{"version":1,"type":"rich","provider_name":"Libsyn","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.libsyn.com","height":90,"width":600,"title":"Why Classroom Technology Harms Learning (with Jared Cooney Horvath)","description":"Drew Perkins welcomes neuroscientist and acclaimed author Jared Cooney Horvath to dissect his new book, The Digital Delusion, which provides a rigorous, evidence-based critique of edtech. Links & Resources Mentioned In This Episode Watch on YouTube Horvath doesn\u2019t mince words, arguing that the majority of student-facing, internet-connected devices should be removed from schools. He reveals that over 60 years of consistent data supports his claim that the integration of digital tools is fundamentally detrimental to effective learning. This isn\u2019t a Luddite\u2019s complaint; it\u2019s a detailed exploration of the Neuroscience of Learning. The harm is explained through three primary biological mechanisms, which Horvath asserts are unfixable with software. First, screens train students to multitask, leading to a constant, detrimental battle for attention in a learning environment. Second, the use of devices inhibits the essential human-to-human interaction necessary for empathetic synchrony\u2014the mirroring and mimicking critical for deep cognitive and social development. Finally, we discuss the profound problem of Transfer of Learning. Horvath explains that by learning skills in an \u201ceasy\u201d digital context, the ability to transfer that knowledge to a more complex, real-life (analog) task is significantly diminished, making the learning \u201cslower, worse, and less deep.\u201d The data suggests tech only works in highly narrow contexts, primarily for surface-level \u201cdrill and kill\u201d facts or basic remediation, often through intelligent tutors. The conversation then shifts to the persistent educational conflicts, notably the ongoing tension between Explicit Instruction vs Inquiry and Project-Based Learning (PBL). Horvath connects the rigidity of entrenched positions to a \u201csunk cost\u201d phenomenon, where individuals find it too \u201ccostly\u201d to change their public stance, even when facing opposing evidence. We delve into the complexities of teaching, noting that both traditional and progressive approaches are valid at different points in a student\u2019s journey, but both are fundamentally flawed when they adhere rigidly to a single philosophy. Furthermore, we explore the nature of Critical Thinking Skills and creativity. Horvath clarifies that while the mechanism for critical thinking is innate across all ages, its output is heavily constrained by the individual\u2019s available domain-specific knowledge. The science of learning, he argues, has nothing to say about specific pedagogy (such as direct instruction versus exploratory learning); it only describes the biological constraints of how the brain learns. Therefore, neuroscience should serve as a powerful tool to inform and improve any existing pedagogical approach, not dictate a single one. Horvath offers a vision for the ideal classroom, suggesting elementary spaces should be \u201cbasically outdoor,\u201d focused on play and minimal tech. For older students, he advocates for a high level of control, confining computer use to specialized lab settings\u2014much like woodshop or physical education. This perspective provides an essential counter-narrative for any K-12 educator or administrator struggling to balance modern tools with effective, long-term student success. To continue exploring innovative, evidence-based strategies, subscribe to the ThoughtStretchers Podcast on your favorite podcast player! Timestamped Episode Timeline Time Segment\/Topic [00:00] Introduction of Jared Cooney Horvath \u2013 Teacher-turned-neuroscientist, focus on \u201chuman learning\u201d and applying neuroscience to educational practices. [01:28] Jared\u2019s Educational Background and Views on Pedagogy \u2013 Describing his K-12 experience as a \u201cmishmash\u201d that didn\u2019t adhere rigidly to \u201ctraditional\u201d or \u201cprogressive\u201d labels. [03:45] The Digital Delusion Book & EdTech Critique \u2013 Introducing the book and its core argument: edtech fundamentally harms learning, advocating for reducing\/eliminating non-essential computer use in classrooms. [07:18] EdTech and Learning Outcomes\/The Swedish Example \u2013 Advocating for removing student-facing, internet-connected devices; citing Sweden\u2019s ban on general tech use in schools (confining computers to a lab). [08:09] Exceptions for Technology Use \u2013 Tech only works effectively in narrow contexts: self-adaptive \u201cintelligent tutors\u201d for surface-level (drill and kill) learning and remediation. [09:46] Mechanisms of EdTech Harm (Biological) \u2013 Outlining the three primary ways screens harm learning: Attention, Empathetic Synchrony, and Transfer. [12:29] Transfer and Complexity in Learning \u2013 Discussion on how learning in an easy digital context makes skill transfer to a harder, real-life analog context almost impossible. [15:54] AI, Pedagogy, and Creating Learning Tools \u2013 Drew\u2019s example of using AI for quizzes; Jared\u2019s counter that learning is \u201cslower, worse, and less deep\u201d than if the student created the tools themselves. [18:07] The Ideal Classroom \u2013 Jared\u2019s vision for elementary (outdoor, play-focused, minimal tech) and middle\/high school (human-element focus, highly controlled tech use in a lab). [20:17] Critical Thinking and Metacognition \u2013 Discussion on the definition of critical thinking, with Jared suggesting metacognition is a more accurate term for the process. [23:02] The Role of Knowledge in Critical Thinking \u2013 The mechanism is universal, but the outcome of critical thinking without knowledge is \u201cvery very narrow or pointless.\u201d [27:43] Creativity and Questioning \u2013 Defining creativity as \u201crearranging of your current memory structures.\u201d The role of knowledge and safety\/context in the ability to ask good questions. [35:47] Tension Between Traditional and Progressive Education \u2013 Observing the acute conflict in Australia\/UK; asserting both approaches are correct at different points but wrong when they are too rigid. [40:34] Science of Learning and Pedagogy \u2013 Stressing that the science of learning only concerns biological mechanisms and should inform teaching, not dictate a specific pedagogy. [43:08] AI Model Training and Pedagogical Parallels \u2013 Drew\u2019s question on parallels between AI\u2019s \u201csymbolism\u201d vs. \u201cconnectivism\u201d and educational philosophies. [44:15] Critique of AI and Cognitive Models \u2013 Jared\u2019s view that AI conceptualization has mistakenly influenced brain understanding and that current AI models may be at a peak without a new theoretical framework. [46:02] Book and Contact Information \u2013 Sharing website (www.lmegglobal.net), new book (The Digital Delusion), and YouTube channel. [46:47] Closing Remarks \u2013 Final thoughts on recognizing the \u201cgray zone\u201d in complex educational issues.   ","author_name":"The ThoughtStretchers Podcast","author_url":"http:\/\/ThoughtStretchersEducationPodcast.libsyn.com\/site","html":"