Neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath has linked six hours of daily classroom screen use to declining cognitive performance and lower international academic test scores.
In a report published by The Guardian, Horvath warned that the widespread introduction of laptops and digital tools in schools has caused intellectual stagnation among students, reinforcing research into the negative effects of screen exposure on children under 13.
Horvath, a former teacher and author of the book The Digital Illusion, examined the impact of educational technology since the turn of the century. He noted that while screen adoption was intended to prepare pupils for digital futures, screens in class frequently create distractions that penalize learning, particularly during early education stages.
Cognitive decline and PISA test scores
According to Horvath's analysis of Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data, IQ scores and international academic achievement test results across Western nations began to drop around the year 2000. This decline occurred even as total time spent in schooling remained stable or increased.
Horvath identified educational technology as the key difference between recent decades and previous eras. Digital learning accelerated rapidly following the COVID-19 health crisis, when remote instruction became the primary tool to avoid academic disruption, exposing younger children to screens at an earlier age.
The PISA data cited by Horvath shows that pupils who spend more than six hours per day looking at screens while at school achieve lower test scores than classmates who do not use digital devices in the classroom.
Expert debate over correlation and cause
Other education experts have challenged Horvath's conclusions and offered alternative interpretations of the international test data. Rose Luckin, professor emerita at the UCL Knowledge Lab in London, acknowledged that school technology was introduced without sufficient evidence of its suitability, but rejected the claim that all digital use harms students.
Luckin advocated for a more balanced approach to classroom technology. Citing the same international dataset, she pointed out that students who maintain moderate technology use in class achieve better academic results than those at the extremes of either zero screen time or six hours per day.
Dylan Wiliam, a specialist in educational assessment, also urged caution regarding the findings. Wiliam warned that existing data demonstrates only a statistical correlation, emphasizing that no direct cause-and-effect relationship has been proven between classroom screen exposure and cognitive decline.
The ongoing debate leaves educators with three contrasting perspectives. While Horvath maintains a pessimistic view of heavy screen reliance, Wiliam stresses the lack of proven causation, and Luckin argues that moderate screen integration remains the most effective path to build digital skills without harming retention or learning outcomes.
