Screen Schooled: Two Veteran Teachers Expose How Technology Overuse Is Making Our Kids Dumber

by Joe Clement, Matt Miles

As two veteran teachers who have taught thousands of students, Joe Clement and Matt Miles have seen firsthand how damaging technology overuse and misuse has been to our students. Rather than becoming better problem solvers, kids look to Google to answer their questions for them. Rather than deepening students’ intellectual curiosity, educational technology is too often cumbersome and distracting, causing needless frustration and greatly extending homework time. Rather than becoming the great equalizer, electronic devices are widening the achievement gap. On a mission to educate and empower parents, Clement and Miles provide many real-world examples and cite multiple studies showing how technology use has created a wide range of cognitive and social deficits in our young people. They lift the veil on what’s really going on at school: teachers who are powerless to curb cell phone distractions; zoned-out kids who act helpless and are unfocused, unprepared, and antisocial; administrators who are too-easily swayed by the pro-tech “science” sponsored by corporate technology purveyors. They provide action steps parents can take to demand change and make a compelling case for simpler, smarter, more effective forms of teaching and learning.

Genres: Education, Parenting, Nonfiction, Technology, Science

272 pages, Paperback

Published October 1, 2017

Reviews

[Trevor · Rating 1 out of 5]

Last week our state government decided that from next year no student in a government school will be allowed to have a mobile phone in class between first and last bells. Personally, I think this is a bad idea – not because I think mobile phones necessarily are likely to improve the educational experience of students. But rather because I’ve never seen a situation where prohibition actually works. Many students will seek to side step this ban, and that is likely to create a situation in the classroom where their teachers will need to become prison guards. I criticised this on Facebook and someone I had worked with disagreed and asked me to read this book. The problem is that while there are things in this book I would probably support – it is so badly written and so poorly argued it virtually forces the reader to adopt the exact opposite position.

First is the breathless style. There is ZERO nuance in any of the arguments here. The first thing education ought to teach us is that there are very few things that are all bad, or all good – but I was literally waiting for the authors to say ‘and did you know that Hitler spent 9 hours per day on his iPad?’

This book would sit comfortably on a shelf beside ‘Unselfie’ – it is one of a spate of books that bemoan the ‘modern condition’. And while it says it is presenting ‘research’ – really, all the authors have done is read a couple of popular science books and a few newspaper articles, cherry picked to support their argument and have then hyperventilated. And the hyperventilation is extraordinary. By the end I was more or less reading to see if they could make an even more outlandish claim than the last one – which, invariably, they seemed more than capable of doing.

Here are some of my favourites.

“Psychologist Michael Oberschneider has written a children’s book called Ollie Outside. It’s about a boy who wants to go outside and play but everyone else in his family is consumed by their screens and won’t go outside with him. The fact that this book exists is truly a sign of the times.” (I might remind you of that hideous song Cat’s in the Cradle written in 1974 – which you see is a lot like this shite, I’m sure it’s a lot like this).

“Several studies have shown brain atrophy in young people with an overdependence on technology. Two studies done on teens diagnosed with Internet addiction disorder both showed significant atrophy of intrabrain connective pathways. Another study done on online-gaming addicts also showed significant white and gray matter atrophy in several regions of the brain including portions of the frontal cortex” (I’ve tried to locate any of these studies – I’m assuming “Aubusson, K. Internet Addiction Affects Brain. Psychiatry Update, 6 Mar. 2013” is the reference that makes this claim – but I have been unable to locate it on Google Scholar – I was able to find the article ‘Abnormal White Matter Integrity in Adolescents with Internet Addiction Disorder: A Tract-Based Spatial Statistics Study’ that is referenced in the notes section of the book, however, perhaps the authors of this book should have read the ‘limitations of the study’ section of this paper: to quote at length – ‘There are several limitations that should be mentioned in this study. Firstly, the diagnosis of IAD was mainly based on results of self-reported questionnaires, which might cause some error classification. Therefore, the diagnosis of IAD needs to be refined with standardized diagnostic tools to improve the reliability and validity. Secondly, although we tried our best to exclude comorbid substance and psychiatric disorders, it is acknowledged that this may not have been done sufficiently (i.e., no urine test was given, sleep habits and schedules and daily sleepiness were not controlled in the experiment design), such that the white matter changes observed may not be attributed to IAD per se. It is also admitted that this is not a controlled study of effects of internet use on brain structure. Thirdly, the sample size in this study was relatively small, which might reduce the power of the statistical significance and generalization of the findings. Owing to this limitation, these results should to be considered preliminary, which need to be replicated in future studies with a larger sample size. Lastly, as a cross-sectional study, our results do not clearly demonstrate whether the psychological features preceded the development of IAD or were a consequence of the overuse of the Internet. Therefore, future studies should attempt to identify the causal relations between IAD and the psychological measures.’ – you know, if you are going to claim that playing computer games makes young people’s brains atrophy…maybe a more definitive study is needed. Rather than one that relies on the self-report of the participants, who might have other disorders you didn’t check for, and that couldn’t establish if IAD was a cause or an effect of the lack of white matter in the brain identified.)

“However, saying that the advent of television and smartphones is similar since they both have screens is like saying that lightning bugs and lightning are similar because they both give off light. Especially early on, television and television shows were (and in many cases still are) events. Families and friends gathered to experience shows together.” Or “On a more macro level, sports have been a pillar in most societies. Unlike tastes in art, music, film, or technology, tastes in sports have changed very little over time. The games themselves evolve at a much slower rate than virtually everything else in our society. Even within families, most children share their parents’ love or distaste for them. Three or four generations of family members would gather around the television on Thanksgiving, applauding and gasping in unison.” (As someone who dislikes television with something of a passion, in fact a passion only surpassed by my distain for sports, it is hard to say just how stupid this nonsense sounds to me. And while it is true that much of the new media is rubbish – at least it does encourage some interaction and participation, at least there is the possibility to be something other than a mere spectator. Something I read years ago said that we burn fewer calories watching television than we would if we were just sitting doing nothing. And these are the longed-for glory days.)

“Today, “Living at home with their parents” is the most common living arrangement for people age eighteen to thirty-four. This is the first time since 1880 (when this data was first collected) that more of this demographic lived with their parents than a spouse or partner or on their own. A recent collaborative study by economists at Princeton, the University of Rochester, and the University of Chicago found a strong correlation between unemployment and underemployment of millennial men and addiction to gaming.” (Now this really makes me angry. They are saying that the reason why young people are unable to start their lives today, that is, get a decent job, purchase a home of their own and start a family is because some of them play computer games! In Australia, we are told a similar story, that all of this is down to young people going out to breakfast to eat smashed avocado on toast with crumbled feta cheese. And one of the authors of this book teaches Economics – god help us.)

This book is really just a near endless collection of anecdotes, and these generally involve young people being thick which the authors then attributed this to the young people having a screen addiction. Even ignoring the patronising tone of these endless anecdotes, I’ve known people who have never been on the internet in their lives who have done some incredibly stupid things. In fact, if someone was to make a book of all of the stupid things I’ve done in my life, I’m sure I could be made to look like I’ve a fulltime, internet addiction. This book basically attributes every bad thing in the US to kids spending time in front of screens.

Look, I don’t want you to come away from this thinking that I’m saying that modern technology is all boon and there is no crash side. But, this book fits with a shelf of books (like The Shallows) that take a reasonable case and then get so excited by it that they go far too far only to undermine what good points they had. A better book on all of this is Postman’s Technopoly. As Postman says, the main problem with technology is that we are always presented with the benefits, but rarely are those benefits discussed in terms of what we have to give up to receive them – it is just that this book is doing the exact opposite and ignoring any possible benefit coming from technology. I do believe that such a discussion is necessary – but in large part this book is only interested in the complete ban of all screen-based technologies in classrooms. To win that argument they would really need to come up with more than some breathless anecdotes describing barely believable composite students. Misquoting research isn’t going to help much either, particularly when this is mostly quoted from newspaper articles or pop science. There were times when I could feel my eyes roll to the back of my head as they would criticise students for not being able to identify primary or secondary sources – pots and kettles, my dear friends, pots and kettles and all calling each other black.

The bottom line with all of this is that screen-based technologies are just another tool available within the classroom. I’m not obsessed with this technology – I think the authors actually have a point – it is hard to get kids to focus on ‘the lesson’ when the screen they are looking at also allows them to interact with their friends or check their Facebook page. However, there is a hell of a lot of space on the spectrum between total ban of all screen-based devices and a free-for-all.

[Briana · Rating 3 out of 5]

Source: Shelf Awareness giveaway

Review

Screen Schooled takes an honest look at how technology is used at schools (and for schoolwork at home) and takes the controversial view that more tech is not better, that “technology overuse is making our kids dumber.”

Although there are references to a number of scientific studies, these references are often brief and unmarked by any sort of superscript number directing the reader to find out more (all bibliographic information is gathered in the back of the book, not well-labelled).  This means that the book comes across as largely anecdotal—which makes for engaging reading, but is not necessarily the most convincing approach.

However, I think the purpose of the book is important here.  Having spent a few years teaching, I actually agree with much of what the authors are saying about technology frequently being more of a burden/distraction for students than a help and the authors’ pleas that technology should be used where it actually accomplishes something that a simpler approach cannot.  Because I already agree with many of their points and have lived anecdotes similar to the ones they present, I want more data and a rigorous scientific approach. But the book is not really geared towards readers like me. It’s aimed at parents—particularly the type of parents who believe, in part because they have been told over and over again, that technology is good for their children, that it makes them smarter, that today’s youth think in profoundly digital ways that older generations just cannot understand.

For example:  One of the stories in the book is about a student who spends the majority of his school day reading an e-book on an e-reader, listening to a second book through headphones, while sitting in class listening to the teacher’s lesson.  When the teacher runs into this student’s parents at Back to School Night and tentatively brings up that the student is perpetually plugged in, the parents are not concerned.  Rather, they are impressed.  They gush about how brilliant their son is, that it’s so amazing that he can read two books at once and pay attention in class.  He’s a technological genius, a marvelous multitasker!  They are so proud!  Now, the reality is that the student is not doing any of these three things well.  He doesn’t know what’s happening in either of the two books he’s supposedly reading, and he certainly has no idea what’s going on in his classes.  His grades being to reflect this.  But he—and his parents—are so convinced that he is good at doing all these three things at once that it is difficult for them to make the connection between his staring at a screen during class, with headphones in, and his less-than-impressive transcript.

These are the parents/readers the authors want to reach, the people who need such anecdotes to serve as a wake-up call that their son or daughter may be missing out on school, learning, or meaningful social interaction because they are always looking at a screen.  The book addresses a wide variety of problems (again, with the data to back it up, though it can get lost in the storytelling), ranging from Internet addition to social anxiety to depression to the inability to focus to students’ refusal to learn anything if it isn’t hidden in an “edutainment” game.

Of course, some problems with students are not new—they’re just showing up in a new form because of technology.  In one section the authors bemoan that supposed digital natives are not actually that good with technology.  (Studies show that young people spend about nine hours per day online—specifically doing things that are not their homework or studying—and that most of this time is spent in passive entertainment like checking social media or watching videos or playing games.  The reality is that most digital natives are not sitting around learning how to code or engaging in content creation like running their own website or Youtube channel.)  The result?  The authors have students who, after five minutes of attempted “research” on the Internet come up and tell them things like “There’s no information about the Crusades/the abortion debate/Martin Luther King, Jr. online, so I can’t do this research paper. I’ll be over there playing Candy Crush.”  I’ve had students tell me similar things, so I believe these anecdotes.  But are these lack of research skills (and tenacity) caused by technology?  Probably not.

I wasn’t teaching thirty years ago, but I can still imagine a student going to the public library, taking a three minute walk around, and coming back to their teacher saying, “There are no books that have been written on the American Civil War.  I can’t do the research paper you assigned.”  If the point is that tools like Google and academic databases are making students stupider, I would have to disagree.  But if the point is that, whatever the tools we use to research, schools still need to teach students actual research skills (and that it might take more than three minutes to get an answer), the authors are onto something.  We can’t just say, “Well, students are digital natives.  They know how to find information,” and let them run loose without any actual instruction or guidance.

Screen Schooled is not a perfect book, but it’s an interesting one, and I think it’s jump-starting an important conversation schools, parents, and even students need to be having about how we use technology and how much we use technology.  (And I do appreciate that the authors recognize that this isn’t a “young whippersnappers are always glued to their phones” problem; adults often model tech-obsessed behavior their children copy.)  The idea is to use technology thoughtfully because it’s actually accomplishing something you cannot achieve without pulling out your phone or iPad.  This book is a great resource for teachers, school boards, and parents to begin thinking about tough questions or problems they may be having that they might not have immediately connected to technology.

For instance:

1.) Does your child have “too much” homework?  Or is he/she spending “four hours” doing math homework that’s actually about 15 min. doing homework and 3 hrs. 45 min. checking social media or watching Netflix “in the background?"
2.) Is your child multitasking?  Or actually distracted by texting or playing games while in class?
3.) Is the online textbook accessible and cost-friendly?  Or does it glitch, take forever to log-in, and encourage students to wander off to other sites on the Internet?
4.) Is your child connecting with friends on social media?  Or dangerously judging his/her self-worth by how many likes that latest selfie got?

Technology isn’t bad.  I don’t think that, and the authors of this book don’t think that.  But they do raise some very good questions more of us ought to be asking.

[Adelaide Mcginnity · Rating 1 out of 5]

As a teacher myself -one who has had to suffer through such iniquities as students whipping out their cell phones in the middle of a quiz because they themselves had finished - I am predisposed to be sympathetic towards the overall thesis of this book. Unfortunately, I found the arguments it contained to be sorely lacking. This book is chock full of anecdotes, but fairly light on hard evidence, even though there seems to be copious amounts of data that could have been included. As someone who finds actual scientific results more convincing than repeated assertions that science is on one side or the other, I found this fairly unpersuasive, particularly when it is obvious that the studies the authors are citing have been cherry-picked to comport with their thesis.

The book also contained a number of logical fallacies and inconsistencies. The opening chapter is nothing but a protracted strawman - one day in the life of a "fictional character" we are assured is "absolutely based on reality" - and the habit of strawmanning "kids these days" by highlighting anecdotes of the absurd things they have done continues throughout the book. The authors also seem prone to falling in the correlation-implies-causation trap. Perhaps the most egregious example of this is in regard to two attempts (in chapters 3 and 9) to insinuate a causal relationship between US students using more technology and their underperformance relative to their OECD peers on cognitive skills testing, even though this explanation conflicts with expert opinions on the subject.

This book also often does a poor job of interpreting data. For instance, in chapter 5, the book uses the well documented evidence of high school grade inflation to argue that, since schools are becoming easier, students are not facing increased academic pressure, when, in fact, the rise in high school GPAs due to grade inflation might just as logically be correlated with increased student stress, as now better and better grades are required to keep up academically with the proverbial Joneses. Furthermore, the authors have a bad habit of making sweeping, general statements of what they seem to think are self-evident truths, even when these truths are anything but self evident. Perhaps the worst example of this occurs in chapter 2, when the authors blithely assert: "[u]nlike tastes in art, music, art, or technology, tastes in sports have changed very little over time." That this statement is blatantly false should be self evident to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the history of sports in the US.

I was also not fond of the prose. In spite of the serious subject matter, the book adopts a remarkably informal style, with abundant use of fragments, colloquialisms, contractions, and the second person. The pages are littered with histrionic analogies (such as a claim in chapter 2 that the children of today have been "digitally lobotomize[d]") that are rather off-putting and are completely out of place in what amounts, in essence, to a political call for action. This should have been a well-researched treatise, written essentially in an academic style (though without the jargon that would make it inaccessible to the popular audience). Instead, the authors seem to want to mimic the aesthetic of an internet blogger.

Finally, I have some constructive criticism of the ARC that I hope will be fixed by the time this book is published. Rather than listing all the sources alphabetically for each chapter in a sources appendix, I would really appreciate endnotes. I was also not a fan of the bullet pointed "takeways" that were placed at the end of each chapter like the discussion questions of a high school English literature textbook. Clearly, this book is aimed at an adult audience, and I found it bizarrely patronizing that it was assumed that my reading comprehension skills were so bad that I needed the main points spelled out for me at the end of each section. Finally (and this might just be a stylistic quirk of mine), I object to the use of sans-serif font in the aforementioned "takeaways;" sans-serif fonts are ugly, and the contrast is particularly jarring when the main body of the chapter is in a normal font.

[Raymond Kotty · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had to join GoodReads just to write this review. I find this book amazing and a very important read for just about anyone involved with education in today's world. I agree with almost all the reviews that I've read, but I've found a pattern among the lower ratings that I would like to comment on.

I'm a PhD dropout (couldn't finish before becoming a father and then lost my extra time). I had the time, however, to work my way through all my classwork which included courses called "Quantitative Research Methods" and "Qualitative Research Methods". I'm not mentioning this to toot my own horn, but to establish credibility on something that I think is not well known outside of academia.

I was trying to get my degree in Mathematics Education and was interested specifically in computer-aided instruction. In the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, there was a call to the US Department of Education to ask the academic community to try to resolve the issue of the educational benefit of students using computers through convincing, quantitative research. Up until then, there were simply no peer-reviewed, quantitative, and convincing papers. As I read papers up through 2014, I discovered that this issue was still a problem.

The problem is of course that there can never be these "convincing" papers. Since the Milgrim experiment, we have learned that we cannot conduct "hard science" on human subjects. Almost all research in education is qualitative and (my emphasis) just not as convincing as scientific studies in other areas.

It is my opinion that some people gave this book a low rating because of lack of "research" or "no good references". There is plenty of research quoted in the book, but it is mostly Qualitative because that is the way it is in education. There is a dearth of quantitative studies on iPad both PRO and CON so I don't think it is a fair review to rate this book low because of lack of "research".

In fact, this book reads like many actual educational research papers. They are usually chocked full of anecdotes. One of the main points of qualitative studies is just to present a thoughtful and evidence filled argument and that is what I think this book does very well.

[Douglas Graney · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone that has been teaching for over thirty years I have seen a lot of fads come and go. One of the most insidious is the obsession with having students have their face in front of a screen as much as possible. Screen Schooled details the damage we are doing to our children and consequently our future society by the tech revolution in our schools. We are doing a major disservice to our children in many areas of their life.
The subtitle is correct. We ARE making our kids dumber. Screen Schooled describes the problem (which is right in front of our faces, like the screens, if we're willing to admit it) and describes the obvious ways to reclaim our children from screen addiction. Buy this book and share the information with teachers, administrators and politicians.

[Brenda · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a parent of children in a school district that has been pushing the “device for every student” plan for several years, I really appreciated this book. They articulated well the concerns and questions that surround the belief that emphasizing technology so much in school will benefit students.

The book wasn’t perfect, but it was a good combination of their own experience plus research that should cause us to stop and reconsider the huge push of a device in every student’s hands. They even spend a chapter exploring how we got here, including federal mandates that put pressure on school districts to show positive achievement data and ed tech companies who use slick marketing (and fund “studies” to show the benefits of ed tech) to capitalize on school systems feeling the pressure. As someone who has been very involved in fighting the battle in our own school district and who has learned a lot about what has been happening, what they wrote was frighteningly on target.

They also address tech use at home and cell phones interfering both at home and at school with student learning—whether distracting students, sucking away time, or tech dependency leading to students who struggle to focus or think on a deeper level.

Bottom line: if you have kids in a school district that has started (or will be starting) a significant technology initiative with the promises of “student achievement,” “increasing student engagement,” and “closing achievement gaps” then READ THIS BOOK.

[Marya · Rating 2 out of 5]

Both Briana and Adelaide make excellent points, and I agree with both reviews 100%. Rather than retype either one, I'll only add my two cents here.

Despite including the research done by Susan Neuman and Donna Celano, the authors seem to have missed their larger point about technology. Just as dropping off a child at a library doesn't guarantee that child will learn to read, so too does giving a child technology not guarantee that child will know how to use it appropriately. In their research, Neuman and Celano note how important it is to offer personal guidance on how to use the technology (scaffolding). As the lower income neighborhood lacked the adults with sufficient time (and tech savvy skills) to instruct the children, those kids were the ones able to play Candy Crush, but unable to do Internet research. Schools are often at the forefront of correcting inequality, which would mean schools would need to do more technology training, not less. Saying "we don't need to teach them how to use iPads, because they already know how to use them" misses this crucial point. Kids DON'T know how to use iPads --- and depriving the kids of that instruction will not leave them prepared for their future.

[Rachel B · Rating 4 out of 5]

Both the qualitative and quantitative data here match my own experiences with technology in the classroom, and my interactions with virtually everyone who uses tech on a daily basis, regardless of age. It's sad and scary how obsessed and obtuse people have become.

This book is aimed at parents, primarily, which I thought was a slightly weird choice.

It was repetitive at times, and could have been more succinct in many ways. But the message is one I definitely agree with. I do wish there had been a little more time spent on positive examples of tech-free instruction and more explicit action points at the end of the book, instead of at the ends of chapters.

[NIZAR N NAKFOOR · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Most Convincing Case Against Technology Overuse in Schools

I read “Screen Schooled” by Joe Clement and Matt Miles because of my interest in teaching Digital Citizenship at schools. Initially, I was worried that it might be another anti-technology book which is more ideological than scientific, but my worries disappeared soon after I started reading.


The basic premise of the book could be summarized in one paragraph from the book: “The reality is that the evidence supporting the pro technology claims about digital natives is lacking if not nonexistent. Theoretical claims are stated as facts and their evidence is mostly anecdotal. When “evidence” is provided, it is often generated by the companies selling the very technology they claim to support. However, actual evidence presented by real social scientists overwhelmingly favors the conclusion that digital technologies are bad for kids in almost every conceivable way.” P.22

Clement and Miles support their claims at three levels:

1- Their own experience as veteran schoolteachers by citing actual cases of students that they encountered during their long career.

2- Common sense which any teacher or parent cannot but agree with: “First of all, this shift in educational practice completely contradicts all the claims about digital natives. If they’re already so well versed in technology, why spend school time teaching it to them? … Second, what lessons in technology are we going to teach five - year - olds that will still be relevant when they enter the workforce sixteen years later? Finally, modern technology is so intuitive and user friendly that it doesn’t need to be taught. Virtually anyone with any common sense can figure it out.” P.59-60

3- Scientific studies the most important of which was a study titled How We Learn by researchers for Scientific American Mind which reviewed more than 700 scientific articles on ten common learning techniques to identify the most advantageous ways to study and which concluded that: “Of those deemed most advantageous for learning, exactly zero used any sort of advanced digital technology. Worse than that, and as I have taken great pains to describe, the overuse of these technologies actually harms kids in many ways.” P.193

However, the authors do not necessarily advocate technology- free education nor want to return to the good old days when teachers only lectured and could whack students with rulers: “If students use a tool during their skills - acquisition journey, and it is a natural, simple part of the instruction, that is a bonus. However, teaching the gadget cannot replace teaching the content - related skill. Education should focus on skills that will never become unnecessary or outdated. These are the skills like reading, writing, arithmetic, critical thinking, and problem - solving.” P.220

For Clement and Miles, the main issue is the addictive nature of technology and its overuse: “If modern technology could be used in moderation, that would be one thing. But the most appealing technology on the market today is designed with the intent of being addictive, to increase the duration and frequency of its use.” P.25.

This book reconfirmed my belief that teaching digital citizenship at schools is much more important than teaching technology itself. I highly recommend “Screen Schooled” to whoever is interested in providing our children today with timeless education that they will need throughout their lives.

Nizar Nakfoor

[Daniel Matthews · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a fascinating look at how the Digital Age, a world in which young people are spending over 9 hours a day engaged in self-amusement digital media, is impacting student performance.

Clearly written by experienced teachers, almost every chapter follows a well-organized lesson. They open with a "hook," an amusing, sometimes "laugh-out-loud," anecdote relating to the content of the chapter. They then follow with the content which is explained in a very accessible, engaging way. They concisely explain the current research and pair it with real life experiences illustrating how the findings manifest themselves in the modern classroom. For example, they follow a description of how computer programmers/neuroscientists have intentionally engineered gaming apps to be addictive, and the DSM's definition of "Internet Addiction Disorder" by a story of a young man who can't stay awake through class because he's waking up at 2 am to play his new video game through the night without his parents' knowledge, and another story of a girl who becomes violent when a fellow teacher tries to take her phone from her after refusing to put it away. Each chapter is then summarized by the key take-away points. Although redundant, this is how effective teachers end lessons- and why this is becoming more common for this particular genre.

If you're looking for a "formal treatise" on the modern research, this isn't your book. Rather than a bland summary filled with scientific jargon, the authors' lighthearted style makes the information more engaging for the average parent and educator. It's still filled with over 3 dozen peer-reviewed studies and the work of some of the world's leading psychologists and neuroscientists including Daniel Kahneman and Philip Zimbardo. What could have easily been a 500-page book is made into an easy and enjoyable read.

[Kelly Fuddy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some people had issues with how data was used in this book, however it makes plenty of common sense and accurate science-based arguments. Screens are addictive, like a drug, and we’re letting our kids’ brains get more and more addicted. We as adults have plenty of trouble staying focused on our work and not task-switching when internet access is available. Imagine a 12 year old with add?

The main point is that learning is the goal of education, and screens very often don’t do a better job of improving learning than simpler methods. Kids end up zoning out and not retaining the information presented...Just like anyone who is on their phone screen while their spouse or kid is talking to them, only looking up when an important word or phrase draws their attention to it. The authors are saying there is certainly not enough proof that screens and 1:1 programs greatly improve our children’s education, and it’s still quite possible they are hindering it. I am admittedly looking for confirmation bias due to my experience of my 7th grader being given a laptop and needing internet access to get her homework done. It makes leaving your kid home alone after school, now that they’re finally old enough to be safe, very difficult.

[Tansy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this to be an incredibly thought-provoking look at the question of how technology is used in schools. As a librarian, there has been more than one occasion on which I've been asked about getting the latest and greatest technology, but when the question "why do we need this and how will we use it" comes up, there's not an answer.

I very much agree with the central ideas that 1) we don't need to be teaching students *how* to use technology and 2) simpler is better. As educators, our job is to teach students how to think, not how to tap on a screen or keyboard and "Screen Schooled" provides useful support for that argument. I'll be sharing this book, for sure.

[FH · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book all parents should read. It dismantles all the myths on technology we are used to hear and warns against this unfounded wave of 'screenmania'.

[Jane Oldenburg · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was given the chance to read this book through NetGalley. This book, written by two teachers, was informative and interesting;however, something in the actual writing was missing. I would recommend this book to many people despite that: teachers, administrators, parents, and teens alike. I agree with many of the authors' points, but I don't see our current situation with technology changing for a long time. I disliked the "takeaways" at the end of each chapter. These were unnecessary and often I just skimmed them; I found them repetitive.

[Alison · Rating 2 out of 5]

Because I don't want to be a keyboard warrior, I'm a bit at a loss for how to write this review. The kindest thing I can think to say is that I understand where these teachers are coming from, but I think their rhetoric stands in their way.

Overall, this book is pretty disparaging to adolescents. I relies on many straw man "composites," meaning the worst student tendencies spread out across many students all lumped together to draw a single portrait. The stereotypes of teenagers that the book relies on are so skewed that they can be easily disproven with opposing anecdotes. I was also disappointed to see that way the bibliography was set up; many direct quotes in the text were ultimately unattributed, and I couldn't trace the source of many of the statistics (surely the most extreme ones they could find). I scoured the list of references of each chapter, assuming the missing citations were due to user error. But they were not, and almost all of the citations included the word "web" in them. That means the overwhelming majority of the research, and certainly all of the drafting, relied on technology. All of these factors combined made the book feel intellectually dishonest to me.

On the other hand, I really do see the problem of dependence on screens in ALL people, not just adolescents, who are disproportionately being blamed while rarely being taught an alternative. I particularly identify with the angle about the intrusion of edtech firms into public (and private schools), who are all trying to corner the market and stand to make enormous profits. It is well documented that the multi-million and billion-dollar investments in technology for the classroom do very little to enhance learning, and in many times, they detract from it. The bandwagon call is clear and compelling - "this is what future learners need!" - but it is not at all supported by rigorous (or non-industry funded) research.

All that being said, I think there was a real missed opportunity in the book to highlight the "overuse" angle, which blurred quickly to sound like a blanket condemnation and was only sparingly and cautiously qualified. The way the argument takes shape primes people to become righteously indignant or reactionary or worse; it also is very dismissive toward teenagers. Ultimately, I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone who doesn't have several other research-based perspectives to balance it out.

[Lou Hunley · Rating 5 out of 5]

How have children changed in the last ten years? Anyone who has addressed or observed groups of children lately notice that our youth are less attentive. It’s harder to make eye contact. They have more trouble falling directions. They fidget. They want to lie on the floor instead of sitting up straight. Could constant exposure to screens be causing this problem?

Joe Clement and Matt Miles have teamed up to produce an important wake-up call for parents. Their book, “Screen School: Two Veteran Teachers Expose How Technology Use is Making Our Kids Dumber” is a must read for anyone concerned about our children's future.

Clement and Miles believe that most of our children are technology addicts. While they are adept at locating facts, they lack creative thinking, problem solving, and social skills. They include lots of research and practical teaching experience to back up their claims.

Clement and Miles offer practical advice for parents. Each chapter ends with practical advice for parents. They recommend limiting screen time in the home and encouraging parents to advocate for the best education for their children.

While other books* are tackling this topic, "Screen Schooled" gives the perspective of two public school insiders. They allow us to see firsthand how screens are impacting the students in their lives. They have inside information on the school system that can help parents advocate for the best education for their children.

“Screen Schooled” makes for an enjoyable read. At times, it feels like a chat with your child’s favorite teacher. Clement and Miles have a heart for their students. They offer practical advice for the classroom as well as the home.



*”Glow Kids,” Nicholas Kardaras,” IGen”,-Jean Twinge, “Disconnected,” Tom Kersling are other books about children and screens.

[Jodi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found it amusing that someone asked me yesterday (while I was reading this book) what parenting books I would recommend. I immediately recommended this one and Last Child in the Woods. I'm not sure why I even picked this book up since I homeschool my two kids who still live at home, but I'm so glad I did. It is definitely life-changing for me just as Last Child in the Woods has been. Not only do I want to change how I parent my children but I also want to change my own behaviors. This book have given me great insight into how to improve my own teaching style but have been also forced to take a good hard look at my own use of technology. My family is sick of me spouting facts and forcing them to listen to me read aloud stories and studies that struck me the most and my boys will hate that their already limited screen time will be even more limited, but I'm excited to make changes that will benefit all of us including and especially myself. Screen Schooled should definitely be required reading for every parent and educator.

[Stephanie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Screen Schooled takes a hard look at how the increased use of technology in schools is affecting students and the educational process. Clement delves into the oft told tales of how much smarter students will be if given unfettered access to technology. The reality is harsh. Schools and students are being short-changed by tech companies driven by profits. The hard science that proves the superiority of tech-based education is not just lacking, it's non-existent. I work in a middle school and have seen first hand the fallout that has resulted from the increased use of technology. The chapter that explains how behavioral scientists have been employed to create games and apps that increase the probability of addiction to the game or app is eye-opening. I recommend this book for educators and parents alike.

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have long had a sneaking suspicion that increasing the technology available in schools might not actually be doing much to increase student achievement. When I heard about this book I was eager to see what other teachers thought. Ironically my library only had a digital copy so I ended up reading it on my phone. The authors definitely validated my concerns, and offer some action steps for parents to take if they are concerned about the amount of technology time. The authors appear to be high school teachers, and it seems like a lot of their issues stem from the fact that students are allowed to use their own devices during the school day when they have free time. Definitely an important read for parents and teachers alike at least to get the conversation going about what constitutes effective screen use in the classroom.

[Megan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book with a post 2020 pandemic view. My 1st grader attended school 100% remotely. He had access to a lot of technology and both parents to assist him but…. he would have learned more without so much technology. As others have said, this book doesn’t do a great job citing specific studies. What is made clear is that more screen time is detrimental to growing brains. If anything, this book confirmed my gut feeling that we parents have to do better advocating for our children and that just because the technology is new doesn’t mean it is the right tool for learning. It is well worth reading.

Late in the book, I came across this quote that sums up everything “Picture a lesson you found inspiring, informative, important, and engaging. Think about a lesson that left you sad when it was over. Then…. answer this question: How much advanced technology was involved in that lesson?”

[Kate Stevenson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought this book was excellent. The reason I'm giving four instead of five stars is that the authors could have used data instead of anecdotes to back up some of the arguments, which would improve many of the other reviewers' experiences with this book. However, if you've read more widely about the issue of children and screens, you'll see that despite the presence of anecdotes, the authors are not making any unsubstantiated claims. This topic always makes "screen parents" defensive, and well... too bad. Screen time is harmful to kids, social media is harmful to kids, and kids learn better in more traditional ways. Sorry!

[Marty · Rating 4 out of 5]

My local high school started using iPads for every student about 5 years ago. The only advantage that I could see at the time was that the students would no longer have to lug 30 pound backpacks around with them all day because their ipads would replace heavy textbooks and binders. I talked to a couple of school board members to see what research they had consulted before making this change. They didn't refer me to any. I'm hoping that ipads and Chromebooks are a fad, and that administrators and school boards will read Screen Schooled and think twice before starting one-to-one programs.

[Helenala Wharton · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must read for all adults. Technology addiction is a very real thing and it is becoming worse as time goes by. This book not only helped me reduce my technology use, but also encouraged me to read more nonfiction books. It talks about how technology overuse effects social skills, focus, critical thinking, and other aspects of childrens' lives.

[Geoffrey Kelley · Rating 4 out of 5]

We all love our tablets and our screen time. But does it become too much? What is the impact on our students and our education system? The authors plead caution. Yes there is a place for technology in our schools, but not at the expense of critical thinking nor the development of social skills. We are human beings after all!

[Ray · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found Screen Schooled fascinating, particularly in Chapter 9 in which education and pro-business attitudes have shifted the vital importance of learning and personal autonomy to fulfilling standardize quotas by the federal. I recommended this book for parents who are worried that children are too devoted to their mobile devices and are seeking a solution to this dilemma.

[Kaazmik · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oh man, this book was written a couple years back before covid, Now there is no escape from the constant glare. Kids have no choice but to plug in, which is destroying their brain development. As a parent of a senior in high school, This book saddens me, future generations are severely in trouble and that exactly what the controllers want.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

How about the exploding wages of lazy bums who get paid 10 times more than the last century for about the same results? But yes, the arrogance is the main complaint: lazy people who sit in heated rooms, barely moving during the day, who are ”veteran”, just like the people who survived Verdun sleeping in wet, muddy trenches.

[Alyssa Miller · Rating 5 out of 5]

A timely and oh so very important book. Why our society just continues to move farther from evidence-based research on the dangers of technology overuse for us all, and especially for the developing brains of children and adolescents is simply beyond me.

[Jessica · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a former teacher and parent I couldn't agree more with this book.

[Jennifer Neal · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a teacher for 25 years, I agree wholeheartedly with the authors of this book. I am going to suggest that all my parents and co-workers read this.