and use more
9:51averaging because we just can't drill
9:53down far enough to the specific random
9:55control trial mechanism.
9:57>> Right.
9:57>> So I know it's it sounds like like I'm
9:58skirting the issue, but it's not. It's
10:00just a different form of analysis.
10:01>> No, it totally
10:02>> And social sciences require one more so
10:04than the other.
10:04>> Right. And one thing challenge I saw
10:07Jared is he write across the West IQ
10:10scores have begun to fall even as time
10:12spent in school kept rising. The answer
10:14lies in the meteor rise of educational
10:17technology. But kind of to come back to
10:19Crystal's original point, which is
10:20really impossible to ignore. How do we
10:23separate out the technology from the
10:25digital milieu that we swim in as in you
10:28know, these children especially 2012
10:32onward are inundated with screen time at
10:35home either from television, on the
10:37iPhone, and then you add educational
10:39technology onto that. Why is that not a
10:42modest effect and a significant effect?
10:44Cuz to my eye, what's happening in the
10:46home and in the rest of the world and
10:48all of that general screen time, which
10:49we know reduces general IQ, should
10:52actually be more of a significant factor
10:55or please challenge my my general line
10:57of questioning.
10:58>> No, it it absolutely is. For for general
11:00level IQ, it's going to be very
11:02difficult to parse things out. But we're
11:03lucky in school we can do these specific
11:06measures where we can flat out ask kids
11:08how often do you use tech at home? How
11:10often do you use tech for these purposes
11:12at home? And we can also ask them how
11:14often do you use tech in schools? How
11:16often do you use tech for these purposes
11:18in schools? So in a lot of our data sets
11:20or international ones anyway, we can
11:22differentiate between those two modes.
11:24Again, account for one and say what's
11:26left. And probably the biggest example
11:28of that would be East Asian countries.
11:30Is everyone knows East Asian countries
11:32are highly technological. Their
11:34economies are based on technology. Their
11:36kids are spending more time on tech for
11:38gaming purposes than anywhere else.
11:41Believe it or not, those are or
11:43pre-COVID were the least tech using
11:45countries in the world when it came to
11:47school. Singapore, Japan, China, Korea,
11:51these people were not using tech in
11:53schools. They said use tech outside of
11:55the classroom, but when you're in a
11:57classroom, we're going with analog
11:58methods that we know work. And it's no
12:00surprise that up until COVID, they had
12:03always peaked out on literacy, numeracy,
12:05science scores. They were always beating
12:07everyone else. Even though their kids
12:09used more tech in the real world than
12:12kids say in the US. They used less tech
12:14in school and they still saw better
12:16cognitive growth than we did.
12:18>> Part of where I get hung up on some of
12:19this as a parent in particular is
12:21understandably we tend to talk about
12:23just tech as a broad bucket or just
12:25screen time as a broad bucket where
12:28obviously like when my kid is just
12:30mindlessly scrolling YouTube shorts,
12:32that is a a really a terrible brain
12:34rotting thing. Whereas to be honest, I
12:37think there's an argument that some of
12:38the video games that they play that
12:40require a lot of like language and
12:42social interaction and problem solving
12:44etc. which is what a lot of the the East
12:46Asian screen time, you know, is centered
12:49around. Um I'm not sure that that's bad
12:51for them in terms of brain development
12:53at least in uh some level of reasonable
12:56moderation. So how do you think about
12:58like, you know, the the quality of
13:01screen time. Do you have a hierarchy of
13:03which times uh which types of device
13:05time are better or worse for kids
13:08developing minds?
13:09>> Yeah, so again, I won't focus on out of
13:11school. So anytime you use a screen for
13:13entertainment, let it rip. Go for it.
13:15I'm just talking about straight
13:16learning. So in our context when we're
13:18talking about digital technology and
13:20learning, it's any internet connected
13:22student-facing device that is going to
13:25lead them down a path of
13:27non-learning. But if you were if you if
13:29you twisted my arm on the other stuff,
13:32>> Yeah.
13:32>> you're right. I mean, something like
13:34video game where you can hear another
13:36person's voice. And I didn't know this
13:38till recently, but that's what kids are
13:39doing. They have headsets on and they're
13:40actually talking to other human beings.
13:42>> Yeah.
13:42>> If you can hear another person's voice
13:44and you're actually communicating with
13:45them, that's fine. Like I mean, it's not
13:48great, but I mean, go to town with it.
13:50It's versus like texting. So we can do
13:53this kind of hierarchy, right? Where
13:55if a group of human beings are hanging
13:57out together, we can measure the type of
13:59chemicals that are being released to
14:00demonstrate what kind of social bonding
14:03they're showing. And as you'd expect,
14:05when they're hanging out together, you
14:06get a lot of these social bonding
14:08chemicals. When kids are interacting via
14:10text, you get none of those social
14:12bonding chemicals, which is a good sign
14:14that text-based communication isn't
14:16recognized as actual social interaction
14:18biologically.
14:19>> Wow.
14:20>> It's more recognized as isolating and
14:21threatening, which is one of the reasons
14:22why kids who use a lot of
14:25texting-based tech, like social media
14:27and stuff, usually have lower scores on
14:29sense of belonging, those things.
14:30>> Mhm.
14:31>> But if you can hear someone's voice, so
14:33like when we were growing up, we used to
14:34call each other all the time. You had
14:35that long cord on the phone, you'd go
14:37sneak into the pantry.
14:39We didn't know it, but when you hear
14:40somebody's voice, you can get the same
14:43type of chemicals you get from social
14:44interaction. They're not as strong, but
14:46they're definitely there. They're not
14:47absent like texting. So I'd say if you
14:49had to like do a hierarchy, I'd say,
14:51"Look, if you're going to play video
14:52games, sit on the couch next to the
14:54person like we used to do N64, you're
14:56going to get the best benefit."
14:57>> Mhm.
14:57>> Next to that, as long as you can hear
14:59people and you're talking to them,
15:00that's going to be next down the line.
15:01And then if you're just gaming by
15:02yourself quietly, that might be third
15:04down that line.
15:05>> Yeah. Right.
15:05>> But you're right, it's kind of how we're
15:07using them.
15:07>> Yeah, and it's there's also just like a
15:09modern reality of So my son's in middle
15:11school and you know, he's a gamer and
15:14this is what he and his friends do. You
15:16know, if I was to tell him like no video
15:18games, that would cut him off from a lot
15:20of his social life that he has now
15:22because this is just sort of the reality
15:24of the world that we live in. So,
15:27reflect on that, but also, you know, how
15:28do you and I know you focus more on tech
15:31deployment in schools specifically, but
15:33you've also spoken and thoughts on about
15:35how parents should approach technology
15:37in their home as well. How do you
15:39approach that conversation without
15:42putting the entire burden on parents and
15:44shaming them at a time when, look,
15:47everybody's doing their best and we're
15:48up against these like multi-billion
15:50dollar companies that spend a lot of
15:52money trying to make their tech
15:54addictive and make sure that your kids
15:56are glued to the screen.
15:59>> Yeah, and and that's it's one of the
16:01hardest things we we have to face is
16:04it's it's the cigarette problem all
16:06again. It is we've we're giving
16:08something to our kids that we know is
16:10dangerous. I don't think there's a
16:11parent out there that's thinking, you
16:12know what, my kid needs more tech. We
16:14all kind of know that
16:16as soon as they're done with tech we're
16:17going to have this half-hour window
16:18where they're just crazy. They're going
16:20to have to
16:21get off of that. But you're right, it's
16:23how they built their social life. We
16:24basically lost that battle. So, what I
16:27tend to say with to families
16:29when it comes to learning, anything that
16:31has to do with learning, if it's
16:32homework, if it's a reading, if your kid
16:34has to do a worksheet,
16:35print it out. Buy a printer, do
16:38everything learning-based analog. The
16:40first thing we have to do is separate
16:42the screen from learning. Kids view the
16:45screen as an entertainment medium. And
16:47rightly so, that is what they do. They
16:48spend over 2,500 hours every single year
16:51using this machine to rapidly switch
16:54between media content.
16:56When we now say, now use the same exact
16:59tool to learn, which requires sustained
17:01focus, they can't do it. Most of them
17:03only make it about 6 minutes before they
17:04go right back to, well, I'm just going
17:05to open this tab, I'll check this out.
17:07So, anytime it comes to learning in your
17:09house, make it analog. Buy a printer,
17:11get it out.
17:12>> That's very doable.
17:13Print it out is a very doable strategy.
17:16>> Yeah.
17:17>> I would say beyond that too, just start
17:19with a tech audit. And and totally
17:21non-judgmental for all the entertainment
17:23based tech, just spend one or two weeks
17:25with you and your kid. They do it, you
17:26do it. How often do you use it? What are
17:28you using it for? And as a parent, does
17:31my kid see me use it? What message is
17:32that sending?
17:33>> Mhm.
17:33>> Just get a sense of the lay of the land.
17:35See what's going on and then make small
17:37changes as you see fit. If you try and
17:39change everything at once, it's always
17:40going to bomb. It's like trying to
17:41change your workout regime in 1 minute,
17:43it doesn't work.
17:44>> Right.
17:44>> Just change one thing. Say maybe next
17:45week let's see if we can't shoot for
17:48an evening where the family watches a
17:50movie together instead of does tech,
17:51something like that. And then you just
17:53build your own values.
17:54>> That's my last question, Jared. Uh one
17:56of the things I love about America, if
17:57you live in a locality, you can actually
17:59have a immense impact in your school
18:00system. Uh like Crystal was telling you,
18:02they parents banded together, they're
18:03like, "Hey, we want our kids off
18:05machines." School board actually did it.
18:07So, uh my daughter's going to be in
18:09school in a few years. Uh I'm going to
18:10start going to the school board
18:11meetings. What should I start demanding
18:13of my school board around this
18:15conversation about technology? What what
18:17kind of guidelines, if you were to
18:18design it from scratch, how what should
18:19I push for?
18:21>> Go in first, get a coalition. One parent
18:23talking is always going to be viewed as
18:25a nuisance.
18:2610 parents talking, now we're going to
18:28start paying attention at schools. That
18:29just seems to be how it is.
18:31Don't go on the attack. Go with a level
18:33of curiosity. If you go there saying
18:35you're doing it wrong, they're going to
18:36push back, nothing happens. Say, "Look,
18:39do you guys know how much and what type
18:41of tech is being used in schools?" And
18:42what you'll find is 90% of the time the
18:44answer is no. No one tracks this data.
18:47So, say, "Cool. Let's just do a tech
18:49audit. For the next month, can you just
18:50track what programs our kids using at
18:52what year level and for how long?" And
18:55maybe we can even just if they have
18:56their own iPads that they've been given,
18:58we can just plug in a program that'll do
19:00that for us.
19:01Then we can say, "Okay, where's the
19:03data?" So, once we know where kids are
19:05using it and they say, "Maybe they use
19:07this program but not that one." We can
19:08say, "Okay, do we have data that that is
19:11an effective way of learning. And what
19:13you'll see is 99%
19:15of EdTech tools have no data with them.
19:18EdTech was the one field that was never
19:21regulated at any level. Your toaster has
19:23gone through more clearances than the
19:25programs we put in front of our kids
19:27tomorrow for at school. So we can just
19:29say cool, what's the data? And then we
19:31can make it clear that okay, if there is
19:33no data
19:34then either we've got to collect it, in
19:36which case don't give it to every kid,
19:38do a small experiment, or B, we wait
19:40till they collect the data and prove it
19:43to us.
19:44If the focus of school is learning, then
19:46at the end of the day every decision we
19:47make has to hinge on does this improve
19:50learning? And if there is no evidence
19:52that it is doing that, and if there is
19:53evidence that it's harming on the other
19:54side, then by all means we're in a good
19:56spot to say maybe we pull that back,
19:58divest a bit until we have better data
20:00to say this is something for our kids.
20:02>> it's a very smart approach that you just
20:04laid out. I hope everybody goes and buys
20:05the book, engages with the work. Thank
20:07you very much Jared, we really
20:08appreciate your time.
20:09>> Thank you Jared.
20:09>> Oh, thank you both.
20:11>> Hey, if you like that video, hit the
20:12like button or leave a comment below. It
20:14really helps get the show to more
20:15people.
20:16>> And if you'd like to get the full show
20:18ad-free and in your inbox every morning,
20:20you can sign up at breakingpoints.com.
20:22>> That's right, get the full show, help
20:23support the future of independent media
20:25at breakingpoints.com.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Viral Neuroscientist: School Screens Are RUINING Education by Breaking Points, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 4,273 words across 636 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.