The Village Effect: How Face-to-Face Contact Can Make Us Healthier and Happier (52 page)

24.
Valkenburg and Peter, “Social Consequences of the Internet”; “Preadolescents’ and Adolescents’ Online Communication.”

25.
The wall as a device to create romantic and narrative tension was used not only by Ovid but also by Shakespeare in A
Midsummer Night’s Dream
and
Romeo and Juliet
, Jonathan Safran Foer in
Everything Is Illuminated
, and Nick Hornby in
Juliet, Naked—the
latter was one of the first novelists to use email missives to convey the false intimacy created by online romantic exchanges.

26.
A. Sharabi and M. Margalit, “The Mediating Role of Internet Connection, Virtual Friends, and Mood in Predicting Loneliness among Students with and without Learning Disabilities in Different Educational Environments,”
Journal of Learning Disabilities
44, no. 3 (2010); M. Hu, “Will Online Chat Help Alleviate Mood Loneliness?”
CyberPsychology & Behavior
12 (2009); Kraut et al., “Internet Paradox”; Kraut et al., “Internet Paradox Revisited”; Elisheva Gross, Jaana Juvonen, and Shelly Gable, “Internet Use and Well-being in Adolescence,”
Journal of Social Issues
58, no. 1 (2002).

27.
Regina van den Eijnden et al., “Online Communication, Compulsive Internet Use, and Psychosocial Well-being among Adolescents: A Longitudinal Study,”
Developmental Psychology
44, no. 3 (2008); E. B. Weiser, “The Functions of Internet Use and Their Social and Psychological Consequences,”
CyberPsychology & Behavior
4 (2001); M. L. Ybarra, C. Alexander, and K. J. Mitchell, “Depressive Symptomatology, Youth Internet Use, and Online Interactions: A National Survey,”
Journal of Adolescent Health
36, no. 1 (2005).

28.
Sharabi and Margalit, “The Mediating Role of Internet Connection”; Junghyun Kim, Robert LaRose, and Wei Peng, “Loneliness as the Cause and the Effect of Problematic Internet Use: The Relationship between Internet Use and Psychological Well-being,”
CyberPsychology & Behavior
12, no. 4 (2009); P. E. Klass, “Fixated by Screens, But Seemingly Nothing Else,”
New York Times
, May 9, 2011.

29.
Klass, “Fixated by Screens.”

30.
M. De Choudhury et al., “Predicting Depression via Social Media,”
paper presented at the 7th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Boston, MA, July 2013.

31.
M. A. Moreno et al., “Feeling Bad on Facebook: Depression Disclosures by College Students on a Social Networking Site,”
Depression and Anxiety
28, no. 6 (2011); De Choudhury et al., “Predicting Depression”; M. A. Moreno et al., “A Pilot Evaluation of Associations between Displayed Depression References on Facebook and Self-Reported Depression Using a Clinical Scale,”
Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research
39, no. 3 (2011).

32.
Sherry Turkle, “The Flight from Conversation,”
New York Times
, April 22, 2012;
Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other
(New York: Basic Books, 2011).

33.
Arthur Levine and Diane R. Dean,
Generation on a Tightrope: A Portrait of Today’s College Student
(San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 2012).

34.
Carlo Rotella, “No Child Left Untableted,”
New York Times Magazine
, September 15, 2013.

35.
Mark Warschauer and Morgan Ames, “Can One Laptop Per Child Save the World’s Poor?,”
Journal of International Affairs
64, no. 1 (2010).

36.
Ibid.; Nicholas Negroponte, “No Lap Un-topped: The Bottom Up Revolution that Could Re-define Global IT Culture,” NetEvents Global Press Summit, Hong Kong, 2006; Seymour Papert, “Digital Development: How the $100 Laptop Could Change Education,” USINFO Webchat.

37.
Warschauer and Ames, “Can One Laptop Per Child Save the World’s Poor?”; Mark Warschauer and Tina Matuchniak, “New Technology and Digital Worlds: Analyzing Evidence of Equity in Access, Use, and Outcomes,”
Review of Research in Education
34, no. 1 (2010).

38.
Jeff Patzer, “Are Laptops the Most Important Thing?” [blog], 2010.

39.
All figures from the OLPC website.

40.
J. Hourcade et al., “Early OLPC Experiences in a Rural Uruguayan School,” in
Mobile Technology for Children: Designing for Interaction and Learning
, ed. A. Druin (Boston: Morgan Kaufmann, 2009); Pierre Varly, “Evaluations in One Laptop Per Child: What For? What Has
Been Done, What Could Be Done?” in
Varlyproject: A Blog on Education in Developing Countries
, October 16, 2010.

41.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs,
U.S. Department of Labor’s 2010 Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor
(Washington, DC: ILAB, 2011); Varly, “Evaluations in One Laptop Per Child.”

42.
Varly, “Evaluations in One Laptop Per Child.”

43.
Philip Elliott, “Study: US Education Spending Tops Global List,”
Huffington Post
, June 25, 2013.

44.
Geoffrey York, “Congo’s Malaria Surge Confounds Medical World,”
Globe and Mail
, May 18, 2012.

45.
Daniel T. Willingham,
When Can You Trust the Experts? How to Tell Good Science from Bad in Education
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2012).

46.
F. A. Inan et al., “Pattern of Classroom Activities during Students’ Use of Computers: Relations between Instructional Strategies and Computer Applications,”
Teaching and Teacher Education
26 (2010); C. V. Baussell, “Tracking U.S. Trends,”
Education Week
27, no. 30 (2008); Matt Richtel, “In Classroom of the Future, Stagnant Scores,”
New York Times
, September 3, 2011; Rotella, “No Child Left Untableted.”

47.
Willingham,
When Can You Trust the Experts?
; Tad Simons, “England’s Experience with Whiteboards Is Instructive for the Rest of Us,”
Training
, January 11, 2005.

48.
Luke Hopewell, “Budget 2012: OLPC Gets Cash, Praises Govt,”
ZD Net
, May 9, 2012.

49.
Tom Vanderbilt, “The Call of the Future,”
Wilson Quarterly
, Spring 2012,
http://www.wilsonquarterly.com/essays/call-future
.

50.
Jacob L. Vigdor and Helen F. Ladd, “Scaling the Digital Divide: Home Computer Technology and Student Achievement,” NBER Working Paper 16078 (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010).

51.
Bryan Goodwin, “One-to-One Laptop Programs Are No Silver Bullet,”
Educational Leadership
68, no. 5 (2011); Larissa Campuzano et al.,
Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products: Findings from Two Student Cohorts
(Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 2009); Richtel, “In Classroom of the Future”; D. L. Lowther et al.,
Freedom to Learn Program: Michigan 2005–2006 Evaluation Report
(Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Educational Policy, 2007); K. Shapley et al.,
Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot: Final Outcomes for a Four-Year Study (2004–2008)
(Austin: Texas Center for Educational Research, 2009).

52.
Julia Gillen et al., “A ‘Learning Revolution?’ Investigating Pedagogic Practice Around Interactive Whiteboards in British Primary Classrooms,”
Learning, Media, and Technology
32, no. 3 (2007).

53.
S. Higgins, G. Beauchamp, and D. Miller, “Reviewing the Literature on Interactive Whiteboards,”
Learning, Media, and Technology
32, no. 3 (2007).

54.
Goodwin, “One-to-One Laptop Programs”; Lowther et al.,
Freedom to Learn Program
.

55.
Though the students with laptops scored slightly higher in math, their writing skills were weaker and their reading skills the same as those of students without laptops in the classroom. Shapley et al.,
Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot
.

56.
Of ten reading and math programs tested on ten thousand American schoolchildren, the only one that showed statistically significant positive effects was Leap Track, a fourth-grade reading instructional package. This huge study, sponsored by the National Center for Education Evaluation, compared ten software products to see if they improved students’ academic performance over two years. Four hundred and twenty-eight volunteer teachers from 132 schools were randomly assigned either to a technologically enhanced classroom or to one that was not. The students involved were tested at the beginning of the school year and at the end. In the interim, classroom observations at three points during the year, class marks from the kids’ files, and teacher questionnaires supplemented the formal testing. In short, there were
gobs of data on the effectiveness of reading and math software products at every point in the academic year. After one year there were no differences in the performance of students randomly assigned to laptop classrooms versus those in regular classes. After a second year of using them, might the teachers have had more experience with the software and thus have been able to help the students learn more? Sadly, no. This study showed that, compared to teens in traditional classrooms, there were no differences in the students’ reading scores, and their math skills were even worse than those of kids taught without educational software. The results were controversial, especially for software companies. Only one out of the ten software suites had a positive and statistically significant effect on reading or math skills. Of the nine remaining products, five had negative effects on academic performance and four had positive but statistically insignificant effects. Campuzano et al.,
Effectiveness of Reading and Mathematics Software Products
.

57.
Shapley et al.,
Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot
; Wesley A. Austin and Michael W. Totaro, “Gender Differences in the Effects of Internet Usage on High School Absenteeism,”
Journal of Socio-Economics
40 (2011).

58.
Inan et al., “Pattern of Classroom Activities”; S. M. Ross et al., “Using Classroom Observations as a Research and Formative Evaluation Tool in Educational Reform: The School Observation Measure,” in
Observational Research in U.S. Classrooms: New Approaches for Understanding Cultural and Linguistic Diversity
, ed. H. C. Waxman (Cape Town: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

59.
David L. Silvernail et al., A
Middle School One-to-One Laptop Program: The Maine Experience
(Gorham, ME: Maine Education Policy Research Institute, 2011).

60.
Higgins, Beauchamp, and Miller, “Reviewing the Literature”; Tim Rudd, “Interactive Whiteboards in the Classroom” (Bristol, UK: Futurelab, 2007).

61.
Raj Chetty, John N. Friedman, and Jonah Rockoff, “The Long-Term Impacts of Teachers: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in
Adulthood,” NBER Working Paper 17699 (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012).

62.
William L. Sanders and Sandra P. Horn, “Research Findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) Database: Implications for Educational Evaluation and Research,”
Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education
12, no. 3 (1998); William L. Sanders and June C. Rivers, “Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement” (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center, 1996); Steven G. Rivkin, Eric A. Hanushek, and John F. Kain, “Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement,”
Econometrica
73, no. 2 (2005); Elizabeth Green, “Can Good Teaching Be Learned?”
New York Times Magazine
, March 7, 2010; M. Brendgen et al., “Gene–Environment Processes Linking Aggression, Peer Victimization, and the Teacher–Child Relationship,”
Child Development
82, no. 6 (2011); Doug Lemov,
Teach Like a Champion: 49 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to College
(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010).

63.
Randy Yerrick, “How Notebook Computers, Digital Media and Probeware Can Transform Science Learning in the Classroom,”
Contemporary Issues in Technology and Science Teacher Education
9, no. 3 (2009).

64.
Shapley et al.,
Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot
; Silvernail et al.,
A Middle School One-to-One Laptop Program
; Rudd, “Interactive Whiteboards”; B. Somekh and H. Haldane, “How Can Interactive Whiteboards Contribute to Pedagogic Change?”, paper presented at Imagining the Future for ICT and Education, Alesund, Norway, 2006.

65.
Shapley et al.,
Evaluation of the Texas Technology Immersion Pilot
; Silvernail et al.,
A Middle School One-to-One Laptop Program
. The fact that self-esteem is a standalone benefit that doesn’t make you good at much else has been demonstrated in a comprehensive and fairly stunning review article by Roy Baumeister. R. F. Baumeister et al., “Does High Self-Esteem Cause Better Performance, Interpersonal Success,
Happiness, or Healthier Lifestyles?”
Psychological Science in the Public Interest
4, no. 1 (2003).

66.
Dawn Walton, “Drug-Free Distractions for Kids with Cancer,”
Globe and Mail
, June 7, 2012.

67.
Edward Swing et al., “Television and Video Game Exposure and the Development of Attention Problems,”
Pediatrics
126, no. 2 (2010); Markus Dworak et al., “Impact of Singular Excessive Computer Game and Television Exposure on Sleep Patterns and Memory Performance of School Aged Children,”
Pediatrics
120, no. 5 (2007).

68.
Yan Zhou et al., “Gray Matter Abnormalities in Internet Addiction: A Voxel-Based Morphometry Study,”
European Journal of Radiology
79, no. 1 (2011); Fuchun Lin et al., “Abnormal White Matter Integrity in Adolescents with Internet Addiction Disorder: A Tract-Based Spatial Statistics Study,”
PLOS One
7, no. 1 (2012).