June 13, 2008
Are computers a distraction for underprivileged kids?
Ray Fisman in Slate thinks they are:
A generation later, parents are more worried than ever about making sure their kids can compete in today’s high-tech world, and the growing digital divide is a subject of great concern for educators and policymakers. Federal subsidies in the United States provide billions of dollars for computer access in schools and libraries, and billions more may soon be spent in the developing world through programs such as One Laptop per Child. But even OLPC’s $100 laptop comes loaded with more distractions than my PET ever had. So will kids use these subsidized computing resources to prepare for the demands of the 21st-century job market? Or do computers just serve as a 21st-century substitute for that more venerable time-waster—the television?
New research by economists Ofer Malamud and Cristian Pop-Eleches provides an answer: For many kids, computers are indeed more of a distraction than a learning opportunity. The two researchers surveyed households that applied to Euro 200, a voucher distribution program in Romania designed to help poor households defray the cost of buying a computer for their children. It turns out that kids in households lucky enough to get computer vouchers spent a lot less time watching TV—but that’s where the good news ends. “Vouchered” kids also spent less time doing homework, got lower grades, and reported lower educational aspirations than the “unvouchered” kids.
I’d back computers over television any day, but Fisman’s discussion is thoughtful; do read the whole thing. It also echoes this Dear Economist answer:
Previous researchers have struggled to establish a causal link between exam results and time spent studying. That is not a surprise. Bright students might work harder because they enjoy the work. Or failing students might cram to rescue their grades. Untangling the statistics seems impossible.
Yet the puzzle has been resolved by Todd Stinebrickner, an economist, and his father, mathematician Ralph Stinebrickner. Equipped with detailed time-use questionnaires, they looked at students who were randomly assigned a room-mate with a games console. Neither the students nor their room-mates differed in, say, initial test score, time spent boozing, or sleeping. But students whose room-mates had video games spent less time studying and more playing Final Fantasy XII. Pure chance – the assignment of a room-mate – seems to affect time spent studying, and no other important decisions. And yes, the grades did suffer.
