Source #1
Meta-analysis · Strength: StrongReading on paper and screens
What comparisons reveal about comprehension—and why the text, reader, and task matter.
Learning technology as a subject.
We want children to become capable, thoughtful technology users. Schools should teach the skills children will need for study, work, creativity, and everyday life. Dedicated instruction gives technology a clear purpose: learning to type, manage files, evaluate information, create something, or understand how a computer works.
England’s computing curriculum is one example of treating this as a subject in its own right. #108
Learning technology and learning through technology
Learning to type, organize files, build a spreadsheet, or write code requires experience with those tools. Reading a story, practicing spelling, or learning about plants has a different goal. For those lessons, the question is whether a screen improves learning compared with the available alternative.
OSFP supports explicit technology instruction alongside a largely screen-free elementary education. Children can become capable computer users without moving everyday reading, writing, and other subjects onto devices.
What does the research tell us?
Reading
Digital presentation does not automatically improve understanding. Research comparing print and digital reading often favors print, although findings vary by age, text, and design. In children’s digital books, features that support the story can help; unrelated games and effects can interfere with comprehension. #1, #43
Writing
Handwriting instruction improves writing skills and deserves protected teaching time. Typing is also useful and should be taught deliberately. Evidence supporting handwriting instruction does not mean keyboards are never appropriate; it means learning to type should not displace learning to write by hand. #46, #106
Learning more broadly
Providing devices does not reliably improve achievement on its own. Some technology-supported programs help, but results depend on the teaching, task, and comparison activity. A benefit over one study’s comparison condition does not establish that a screen is better than responsive teaching, a shared book, or hands-on practice. #26, #27, #83
Our recommendation
Teach technology skills for their own value. For other subjects, choose digital tools when they offer a clear learning advantage or meet an individual access need.
A suggested progression
These are OSFP’s suggested teaching priorities. Adapt them to the child, and introduce accessible tools earlier whenever needed.
Preschool
Keep everyday learning centered on play, language, movement, and relationships. Try sorting, sequencing, and following directions through games. OSFP does not recommend routine screen lessons to prepare for later computer use.
K–2
Introduce what computers do, caring for equipment, basic controls, and asking for help. Use brief, supported keyboard practice when appropriate to the child and task. Continue explicit handwriting instruction.
Grades 3–5
Provide structured typing practice and teach saving, naming, organizing, and finding files; editing a document; supervised searching; and simple programming or creative projects.
Grades 6–8
Develop efficient typing, source checking, spreadsheets, presentations, coding, troubleshooting, and secure account habits through meaningful tasks.
Grades 9–12
Apply skills to independent research, collaboration, data analysis, creative work, and career interests. Include evaluating AI-generated material, checking its claims, protecting private information, and following rules for attribution and permitted use.
Judge progress by what students can do. Can they retrieve their work, correct errors, assess a source, and explain their choices? Build accuracy and independence rather than rewarding time spent on a device. Provide breaks and retain accommodations; typing speed alone should not determine participation.
At home, families can support a chosen project or practice a specific skill without adding open browsing, social media, or a daily entertainment allowance. At school, purposeful computer lessons can fit alongside a largely screen-free elementary day. Teachers can combine skills in a useful project when that serves the learning goals.
Explore the evidence
The studies behind our recommendation, each with its study type and evidence strength.
Read the summary
Source #43
Meta-analysis · Strength: StrongDigital books: helpful features and distractions
How story-related enhancements and unrelated interactive features affect children’s understanding.
Source #46
Meta-analysis · Strength: StrongHandwriting instruction and writing development
Evidence for explicitly teaching handwriting as children develop their writing skills.
Source #26
Systematic review · Strength: StrongTechnology and educational achievement
Why access to devices and improvements in learning are different questions.
Source #106
Quasi-experimental · Strength: ModerateTeaching keyboarding deliberately
Research on structured instruction in a useful technology skill.
Take action
Bring this to your school
Sources
Original studies, evidence reports, and official guidance are linked below. The research library provides fuller summaries and methodological limitations.
- #1.Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23-38. (opens in a new tab) Library summary →
- #26.Escueta, M., Nickow, A. J., Oreopoulos, P., & Quan, V. (2020). Upgrading education with technology: Insights from experimental research. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(4), 897-996. (opens in a new tab) Library summary →
- #27.Zheng, B., Warschauer, M., Lin, C.-H., & Chang, C. (2016). Learning in one-to-one laptop environments: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1052-1084. (opens in a new tab) Library summary →
- #43.Furenes, M. I., Kucirkova, N., & Bus, A. G. (2021). A comparison of children's reading on paper versus screen: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 91(4), 483-517. (opens in a new tab) Library summary →
- #46.Santangelo, T., & Graham, S. (2016). A comprehensive meta-analysis of handwriting instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 225-265. (opens in a new tab) Library summary →
- #83.Kim, J., Gilbert, J., Yu, Q., & Gale, C. (2021). Measures matter: A meta-analysis of the effects of educational apps on preschool to grade 3 children's literacy and math skills. AERA Open, 7. doi.org/10.1177/23328584211004183 (opens in a new tab) Library summary →
- #106.Donica, D. K., Giroux, P., Kim, Y., & Branson, S. (2021). A comparison of two keyboarding instruction methods over 2 years for elementary students. The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 9(3), 1–13. doi:10.15453/2168-6408.1819 (opens in a new tab) Library summary →
- #108.Department for Education. (2013). National curriculum in England: Computing programmes of study. Statutory guidance. (opens in a new tab) Library summary →