Sign up for Chalkbeat’s free weekly newsletter to keep up with how education is changing across the U.S.
Badges, tokens, and flashing lights: The widespread gamification of education technology harms learning and harms children, the American Psychological Association said in a new report out Thursday.
While the organization is calling for much higher standards for widely used learning apps and platforms, outright bans on screens or arbitrary time limits are not the answer, the report says.
“It is much easier for a school district to say we’re putting an all-out ban on something than do the harder work of actually vetting to make sure that learning is happening,” said Nicole Barnes, the APA’s executive lead psychologist for education. She said science supports the idea that technology “can be a very powerful tool to support learning, and it can be one that harms it at the same time.”
The report comes as debates about education technology in general and AI specifically are roiling American classrooms, school boards, and state legislatures. New York City’s school system just adopted what might be the most restrictive AI policy in the country. Los Angeles Unified School District, meanwhile, banned laptops and tablets for young learners and prohibited the use of AI tools on school-issued devices. Other school districts are following suit.
The APA report aims to inform that debate with the science of how children learn and develop, to help people make decisions “from a place of evidence and not a place of hysteria or fear,” Barnes said.
People on all sides of that debate may find evidence in the report to support their position.
Key findings include:
- Time spent on learning apps, student enjoyment, and completion rates are often mistaken for learning.
- Features designed to maintain student attention can district from learning.
- The amount of time students spend on learning platforms is not as important as what those platforms may be replacing, such as interaction with teachers or classmates.
- Learning platforms can be good for practicing specific skills, but claims about improved critical thinking are rarely supported by evidence.
- AI can improve student performance while reducing learning — a more polished finished product or higher score doesn’t necessarily mean the student learned more.
The report includes recommendations for educators, policymakers, and parents on what questions to ask and how to evaluate learning platforms.
Schools should ask for independent evaluations of the effectiveness of learning tools, not studies commissioned by ed tech vendors, the report says. They should also pay attention to which students benefit and which students continue to struggle when using certain tools, rather than looking at broad averages.
There are tools with a proven track record, Barnes said, including tools that have made learning more accessible for students with disabilities and English learners.
But too often, children are regularly exposed to technology that replaces human connections and productive struggle with the illusion of better scores and student engagement, Barnes said.
“Close the app. Ask the student to explain. Ask the student to solve a new problem, or to apply the skill in a different setting,” Barnes said. “This success that you might be seeing, this performance that you might be equating with learning, might just be that the student is really skilled in navigating that platform.”
The origin’s of the report predate the current ed tech debate and go back to pandemic-era online learning.
Barnes recalled looking over her son’s shoulder in 2020 and asking why he was playing a game rather than doing his homework. But the game was his homework.
“I only had to look at it for a minute to see that it wasn’t resulting in the type of learning that I’m sure it was being sold or marketed as,” she said. “If your child is spending more time dressing a character than doing a problem, that app is probably not resulting in learning taking place.”
Barnes’ first piece of advice to parents is to take that minute to pay attention to what apps and platforms their children are using for school. Then, if something doesn’t seem right, take another minute to ask the principal what evidence there is that the program supports learning.
She acknowledges this isn’t a silver bullet. Her conversation with her child’s principal didn’t lead the school to ditch the app. The longer-term solution would involve school systems and governments agreeing to hold ed tech vendors to a higher standard.
“All we’re really saying is, if you’re going to claim learning, you should prove it,” she said. “To me, that doesn’t seem too much to ask.”
Erica Meltzer is Chalkbeat’s national editor based in Colorado. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.
