technology in education good or bad

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

current events conversation

What Students Are Saying About Tech in the Classroom

Does technology help students be more organized, efficient and prepared for the future? Or is it just a distraction?

By The Learning Network

Is there a problem with screens in schools?

We invited students to weigh in on that question in our Picture Prompt Tech in the Classroom , which was based on an Opinion essay arguing that we should “get tech out of the classroom before it’s too late.”

Is there too much tech in your school day? — we asked students. Would you prefer more screen-free time while you are learning, or even during lunch or free periods?

Below, they share the good, the bad and the ugly about technology use in school.

Thank you to everyone who participated in the conversation on our writing prompts this week!

Please note: Student comments have been lightly edited for length.

Some students saw the value of technology in schools, including its ability to prepare students for the future.

I believe that technology in the classroom is a good thing when it is properly moderated. I think completely taking away screens from a student will not help them develop computer skills which they will most likely need in a world like ours, where most of everything is online. Sometimes phones cannot get the job done, and computers will be needed. If schools completely remove devices from the curriculum, then students will be completely clueless when they take classes involving a computer. Too much screen time can be bad for the student, but if it is well moderated, then screen time won’t be an issue.

— Saheed, GMS

I personally do not mind the amount of technology in the classroom. I personally find typing to be a lot easier instead of writing. On top of that, this amount of technology is used in adults’ day to day lives, too. Writing has become less and less relevant for everyone, because most jobs require a computer nowadays. So I think it’s actually better to have the amount of technology we do in the classroom.

— Timothy, Greenbelt Middle

They said, even though there might be down sides, the good outweighs the bad.

Screens in the classroom allows students to complete work in a more organized manner and use online resources to help them learn. It helps teachers to be able to make sure students turn work in before a certain time. However, having screens in the classroom raises students overall screen time which is bad for their eye health and sleep.

— Emily, Greenbelt Middle

I believe that computers should definitely be used at school because it has more pros than cons. They help with everything. The only problem with them is the people using them. The people using them are often misusing them and not charging them.

— Deegan, California

And they argued that tech is so entrenched in the student experience that taking it away would cause a lot of disruption.

There are no problems with screens in school. I believe without screens, school would be much less productive, produce so much waste of paper, and assignments would be lost a lot. Also when I have paper homework, which is almost never, almost every time I get it I forget because everything is on the iPad. This is important because if there is any change in the iPads we use, it’ll affect everyone drastically. Also it would just be really annoying to get used to a whole new thing.

— August, GBW

But another contingent of students said, “There is definitely a problem with screens in school.” They called them a distraction.

There is definitely a problem with screens in school. While regular technology use in school is highly efficient and much more convenient than using textbooks and paper, I still feel like using technology as the main method for learning is detrimental. There are plenty of students in my classes who are hiding behind their iPads to play games or go on their phones rather than utilizing their technology to enhance their learning experience. So in turn, I think we need to minimize (but not completely take away) the prominence of tech in our classrooms. This matters because it’s so important for students to learn how to completely pay attention and focus in on one task so that they are prepared for the moments in life where they don’t get the opportunity to look at their phone if they’re bored or to text their friends. Trust me, this may seem like I’m one hundred percent anti-phones but the truth is I love my phone and am somewhat addicted to it, so I realize that it’s a major distraction for myself in the classroom. Moreover, staring at an iPad screen for 7 hours a day puts significant strain on our eyes, so for the sake of our health and our attention spans, we need to minimize tech use in school.

— Mary, Glenbard West High School

Tech inside classrooms has had many positive effects and many negative effects. Without technology, it would take forever to find sources/information and it would also take ages to do complex things. With technology, people can easily find information and they can easily do many things but the big downside is that they can easily just search up games and get distracted. On one side, it has provided many different changes to students so they can learn in a fun and entertaining way but in another, people are mostly on their phones scrolling through YouTube or Instagram. Many people don’t have control over their body and have a big urge to go on their cellphones.

— Srikanth, Greenbelt Middle School

In my opinion, yes there is a problem with screens in schools. It distracts kids from focusing on their work. Many students are always on their phone during class, and it is disrespectful as well as sad for them. They will not be able to learn the material that is being taught. Personally, I think that screens should be reduced in class, but I do not think that is possible. Whenever a teacher takes away someone’s phone, they get very mad and say that it is their right to have their phone. In these cases it is very confusing on how to act for the teacher!

— Kadambari, gms

Some reported that their peers use technology to cheat.

It might be a problem depending on what people are doing. If it is used for school, like typing an essay, working on homework, or checking your grades it’s okay, but I know people who abuse this privilege. They go onto YouTube and watch things, listen to music when they aren’t supposed to, and play games. Many people cheat to the point where it takes forever to start a test because people don’t close out their tabs. It helps to be able to do these ‘Quick Writes’ as we call them in my ELA class because I can write faster (I know it’s called typing). It’s harder to access things because of the restriction because people mess around so they block so many useful websites and words from our computer. I like to type on the computer, but I feel people abuse this privilege too much.

— Nina, California

When the teachers assign tests on computers, sometimes teachers have to lock students’ screens to make sure they’re not cheating. Sometimes they do it on paper and they try to cheat while hiding their phones in their laps. And then if another student sees them doing that, they will tell and the student who would have the phone out could start a big argument.

— Taylor, Huntington Beach

Several lamented the sheer number of hours teenagers spend in front of screens.

I feel that we have become too comfortable with using screens for nearly every lesson in school, because it has gotten to the point where we are spending upwards of 4 hours on our laptops in school alone. I understand that it would be hard to switch back to using journals and worksheets, but it would be very beneficial for kids if we did.

— Chase, school

I think we should reduce the tech a little just because most students are going straight to screens when they get home, after a full day of screens … Although I know this would be very difficult to do because everything in the world now seems to go online.

— Jaydin, California

And they even worried about their handwriting in a world full of typing.

I think technology in a class is very helpful, but I think that we should incorporate more writing. Since the pandemic, most of the work has been online and it never gave students the opportunity to write as much. When we came back from lockdown, I almost forgot how to write with a pencil. My handwriting was very different. And now we don’t get much time to write with our hands so I think we should have fewer screens.

— Eric, Greenbelt

Some students said that less time spent on screens in school would give them a break from the always-on digital culture they live in.

Although typing is useful and using the internet is very useful, I think we should go back to how it was about 20-40 years ago when all people used the computer for was to type an essay. Drama didn’t get spread in a millisecond, we didn’t have to worry as much about stereotypes. Now all kids want to do is text each other and watch videos. I’m well aware that I have fallen into this trap and I want out, but our lives revolve around technology. You can’t get away from it. I know this is about schools not using technology, which the world without it would be impossible now, but life would be so much simpler again.

— Ivy, Huntington Beach, CA

I will say that my phone is usually always with me during school hours, but I don’t use it all the time. I may check the time or play a short game as a brain break. But I do see some people absolutely glued to their phones during class time, and it’s honestly embarrassing. You really can’t go without your phone for an hour?? It’s almost like an addiction at this point. I understand using your phone to quickly distract yourself; I do it too. And I also think it’s okay to have your phone/electronic during lunch time or free periods. But using it to the point that you can’t properly pay attention in class is just embarrassing. So, in summary, I do think that schools are having a problem with screens.

— Allison, Greenbelt Middle School

And they named classes in which they think screens do and do not have a place.

I feel like for classes for younger kids, technology is definitely not good. Kids should be playing, using their hands, and actually experiencing things instead of being on tablets in kindergarten. I think using computers in school is good though. It’s a lot more efficient, and we live in a society where fast and efficient things are the trend.

— sarah, maryland

I think screens have their place, and will always have their place, in schools and education. The capabilities of computers will always surpass anything else, and they should not be banned from school environments. Still, I have one exception: English class. Other than final drafts of essays, everything in English should be on paper. You can formulate ideas better and minimize outside influence on your thinking.

— Addie, The Potomac School

Learn more about Current Events Conversation here and find all of our posts in this column .

•   Sunday, May 12, 2024

Future Educators

Helping America's Future Teachers

Pros and Cons of Technology in the Classroom

Student learning is an area with enormous potential to benefit from information technology. Information dissemination is, after all, a core strength of today’s technologies. And digital technology offers versatile platforms to streamline classroom teaching.

While technology unlocks innovation opportunities, blended teaching and learning are not without disadvantages. What are the downsides that come with the powers and benefits of technology?

Debate is still going on concerning potential harm from integrating technology into the classroom. Let’s look at both sides by discussing the advantages and disadvantages of students accessing computers and digital information.

Advantages of Technology in Education

By offering digital tools and learning platforms, technology offers great advantages in school education. Students have more information at their fingertips and build technology skills. Tech can do some tasks equally or better than teachers, including administration, data gathering and supporting self-direct learning. Here are the top five pros to technology in the classroom.

1. Access high-quality, current information

Modern technology is fantastic when it comes to making information available to everyone. In a classroom setting, getting the most up-to-date data helps ensure the best educational experience. Teachers are also able to use or direct students towards trusted sources to ensure accurate information.

Students are also able to assimilate information more efficiently with the interactive presentation that digital technology allows. Instead of reading through text sequentially, the teacher or student can navigate information on a topic using hyperlinks, tabs, accordions, etc. References can be checked immediately as well.

Classroom technology definitely beats paper textbooks for accessing relevant information quickly. The trick is to place structure around activities to maintain focus and ensure the class is covering the same material. The need to keep everyone on the same page so to speak is a limiting factor in the use of technology for gaining information.

2. Gather student performance metrics easily

A clear and powerful advantage of using technology in education is that it allows teachers to perform their job better. The automatic collection of data in digital testing and learning environments has the benefits of: allowing more student performance data to be collected, freeing teachers from repetitive grading exercises, and providing instant feedback to students.

Platforms that yield data analytics can pinpoint the areas where each student is having most difficulty. Performance information allows instructors to quickly adjust teaching strategies and the syllabus according to the data gathered and analyzed.

When a given learning goal can be achieved with technology or traditional methods with about equal effectiveness, the technology-based approach may be preferred just because of the data advantages. Once in this digital environment, the technology and instructional content may be improved over time, leaving traditional instruction techniques further and further behind.

3. Students learn technology skills

Using technology in the classroom naturally increases opportunities for students to learn technology skills. While it’s possible to take all but the simplest IT skills out of a lesson, keeping some technical challenges in there is healthy for student development. After all, we live in a digital world and have things like virtual offices and working online from home .

Children are fast learners when it comes to most things but especially with technology. Given the chance, they’ll quickly build computer operation skills and digital literacy. Examples of skills they’ll learn include keyboard awareness, logging in and password protection, navigating apps, setting preferences, online document sharing, and using standard software such as text editors and spreadsheet workbooks.

Teachers can offer exercises that give pupils the opportunity to test and expand their capabilities. For example, you can give students freedom in how they present project results. The smart ones, who could perhaps become IT professionals in the future, will find and deploy internet resources, such as graphics or charting software, to enhance the presentation.

4. Improved student participation and engagement

Students generally love technology and introducing it is a way to boost engagement. Mixing up traditional instruction styles with technology makes the class less predictable and the learning environment more dynamic.

Examples of how teachers can inject technology are to: direct students to online resources, present short videos, use interactive software, make digital presentations, and ask students to create digital content themselves.

Online platforms are often flexible in allowing you to exercise your creativity. You can, for instance, customize quizzes to make them more engaging and competitive. Any good resources you find online might be useful additions to the lesson. The possibilities are limitless.

You can also apply technology to get more information from reserved students. If you need to ask the opinion of everyone regarding a topic or even a simple question, why not use an online polling platform? This way, even quiet students who normally wouldn’t want to speak in the classroom will participate.

5. Automate repetitive tasks

Teaching can include tedious tasks such as keeping track of attendance, recording quiz scores and noting tasks completed. With the present technology available, such tasks can now be partially or fully automated. This can unlock time teachers are able to divert to substantive teaching endeavors.

Existing technology can be used to help teachers in several areas: planning lessons, assessing students, grading homework, giving feedback and administrative paperwork. Jill Barshay

Implementing technology is not a costless exercise however and the effectiveness depends on how well software is programmed and made easy to use. But, over time, we can expect the work of teachers to become more streamlined. Instructors will have fewer administrative tasks and more time to capitalize on human strengths, such as making connections, inspiring students and creating a sense of shared purpose.

Disadvantages to Technology in the Classroom

The recency of many innovations means we’re still grappling with how best to incorporate technology in schools. Educators may lack the time and knowledge to implement tech effectively. Using technology without sufficient care can produce poorer learning outcomes and cause students to miss out on social interaction. These are key cons of technology in the classroom and online education.

1. Faster but less memorable learning

While the lightning pace with which technology operates may seem like a clear benefit, experienced educators are actually wary of this aspect. Devices and learning apps are able to function faster than the corresponding learning speed of the human mind. Students may gloss over material, missing texture and depth along the way.

Proper and coherent cognitive thought takes time. Otherwise, engagement can be drastically reduced. It’s for this reason experts are suggesting we modify media use, such as how videos are presented , to slow down and allow for more rumination and contemplation.

The simple act of writing something by hand has slowing, stimulatory effects that brain research has shown to aid both learning and memorization. Although efficient, typing is repetitive as each keystroke is almost the same action. Writing by hand is more challenging, intricate and slower, allowing your brain to form more “hooks” to imprint thoughts.

2. Technology can be distracting

Devices such as laptops and tablets in the classroom are bound to become sources of distraction to students. This is especially true if the software doesn’t prevent access to apps unrelated to lessons, quizzes and other educational activities.

A need exists for appropriate restrictive measures on gadgets in education to ensure they further learning goals and aren’t used, for example, to play games or use social media for pure entertainment. You can be sure that some badly behaved students will always try to use technology for fun instead of the intended purpose.

A problem here is that high school students may be more tech savvy than their teachers. One technique students use to access out-of-bounds sites is to go to a proxy site that delivers content from other sites without the student technically visiting those sites. Another method to bypass a school firewall is to use a virtual private network (VPN ) to encrypt browsing data so the student’s internet activities can’t be monitored.

3. Less direct social interaction

The apparent way in which technology excises social interaction is another cause for concern. Students have less need to verbally communicate and interact with their teachers and one another when using technology. Online teaching and learning excludes face-to-face interaction altogether.

To address this, classroom teachers should ensure activities such as oral presentations, recitations and group work happen regularly. There needs to be a mindfulness that we’re trying to prepare well-rounded people for adulthood.

For students addicted to gaming or social media, school might actually be a place where they get some downtime from tech. It’s up to teachers to identify when students are spending too much time with their heads buried in devices. When technology isn’t being used, students should be encouraged or pressed to show some life and interact.

4. Integrating tech is often time consuming

While technology could make the job of a teacher very easy in the future, we are not there yet . Devising effective lessons using digital technology rather than traditional methods can be challenging and time consuming. That’s why it’s important for educators to share their insights on how to effectively teach kids when there is technology in the classroom.

Showing up to your class and teaching by talking and interacting with students doesn’t require special preparation. But when you make extensive use of technology during the lesson, you’re normally going to have to prepare for that. Teachers taking advantage of technology have the same amount of face-to-face instruction time but may need to do more planning, placing an extra strain on their workload.

Online learning when classes are held remotely have shown the limitations of tech. Just trying to corral students, to ensure they’re all logged in and paying attention, is a challenge in itself. The quality of lessons suffers as educators grapple with tech while trying to meet the practical learning needs of students.

6 Tips on How To Engage With Students

30 thoughts on “ pros and cons of technology in the classroom ”.

This was helpfull

My child has been influenced due to the bad technology. He was a nice 9 year old kid before he found out about the thug shaker from technology. He keeps saying “Im bout to blow.” Technology has effected our society. And the thug shaker is a prime example.

OKAY BOOMER!

This comment section be crazy yall.

i think ur over exaggerating

gangsta rap

The amount of privilege in this paragraph is nothing short of nauseating. “Teachers can offer exercises that give pupils the opportunity to test and expand their capabilities. For example, you can give students freedom in how they present project results. The smart ones, who could perhaps become IT professionals in the future, will find and deploy internet resources, such as graphics or charting software, to enhance the presentation.” Oh wow, just wow… “The smart ones”, you mean the ones that sit still, eyes on you, have stable households, technology access at home, maybe even only from this country… Do better future educators, do better….

Everyone in a classroom should be expected to pay attention, no matter their background. You don’t have to be privileged to do it. And every child should be given the opportunity to reach their potential – no ceilings.

chat gpt cookin

Some of us knew how to write before Chat GPT came along.

im a 12 year old sacred heart student and im reading your comments for a debate thank you so much 12\10\2023

Technology is very bad. Technology reminds me of the turbunence, strapping down your seatbelts, thug shaker, and people getting addicted to their phones, whenever i go in public people start doing turbulence, and always yelling out stuff and it influenced our society very big.

Stop being rude.

Travis Scott in da building

Technology can be a distraction for students, making it difficult for them to focus on learning. For example, students may be more interested in checking social media on their devices than paying attention to the lesson. Also when students rely too heavily on technology, they may become less capable of solving problems or completing tasks without it. This can hinder their ability to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

no you are wrong

i think that it is not that it is not that bad to have a phone

Maybe so. However, the use of technology and electronic devices can have negative effects on concentration and the ability to write well-structured sentences. Everyone, including educators, need to find a balance and limit the use of technology to enhance academic performance.

pluh using ai

Technology needs to be included to a certain degree but if we use it in every aspect of learning, you will see more and more children suffering with ADHD, ADD, and other learning issues. I see it now with children as young as 8 years old walking around with smartphones!

The good news is there is no evidence in this study or anything else I’ve read that cell phone use would create ADHD

There are pros and cons to everything, that’s why everything should be used in a controlled way. This is true nothing can replace the conventional method of teaching, but we can make it more interesting and better for students with a little use of tech. Like the use of animation, quiz polls, etc. So everything is cool until it is used in a particular way.

I would like to point out that you’re contradicting yourself on the Pro#4 with the interaction of a student via tech, and with the Con #3, that a student needs to interact with oral participation. The Pro #4 would discourage oral participation, which I believe is huge asset for all students. A student should be encouraged and helped with speaking out on different discussions. Teaches would call on me, even though they knew I didn’t like it, but it helped me get over my shyness. I hated speech in high school, but I did it and thank God for it. It has helped me tremendously.

That’s a good point Billiam. We shouldn’t lose the art of conversation and talking in person. Using technology to engage students is a balancing act.

I think it’s imperative that kids learn technology. Just don’t abandon everything. For example, we don’t use quills and inkpots (or fountain pens for that matter), but we should still teach kids to write with pens and pencils. That includes cursive, which is proven to help kids’ learning. There are grey areas though. One of them is calculators. We don’t teach kids how to use slide rules, but should we abandon calculators for certain situations? Then there are things that have completely been abandoned, but for no good reason. Why can’t kids tell time with non-digital clocks?

I can agree on most of your points. My question would be, when do we introduce students to technology? Call me old fashioned, but I believe that the task of learning simple math (1-3 digit computations), parts of speech, and sentence structure should be taught without the use of any type of technology. As students progress, I think technology is a great thing to interject into education. I do believe, however, this should be minimalized until about fifth grade. Students taking assessment test need to know how to write instead of just clicking on an answer. Calculators were never allowed in school until junior high when I attended. There are many students, in the school where I work, that will not write because they do not know how to form the letters on paper. Many times the students who do know how to write, have horrible handwriting because they do not write every day. Yes, technology is wonderful, but at what age should it be introduced in order for students to be able to succeed before technology is used?

This is how I see technology in the classroom: you have to use a hybrid model because there is no escaping how ingrained technology is in our lives and even more in the students’ lives. I would argue that in some cases the students are ahead of their teachers when it comes to being tech-savvy and understanding where things are headed. However, there are traditional skills that are overlooked far too much including reading from books, writing (printing and cursive), and doing research without a computer. Add these items to your article and I can’t think of any better description of the pros and cons of using technology in classrooms.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

5 letter word with most vowels (wordle words), how to use videos in the classroom, 21 ways of teaching soft skills to students.

New global data reveal education technology’s impact on learning

The promise of technology in the classroom is great: enabling personalized, mastery-based learning; saving teacher time; and equipping students with the digital skills they will need  for 21st-century careers. Indeed, controlled pilot studies have shown meaningful improvements in student outcomes through personalized blended learning. 1 John F. Pane et al., “How does personalized learning affect student achievement?,” RAND Corporation, 2017, rand.org. During this time of school shutdowns and remote learning , education technology has become a lifeline for the continuation of learning.

As school systems begin to prepare for a return to the classroom , many are asking whether education technology should play a greater role in student learning beyond the immediate crisis and what that might look like. To help inform the answer to that question, this article analyzes one important data set: the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), published in December 2019 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Every three years, the OECD uses PISA to test 15-year-olds around the world on math, reading, and science. What makes these tests so powerful is that they go beyond the numbers, asking students, principals, teachers, and parents a series of questions about their attitudes, behaviors, and resources. An optional student survey on information and communications technology (ICT) asks specifically about technology use—in the classroom, for homework, and more broadly.

In 2018, more than 340,000 students in 51 countries took the ICT survey, providing a rich data set for analyzing key questions about technology use in schools. How much is technology being used in schools? Which technologies are having a positive impact on student outcomes? What is the optimal amount of time to spend using devices in the classroom and for homework? How does this vary across different countries and regions?

From other studies we know that how education technology is used, and how it is embedded in the learning experience, is critical to its effectiveness. This data is focused on extent and intensity of use, not the pedagogical context of each classroom. It cannot therefore answer questions on the eventual potential of education technology—but it can powerfully tell us the extent to which that potential is being realized today in classrooms around the world.

Five key findings from the latest results help answer these questions and suggest potential links between technology and student outcomes:

• The type of device matters—some are associated with worse student outcomes.
• Geography matters—technology is associated with higher student outcomes in the United States than in other regions.
• Who is using the technology matters—technology in the hands of teachers is associated with higher scores than technology in the hands of students.
• Intensity matters—students who use technology intensely or not at all perform better than those with moderate use.
• A school system’s current performance level matters—in lower-performing school systems, technology is associated with worse results.

This analysis covers only one source of data, and it should be interpreted with care alongside other relevant studies. Nonetheless, the 2018 PISA results suggest that systems aiming to improve student outcomes should take a more nuanced and cautious approach to deploying technology once students return to the classroom. It is not enough add devices to the classroom, check the box, and hope for the best.

What can we learn from the latest PISA results?

How will the use, and effectiveness, of technology change post-covid-19.

The PISA assessment was carried out in 2018 and published in December 2019. Since its publication, schools and students globally have been quite suddenly thrust into far greater reliance on technology. Use of online-learning websites and adaptive software has expanded dramatically. Khan Academy has experienced a 250 percent surge in traffic; smaller sites have seen traffic grow fivefold or more. Hundreds of thousands of teachers have been thrown into the deep end, learning to use new platforms, software, and systems. No one is arguing that the rapid cobbling together of remote learning under extreme time pressure represents best-practice use of education technology. Nonetheless, a vast experiment is underway, and innovations often emerge in times of crisis. At this point, it is unclear whether this represents the beginning of a new wave of more widespread and more effective technology use in the classroom or a temporary blip that will fade once students and teachers return to in-person instruction. It is possible that a combination of software improvements, teacher capability building, and student familiarity will fundamentally change the effectiveness of education technology in improving student outcomes. It is also possible that our findings will continue to hold true and technology in the classroom will continue to be a mixed blessing. It is therefore critical that ongoing research efforts track what is working and for whom and, just as important, what is not. These answers will inform the project of reimagining a better education for all students in the aftermath of COVID-19.

PISA data have their limitations. First, these data relate to high-school students, and findings may not be applicable in elementary schools or postsecondary institutions. Second, these are single-point observational data, not longitudinal experimental data, which means that any links between technology and results should be interpreted as correlation rather than causation. Third, the outcomes measured are math, science, and reading test results, so our analysis cannot assess important soft skills and nonacademic outcomes.

It is also worth noting that technology for learning has implications beyond direct student outcomes, both positive and negative. PISA cannot address these broader issues, and neither does this paper.

But PISA results, which we’ve broken down into five key findings, can still provide powerful insights. The assessment strives to measure the understanding and application of ideas, rather than the retention of facts derived from rote memorization, and the broad geographic coverage and sample size help elucidate the reality of what is happening on the ground.

Finding 1: The type of device matters

The evidence suggests that some devices have more impact than others on outcomes (Exhibit 1). Controlling for student socioeconomic status, school type, and location, 2 Specifically, we control for a composite indicator for economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS) derived from questions about general wealth, home possessions, parental education, and parental occupation; for school type “Is your school a public or a private school” (SC013); and for school location (SC001) where the options are a village, hamlet or rural area (fewer than 3,000 people), a small town (3,000 to about 15,000 people), a town (15,000 to about 100,000 people), a city (100,000 to about 1,000,000 people), and a large city (with more than 1,000,000 people). the use of data projectors 3 A projector is any device that projects computer output, slides, or other information onto a screen in the classroom. and internet-connected computers in the classroom is correlated with nearly a grade-level-better performance on the PISA assessment (assuming approximately 40 PISA points to every grade level). 4 Students were specifically asked (IC009), “Are any of these devices available for you to use at school?,” with the choices being “Yes, and I use it,” “Yes, but I don’t use it,” and “No.” We compared the results for students who have access to and use each device with those who do not have access. The full text for each device in our chart was as follows: Data projector, eg, for slide presentations; Internet-connected school computers; Desktop computer; Interactive whiteboard, eg, SmartBoard; Portable laptop or notebook; and Tablet computer, eg, iPad, BlackBerry PlayBook.

On the other hand, students who use laptops and tablets in the classroom have worse results than those who do not. For laptops, the impact of technology varies by subject; students who use laptops score five points lower on the PISA math assessment, but the impact on science and reading scores is not statistically significant. For tablets, the picture is clearer—in every subject, students who use tablets in the classroom perform a half-grade level worse than those who do not.

Some technologies are more neutral. At the global level, there is no statistically significant difference between students who use desktop computers and interactive whiteboards in the classroom and those who do not.

Finding 2: Geography matters

Looking more closely at the reading results, which were the focus of the 2018 assessment, 5 PISA rotates between focusing on reading, science, and math. The 2018 assessment focused on reading. This means that the total testing time was two hours for each student, of which one hour was reading focused. we can see that the relationship between technology and outcomes varies widely by country and region (Exhibit 2). For example, in all regions except the United States (representing North America), 6 The United States is the only country that took the ICT Familiarity Questionnaire survey in North America; thus, we are comparing it as a country with the other regions. students who use laptops in the classroom score between five and 12 PISA points lower than students who do not use laptops. In the United States, students who use laptops score 17 PISA points higher than those who do not. It seems that US students and teachers are doing something different with their laptops than those in other regions. Perhaps this difference is related to learning curves that develop as teachers and students learn how to get the most out of devices. A proxy to assess this learning curve could be penetration—71 percent of US students claim to be using laptops in the classroom, compared with an average of 37 percent globally. 7 The rate of use excludes nulls. The United States measures higher than any other region in laptop use by students in the classroom. US = 71 percent, Asia = 40 percent, EU = 35 percent, Latin America = 31 percent, MENA = 21 percent, Non-EU Europe = 41 percent. We observe a similar pattern with interactive whiteboards in non-EU Europe. In every other region, interactive whiteboards seem to be hurting results, but in non-EU Europe they are associated with a lift of 21 PISA points, a total that represents a half-year of learning. In this case, however, penetration is not significantly higher than in other developed regions.

Finding 3: It matters whether technology is in the hands of teachers or students

The survey asks students whether the teacher, student, or both were using technology. Globally, the best results in reading occur when only the teacher is using the device, with some benefit in science when both teacher and students use digital devices (Exhibit 3). Exclusive use of the device by students is associated with significantly lower outcomes everywhere. The pattern is similar for science and math.

Again, the regional differences are instructive. Looking again at reading, we note that US students are getting significant lift (three-quarters of a year of learning) from either just teachers or teachers and students using devices, while students alone using a device score significantly lower (half a year of learning) than students who do not use devices at all. Exclusive use of devices by the teacher is associated with better outcomes in Europe too, though the size of the effect is smaller.

Finding 4: Intensity of use matters

PISA also asked students about intensity of use—how much time they spend on devices, 8 PISA rotates between focusing on reading, science, and math. The 2018 assessment focused on reading. This means that the total testing time was two hours for each student, of which one hour was reading focused. both in the classroom and for homework. The results are stark: students who either shun technology altogether or use it intensely are doing better, with those in the middle flailing (Exhibit 4).

The regional data show a dramatic picture. In the classroom, the optimal amount of time to spend on devices is either “none at all” or “greater than 60 minutes” per subject per week in every region and every subject (this is the amount of time associated with the highest student outcomes, controlling for student socioeconomic status, school type, and location). In no region is a moderate amount of time (1–30 minutes or 31–60 minutes) associated with higher student outcomes. There are important differences across subjects and regions. In math, the optimal amount of time is “none at all” in every region. 9 The United States is the only country that took the ICT Familiarity Questionnaire survey in North America; thus, we are comparing it as a country with the other regions. In reading and science, however, the optimal amount of time is greater than 60 minutes for some regions: Asia and the United States for reading, and the United States and non-EU Europe for science.

The pattern for using devices for homework is slightly less clear cut. Students in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), and non-EU Europe score highest when they spend “no time at all” on devices for their homework, while students spending a moderate amount of time (1–60 minutes) score best in Latin America and the European Union. Finally, students in the United States who spend greater than 60 minutes are getting the best outcomes.

One interpretation of these data is that students need to get a certain familiarity with technology before they can really start using it to learn. Think of typing an essay, for example. When students who mostly write by hand set out to type an essay, their attention will be focused on the typing rather than the essay content. A competent touch typist, however, will get significant productivity gains by typing rather than handwriting.

Would you like to learn more about our Social Sector Practice ?

Finding 5: the school systems’ overall performance level matters.

Diving deeper into the reading outcomes, which were the focus of the 2018 assessment, we can see the magnitude of the impact of device use in the classroom. In Asia, Latin America, and Europe, students who spend any time on devices in their literacy and language arts classrooms perform about a half-grade level below those who spend none at all. In MENA, they perform more than a full grade level lower. In the United States, by contrast, more than an hour of device use in the classroom is associated with a lift of 17 PISA points, almost a half-year of learning improvement (Exhibit 5).

At the country level, we see that those who are on what we would call the “poor-to-fair” stage of the school-system journey 10 Michael Barber, Chinezi Chijoke, and Mona Mourshed, “ How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better ,” November 2010. have the worst relationships between technology use and outcomes. For every poor-to-fair system taking the survey, the amount of time on devices in the classroom associated with the highest student scores is zero minutes. Good and great systems are much more mixed. Students in some very highly performing systems (for example, Estonia and Chinese Taipei) perform highest with no device use, but students in other systems (for example, Japan, the United States, and Australia) are getting the best scores with over an hour of use per week in their literacy and language arts classrooms (Exhibit 6). These data suggest that multiple approaches are effective for good-to-great systems, but poor-to-fair systems—which are not well equipped to use devices in the classroom—may need to rethink whether technology is the best use of their resources.

What are the implications for students, teachers, and systems?

Looking across all these results, we can say that the relationship between technology and outcomes in classrooms today is mixed, with variation by device, how that device is used, and geography. Our data do not permit us to draw strong causal conclusions, but this section offers a few hypotheses, informed by existing literature and our own work with school systems, that could explain these results.

First, technology must be used correctly to be effective. Our experience in the field has taught us that it is not enough to “add technology” as if it were the missing, magic ingredient. The use of tech must start with learning goals, and software selection must be based on and integrated with the curriculum. Teachers need support to adapt lesson plans to optimize the use of technology, and teachers should be using the technology themselves or in partnership with students, rather than leaving students alone with devices. These lessons hold true regardless of geography. Another ICT survey question asked principals about schools’ capacity using digital devices. Globally, students performed better in schools where there were sufficient numbers of devices connected to fast internet service; where they had adequate software and online support platforms; and where teachers had the skills, professional development, and time to integrate digital devices in instruction. This was true even accounting for student socioeconomic status, school type, and location.

COVID-19 and student learning in the United States: The hurt could last a lifetime

Second, technology must be matched to the instructional environment and context. One of the most striking findings in the latest PISA assessment is the extent to which technology has had a different impact on student outcomes in different geographies. This corroborates the findings of our 2010 report, How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better . Those findings demonstrated that different sets of interventions were needed at different stages of the school-system reform journey, from poor-to-fair to good-to-great to excellent. In poor-to-fair systems, limited resources and teacher capabilities as well as poor infrastructure and internet bandwidth are likely to limit the benefits of student-based technology. Our previous work suggests that more prescriptive, teacher-based approaches and technologies (notably data projectors) are more likely to be effective in this context. For example, social enterprise Bridge International Academies equips teachers across several African countries with scripted lesson plans using e-readers. In general, these systems would likely be better off investing in teacher coaching than in a laptop per child. For administrators in good-to-great systems, the decision is harder, as technology has quite different impacts across different high-performing systems.

Third, technology involves a learning curve at both the system and student levels. It is no accident that the systems in which the use of education technology is more mature are getting more positive impact from tech in the classroom. The United States stands out as the country with the most mature set of education-technology products, and its scale enables companies to create software that is integrated with curricula. 11 Common Core State Standards sought to establish consistent educational standards across the United States. While these have not been adopted in all states, they cover enough states to provide continuity and consistency for software and curriculum developers. A similar effect also appears to operate at the student level; those who dabble in tech may be spending their time learning the tech rather than using the tech to learn. This learning curve needs to be built into technology-reform programs.

Taken together, these results suggest that systems that take a comprehensive, data-informed approach may achieve learning gains from thoughtful use of technology in the classroom. The best results come when significant effort is put into ensuring that devices and infrastructure are fit for purpose (fast enough internet service, for example), that software is effective and integrated with curricula, that teachers are trained and given time to rethink lesson plans integrating technology, that students have enough interaction with tech to use it effectively, and that technology strategy is cognizant of the system’s position on the school-system reform journey. Online learning and education technology are currently providing an invaluable service by enabling continued learning over the course of the pandemic; this does not mean that they should be accepted uncritically as students return to the classroom.

Jake Bryant is an associate partner in McKinsey’s Washington, DC, office; Felipe Child is a partner in the Bogotá office; Emma Dorn is the global Education Practice manager in the Silicon Valley office; and Stephen Hall is an associate partner in the Dubai office.

The authors wish to thank Fernanda Alcala, Sujatha Duraikkannan, and Samuel Huang for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

Safely back to school after coronavirus closures

How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

What 126 studies say about education technology

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

In recent years, there has been widespread excitement around the transformative potential of technology in education. In the United States alone, spending on education technology has now exceeded $13 billion . Programs and policies to promote the use of education technology may expand access to quality education, support students’ learning in innovative ways, and help families navigate complex school systems.

However, the rapid development of education technology in the United States is occurring in a context of deep and persistent inequality . Depending on how programs are designed, how they are used, and who can access them, education technologies could alleviate or aggravate existing disparities. To harness education technology’s full potential, education decision-makers, product developers, and funders need to understand the ways in which technology can help — or in some cases hurt — student learning.

To address this need, J-PAL North America recently released a new publication summarizing 126 rigorous evaluations of different uses of education technology. Drawing primarily from research in developed countries, the publication looks at randomized evaluations and regression discontinuity designs across four broad categories: (1) access to technology, (2) computer-assisted learning or educational software, (3) technology-enabled nudges in education, and (4) online learning.

This growing body of evidence suggests some areas of promise and points to four key lessons on education technology.

First, supplying computers and internet alone generally do not improve students’ academic outcomes from kindergarten to 12th grade, but do increase computer usage and improve computer proficiency. Disparities in access to information and communication technologies can exacerbate existing educational inequalities. Students without access at school or at home may struggle to complete web-based assignments and may have a hard time developing digital literacy skills.

Broadly, programs to expand access to technology have been effective at increasing use of computers and improving computer skills. However, computer distribution and internet subsidy programs generally did not improve grades and test scores and in some cases led to adverse impacts on academic achievement. The limited rigorous evidence suggests that distributing computers may have a more direct impact on learning outcomes at the postsecondary level.

Second, educational software (often called “computer-assisted learning”) programs designed to help students develop particular skills have shown enormous promise in improving learning outcomes, particularly in math. Targeting instruction to meet students’ learning levels has been found to be effective in improving student learning, but large class sizes with a wide range of learning levels can make it hard for teachers to personalize instruction. Software has the potential to overcome traditional classroom constraints by customizing activities for each student. Educational software programs range from light-touch homework support tools to more intensive interventions that re-orient the classroom around the use of software.

Most educational software that have been rigorously evaluated help students practice particular skills through personalized tutoring approaches. Computer-assisted learning programs have shown enormous promise in improving academic achievement, especially in math. Of all 30 studies of computer-assisted learning programs, 20 reported statistically significant positive effects, 15 of which were focused on improving math outcomes.

Third, technology-based nudges — such as text message reminders — can have meaningful, if modest, impacts on a variety of education-related outcomes, often at extremely low costs. Low-cost interventions like text message reminders can successfully support students and families at each stage of schooling. Text messages with reminders, tips, goal-setting tools, and encouragement can increase parental engagement in learning activities, such as reading with their elementary-aged children.

Middle and high schools, meanwhile, can help parents support their children by providing families with information about how well their children are doing in school. Colleges can increase application and enrollment rates by leveraging technology to suggest specific action items, streamline financial aid procedures, and/or provide personalized support to high school students.

Online courses are developing a growing presence in education, but the limited experimental evidence suggests that online-only courses lower student academic achievement compared to in-person courses. In four of six studies that directly compared the impact of taking a course online versus in-person only, student performance was lower in the online courses. However, students performed similarly in courses with both in-person and online components compared to traditional face-to-face classes.

The new publication is meant to be a resource for decision-makers interested in learning which uses of education technology go beyond the hype to truly help students learn. At the same time, the publication outlines key open questions about the impacts of education technology, including questions relating to the long-term impacts of education technology and the impacts of education technology on different types of learners.

To help answer these questions, J-PAL North America’s Education, Technology, and Opportunity Initiative is working to build the evidence base on promising uses of education technology by partnering directly with education leaders.

Education leaders are invited to submit letters of interest to partner with J-PAL North America through its  Innovation Competition . Anyone interested in learning more about how to apply is encouraged to contact initiative manager Vincent Quan .

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• J-PAL Education, Technology, and Opportunity Initiative
• Education, Technology, and Opportunity Innovation Competition
• Article: "Will Technology Transform Education for the Better?"
• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab
• Department of Economics

Related Topics

• School of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences
• Education, teaching, academics
• Technology and society
• Computer science and technology

Related Articles

J-PAL North America calls for proposals from education leaders

J-PAL North America’s Education, Technology, and Opportunity Innovation Competition announces inaugural partners

New learning opportunities for displaced persons

J-PAL North America announces new partnerships with three state and local governments

A new way to measure women’s and girls’ empowerment in impact evaluations

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

The power of App Inventor: Democratizing possibilities for mobile applications

Read full story →

Using MRI, engineers have found a way to detect light deep in the brain

From steel engineering to ovarian tumor research

A better way to control shape-shifting soft robots

Professor Emeritus David Lanning, nuclear engineer and key contributor to the MIT Reactor, dies at 96

Discovering community and cultural connections

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

Why technology in education must be on our terms

The relationship between technology and education has been a topic of interest for decades. While technology presents remarkable opportunities, it's essential to approach its integration thoughtfully and responsibly. The  2023 Global Education Monitoring (GEM) Report offers valuable insights into how technology has transformed education, its benefits, limitations, and the challenges associated with its implementation.  

The flagship UNESCO report highlights the lack of appropriate governance and regulation, especially amidst rapidly emerging generative artificial intelligence tools. It urges countries to urgently set their own terms for the way technology is designed and used in learning so that it never replaces in-person, teacher-led instruction, and supports quality education for all. Here are some insights from the report. 

What has been the evolution of technology in education?

While the use of technology in education dates back to the emergence of radio in the 1920s, it's the digital technology of the last 40 years that holds the greatest potential for educational transformation. This period has witnessed a revolution in content distribution, learning management systems, testing methods, and language instruction. From augmented reality to personalized tutoring, technology has reshaped our learning experiences. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence have amplified the capabilities of educational technology, even raising questions about the role of human interaction in education.

What is the impact of technology on learning?

Technology undeniably enhances learning in specific contexts. However, it is crucial to recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach does not apply. Digital technology's primary contributions to learning lie in its ability to personalize instruction and extend available learning time. Additionally, it fosters engagement by encouraging interaction and collaboration among learners. Notably, the report highlights that technology need not be cutting-edge to be effective. For instance, in China, providing high-quality lesson recordings to rural students resulted in a 32% improvement in outcomes and a 38% reduction in urban-rural learning gaps.

How do we evaluate technology's effectiveness in education?

The report emphasizes that evaluating technology's impact must focus on learning outcomes rather than the mere implementation of digital tools. Cases such as Peru, where laptops were distributed without integrating them into pedagogy, demonstrate that technology alone doesn't guarantee improved learning. Similarly, exclusive reliance on remote instruction in the United States widened learning gaps. The report further warns against inappropriate or excessive technology use, citing instances of negative links between excessive ICT use and student performance.

How reliable is the evidence?

The rapid evolution of technology often outpaces its evaluation. Evidence primarily comes from affluent countries, raising concerns about generalizability. The report reveals that a mere 7% of education technology companies in the United Kingdom conducted randomized controlled trials, reflecting a lack of rigorous evaluation. The challenge of isolating technology's impact from other factors complicates precise assessment. Additionally, the influence of technology companies on evidence generation poses credibility challenges.

What are the recommendations for effective integration of technology in education?

As artificial intelligence gains prominence, the report emphasizes that not all technological change equates to progress. The adoption of technology must be guided by a learner-centric, rights-based framework, ensuring appropriateness, equity, evidence-based decisions, and sustainability. The report presents a four-point compass for policy-makers:

• Look down: Evaluate the context and learning objectives to ensure technology choices strengthen education systems.
• Look back: Prioritize marginalized groups to ensure that technology benefits all learners and narrows educational disparities.
• Look up: Ensure evidence-based decision-making and consider hidden long-term costs before scaling up technology initiatives.
• Look forward: Align technology integration with sustainable development goals, considering financial implications, children's well-being, and environmental impact.

Technology in education: A tool on whose terms

From 4 to 7 September, UNESCO's  Digital Learning Week will gather policy-makers, practitioners, educators, private sector partners, researchers and development agencies to jointly explore how public digital learning platforms and generative AI can be steered to reinforce and enrich human-centered quality education.

• Download the  2023 GEM Report  
• Read the  press release  
• Join the conversation on social media via  #TechOnOurTerms
• More on the  Global Education Monitoring Report
• More on UNESCO's  Digital Learning Week

Related items

• Artificial intelligence
• Educational technology
• Digital learning week
• Topics: Display
• See more add

More on this subject

Other recent articles

We track anonymous visitor behavior on our website to ensure you have a great experience. Learn more about our Privacy Policy .

• The Learning Accelerator
• Resources & Guidance
• Parabola Project
• Mission, Vision, Values
• Services & Partnerships

• Board Members
• Job Opportunities
• News & Updates
• Stories of Learning Podcast
• Projects & Publications
• Get in Touch
• Partner With Us
• Support Our Work
• Requests for Proposals
• Exponential Learning Initiative

The Learning Accelerator Blog /Is Technology Good or Bad for Learning?

Is Technology Good or Bad for Learning?

by Saro Mohammed on May 15 2019

This blog was originally published on the Brookings Brown Center Chalkboard .

I'll bet you’ve read something about technology and learning recently. You may have read that device use enhances learning outcomes . Or perhaps you’ve read that screen time is not good for kids . Maybe you’ve read that there’s no link between adolescents’ screen time and their well-being . Or that college students’ learning declines the more devices are present in their classrooms .

If ever there were a case to be made that more research can cloud rather than clarify an issue, technology use and learning seems to fit the bill. This piece covers what the research actually says, some outstanding questions, and how to approach the use of technology in learning environments to maximize opportunities for learning and minimize the risk of doing harm to students.

In my recent posts , I have frequently cited the mixed evidence about blended learning, which strategically integrates in-person learning with technology to enable real-time data use, personalized instruction, and mastery-based progression. One thing that this nascent evidence base does show is that technology can be linked to improved learning . When technology is integrated into lessons in ways that are aligned with good in-person teaching pedagogy, learning can be better than without technology.

A 2018 meta-analysis of dozens of rigorous studies of ed tech , along with the executive summary of a forthcoming update (126 rigorous experiments), indicated that when education technology is used to individualize students’ pace of learning, the results overall show “ enormous promise .” In other words, ed tech can improve learning when used to personalize instruction to each student’s pace.

Further, this same meta-analysis, along with other large but correlational studies (e.g., OECD 2015 ), also found that increased access to technology in school was associated with improved proficiency with, and increased use of, technology overall. This is important in light of the fact that access to technology outside of learning environments is still very unevenly distributed across ethnic, socio-economic, and geographic lines. Technology for learning, when deployed to all students, ensures that no student experiences a “21st-century skills and opportunity” gap.

More practically, technology has been shown to scale and sustain instructional practices that would be too resource-intensive to work in exclusively in-person learning environments, especially those with the highest needs. In multiple , large-scale studies where technology has been incorporated into the learning experiences of hundreds of students across multiple schools and school systems, they have been associated with better academic outcomes than comparable classrooms that did not include technology. Added to these larger bodies of research are dozens, if not hundreds, of smaller , more localized examples of technology being used successfully to improve students’ learning experiences. Further, meta-analyses and syntheses of the research show that blended learning can produce greater learning than exclusively in-person learning.

All of the above suggest that technology, used well, can drive equity in learning opportunities. We are seeing that students and families from privileged backgrounds are able to make choices about technology use that maximize its benefits and minimize its risks , while students and families from marginalized backgrounds do not have opportunities to make the same informed choices. Intentional, thoughtful inclusion of technology in public learning environments can ensure that all students, regardless of their ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language status, special education status, or other characteristics, have the opportunity to experience learning and develop skills that allow them to fully realize their potential.

On the other hand, the evidence is decidedly mixed on the neurological impact of technology use. In November 2016, the American Association of Pediatrics updated their screen time guidelines for parents, generally relaxing restrictions and increasing the recommended maximum amount of time that children in different age groups spend interacting with screens. These guidelines were revised not because of any new research, but for two far more practical reasons. First, the nuance of the existing evidence–especially the ways in which recommendations change as children get older–was not adequately captured in the previous guidelines. Second, the proliferation of technology in our lives had made the previous guidelines almost impossible to follow.

The truth is that infants, in particular, learn by interacting with our physical world and with other humans, and it is likely that very early (passive) interactions with devices – rather than humans – can disrupt or misinform neural development . As we grow older, time spent on devices often replaces time spent engaging in physical activity or socially with other people, and it can even become a substitute for emotional regulation, which is detrimental to physical, social, and emotional development.

In adolescence and young adulthood, the presence of technology in learning environments has also been associated with (but has not been shown to be the cause of) negative variables such as attention deficits or hyperactivity , feeling lonely , and lower grades . Multitasking is not something our brains can do while learning , and technology often represents not just one more “task” to have to attend to in a learning environment, but multiple additional tasks due to the variety of apps and programs installed on and producing notifications through a single device.

The Pragmatic

The current takeaway from the research is that there are potential benefits and risks to deploying technology in learning environments. While we can’t wrap this topic up with a bow just yet–there are still more questions than answers–there is evidence that technology can amplify effective teaching and learning when in the hands of good teachers. The best we can do today is understand how technology can be a valuable tool for educators to do the complex, human work that is teaching by capitalizing on the benefits while remaining fully mindful of the risks as we currently understand them.

We must continue to build our understanding of both the risks and benefits as we proceed. With that in mind, here are some “Dos” and “Don’ts” for using technology in learning environments:

Do use technology:

• To enhance or extend social interactions
• To provide access to learning environments (like advanced courses, simulations, etc) that otherwise would not be available
• To facilitate and generate learning experiences that are meaningfully aligned with in-person learning experiences
• To personalize, individualize, and/or differentiate learning to each student’s pace, path, abilities, and interests
• To provide students with choice, agency, and ownership of their learning
• To ensure equitable access to technology and its supporting infrastructure itself, as well as the opportunity to develop skills associated with technology use

Don't use technology:

• For many or unlimited hours each day
• To remove students from learning experiences that their peers have access to
• To implement, scale, or sustain ineffective in-person instructional strategies
• To track or stream students into rigid or long-term, standardized learning groups
• To automate or make decisions about learning without input from teachers and students
• With the assumption that students intuitively know how to use it (or have access to it), especially for learning

About the Author

At TLA, Saro focuses on understanding if, how, and when K-12 blended learning is effective nationally. She has ten years’ experience in researching/evaluating public, private, and non-profit education programs.

The Impact of Technology on Education: Understanding the Pros and Cons

In today’s world, technology has become an integral part of our daily lives. It has changed the way we communicate, work, and even learn. The education sector is no exception, and technology has had a profound impact on the way students are taught and how they acquire knowledge. In this article, we’ll explore the effects of technology on education and the pros and cons of its integration into the classroom.

The Effect of Digital Tools on Student Learning Outcomes

Digital tools and resources have made education more accessible, interactive, and engaging for students. Online learning platforms like Coursera and Khan Academy provide students with access to a wealth of information and resources, allowing them to learn at their own pace and on their own terms. Technology also enables teachers to personalize learning, providing students with tailored resources and activities that match their abilities and learning styles. As a result, students are more likely to be engaged, motivated, and successful in their studies.

How Technology is Changing the Classroom Experience

The integration of technology into the classroom has revolutionized the traditional teaching methods and transformed the learning experience. With the use of virtual and augmented reality, students can immerse themselves in interactive simulations and experiences that bring subjects to life. Online collaboration tools also allow students to work together on projects and assignments, fostering teamwork and communication skills. Additionally, teachers can use technology to assess students’ understanding in real-time, making it easier to identify and address any learning gaps.

The Role of Technology in the Future of Education

As technology continues to advance, its role in education will only become more pronounced. Artificial intelligence is set to play an increasingly significant role in education, offering personalized and adaptive learning experiences for students. The use of big data and predictive analytics will also allow teachers to gain insights into student performance and make informed decisions about how to improve the learning experience. With the rise of the Internet of Things (IoT), it’s likely that smart classrooms and connected learning environments will become the norm.

The Pros and Cons of Technology in Education

While technology has many benefits for education, it also has its drawbacks. One of the biggest challenges is the digital divide, which refers to the unequal distribution of technology and internet access. This can create disparities in educational opportunities and outcomes, particularly for students from low-income families. Additionally, the over-reliance on technology can also lead to a decrease in critical thinking and problem-solving skills, as students become more reliant on pre-packaged solutions.

The Future of Technology-Enhanced Education

In conclusion, technology has had a profound impact on education, offering many benefits and opportunities for students and teachers alike. As technology continues to evolve, it will play an increasingly important role in shaping the future of education. By embracing technology, schools and educators can create dynamic, engaging, and personalized learning experiences that will help students to succeed in the digital age.

At Reading Readiness, we believe in the power of technology to transform education and provide students with the skills and knowledge they need to succeed. Our school franchise offers a comprehensive curriculum that integrates technology in innovative and meaningful ways, giving students the best possible learning experience. If you’re passionate about education and interested in making a difference, we invite you to join our community and become a part of the future of education.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site is part of the Informa Connect Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 3099067.

Is online education good or bad? And is this really the right question?

Associate Professor, Warner School of Education, University of Rochester

Disclosure statement

From 1995-2002, Eric Fredericksen was a Principal Investigator for grants received from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation for ALN (Asynchronous Learning Environments). Eric is a member of the Board of Directors for the Online Learning Consortium (formerly Sloan Consortium), the professional society in higher education focused on quality online education. In 2013, he was honored as a Sloan-C Fellow.

View all partners

For the past twenty years, I’ve heard this question asked many times about online education. It might be tempting for enthusiasts to say “of course it is good,” but I see this as a kind of “trick question.” We should consider asking this question in the context of the traditional classroom.

Have our experiences in traditional classroom been stellar? All of us have had great classes in traditional settings and perhaps some that were not. I would suggest that quality and effectiveness of learning are not tied to “mode” of instruction.

In the same way that we can have good (and not so good) traditional classroom courses, we can also have good (and not so good) online courses. Further, re-conceptualizing and converting a traditional classroom course to an online course doesn’t necessarily make it better or worse.

What does the research tell us? And what are the lessons for teaching – and learning – in the future?

Research about online education

An abundance of studies have examined online education. They explore effectiveness through a number of criteria including satisfaction, retention and achievement.

An objective review published by the American Educational Research Association ( How Does Distance Education Compare with Classroom Instruction? A Meta Analysis of the Empirical Literature ) examined the literature between 1985 and 2002.

The authors analyzed 232 studies at all academic levels (K-12 and higher education) examining achievement (based on 57,019 students), attitude (based on 35,365 students) and retention (based on 3,744,869 students) outcomes. This meta-analysis highlighted that some applications of online education were better than classroom instruction and some were worse.

Another notable analysis was published by the US Department of Education in 2010. The Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies found that, on average, students in online learning conditions performed modestly better than those receiving face-to-face instruction.

What should we conclude from this?

I believe it tells us that online learning can be effective – but that alone is not a guarantee that it will be effective. It is not predetermined that online education is better (or worse) than a physical classroom.

Perhaps a more important question to ask is, “ How can online education be effective?”

Developing an online course

After two decades of work in and dedication to this field, I believe that we can positively impact the learning experience for students in online courses. A vital aspect of this is the support and assistance provided to faculty who are designing online courses and that we openly discuss the advantages and constraints of this “type of classroom”.

Effective online courses are developed through the systematic design of instruction with emphasis on the achievement of course learning objectives. This rigorous approach to course development and the creation of learning activities (which vary by course) is fundamental to create an effective learning environment and increases the potential for student learning and their construction of new knowledge.

Thoughtful course planning takes best practices (e.g., consistency of course interface and similarly structured course modules) into account and should be complete prior to the start of the course. In one research study it was interesting to note that faculty who go through the process acknowledge that this conscientious approach to pedagogical review also has positive impact in traditional classrooms.

Admittedly, one great advantage of online learning is the enhanced access for students: removing the constraint of commuting to a specific location at a certain time. Annual studies document that millions of students are able to enroll in online courses. But what are the educational advantages of the online classroom?

A common misperception of online education has been that it is an isolating experience for students. In fact, research studies that I have conducted with colleagues show quite the opposite.

Through asynchronous discussion boards, there can be increased interaction, both in quantity and quality, with and among students. These class discussions are not constrained to a small window of time but can transpire over a week or two. This environment allows all students to engage and actively participate in the discussion.

Compare this to a traditional classroom where the discussion might be dominated by a subset of students, while the rest of the class is passive. Every online student can have a voice and be heard. In addition, expanding the time for discussion permits students to reflect and explore additional information, thoughtfully consider the views of their classmates, and then take the time to construct their own contribution, which can lead to higher quality responses.

Another advantage is the ability to facilitate peer review – a beneficial instructional strategy for learners to share their individual views and knowledge with their classmates regarding papers or projects. This feedback benefits the student author and the student reviewer. Managing peer review is significantly easier in my online classroom (a discussion board enables exchanges) compared to my physical classroom with the corresponding constraints, where students would need to bring hard copies of their work to distribute to their classmates and then need to create an additional event to somehow exchange feedback.

Focus on learning

This is not meant as a criticism of the traditional classroom. I have enjoyed teaching in physical spaces for more than 25 years and found the experience rewarding and valuable. I will continue to do so. But I believe we need to be careful not to romanticize the traditional classroom.

Not all traditional learning experiences are equal. There is a significant difference between a lecture in a large auditorium with hundreds of students and a small seminar room with 15 students.

The physical classroom has one advantage – the “spontaneity” of the discussion that can occur. These occasions can be wonderful learning opportunities. This lack of spontaneity has been a constraint in online classes due to the limitations of required bandwidth for live (synchronous) web conferencing. However, some of the technological challenges have recently been alleviated and I am able to complement my online courses with class discussions where students can see and hear each other, regardless of their physical location.

So what’s the future for online classes? My hope is that we continue to evolve different models of online learning. The spirit of “blended” or “hybrid” online courses strives to capture the best of online with the best of traditional classroom experiences.

Ultimately, I believe we will progress and develop instruction to the point where these historically based distinctions and categorical terms will blur and become less meaningful, and we will simply just focus on learning.

• Online education

Events and Communications Coordinator

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Should schools ban or integrate generative AI in the classroom?

Subscribe to the center for technology innovation newsletter, regina ta and regina ta research intern - the brookings institution darrell m. west darrell m. west senior fellow - center for technology innovation , douglas dillon chair in governmental studies.

August 7, 2023

• The advent of generative AI tools creates both opportunities and risks for students and teachers.
• So far, public schools have followed one of three strategies, either banning generative AI, integrating it into curricula, or placing it under further review.
• Moving forward, schools should develop guiding principles for the use of AI tools, provide training resources for educators, and empower educators to implement those principles.
• 10 min read

The start of a new school year is soon approaching, but there is a major question left unresolved: What are schools going to do about generative AI? Since ChatGPT’s release on November 30, 2022, educators have been slow to address questions regarding whether to allow its use in the classroom and how the tool affects pedagogy, student learning, and creativity. Debates have been intense among stakeholders—including teachers, parents, students, and edtech developers—about the opportunities for personalized learning, enhanced evaluations, and augmenting human performance against the possible risks of increased plagiarism and cheating , disinformation and discriminatory bias , and weakened critical thinking .

In this post, we review current responses to generative AI across K-12 public school districts and explore what remains to be done. Right now, public schools have varied between banning or integrating generative AI and reviews are ongoing without any definitive guidelines. After sharing how public schools are addressing these options, we suggest a path forward in which schools establish guiding principles, provide training resources, empower educators to implement those principles, and help over-burdened districts that already are struggling with instructional, infrastructure, and financial challenges.

Three paths of action from public schools

Colleges and universities are largely deferring to faculty to determine policies on generative AI, so a lot of higher education is moving on an ad-hoc basis that varies by classroom, course, and professor. There is neither a common approach across universities, nor agreed-upon policies on how to move forward.

In the case of K-12 public school districts, most administrators generally are taking institutional action and implementing decisions for entire school districts. They are not delegating the decisions to teachers but are enacting across-the-board decisions that affect every teacher and student in their jurisdiction. Their efforts fall into one of three categories: banning, integrating, or reviewing generative AI.

Banning generative AI

By the end of May 2023, ChatGPT joined YouTube, Netflix, and Roblox on lists of websites either banned for school staff and students among various large U.S. school districts, where access would require special approval. The controversial movement to widely ban ChatGPT began when the two largest school districts in the nation—New York City Public Schools and Los Angeles Unified— blocked access to ChatGPT from school Wi-Fi networks and devices. Other districts soon followed suit.

Citing the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), Fairfax County Public Schools in Virginia restricted access to ChatGPT, since the chatbot may not be appropriate for minors. Texas’s Austin Independent School District cited similar concerns about academic integrity and child safety in its decision. Seattle Public Schools banned access to not only ChatGPT, but also six additional websites that provide AI-powered writing assistance, including Rytr , Jasper , and WordAI . While these were not full bans, student use restrictions affected teacher adoption and use.

However, one problem with the approach to ban or restrict ChatGPT is that students can always find ways to circumvent school-issued bans outside the classroom. ChatGPT and other such chatbot tools are accessible from home or non-school networks and devices. Students could also use other third-party writing tools, since it would be impractical to ban the growing number of websites and applications driven by generative AI. Besides, bans may only be band-aid solutions, distracting from the root causes of inefficacy in our school systems—for instance, concerns about ChatGPT-enabled cheating might instead point to a need for changing how teachers assess students.

But the biggest problem, by far, is that this approach could cause more harm than good, especially if the benefits as well as the opportunities are not weighed. For example, ChatGPT can enrich learning and teaching in K-12 classrooms, and a full ban might deny students and teachers potential opportunities to leverage the technology for instruction, or lesson development. Instead of universally banning ChatGPT, school districts should recognize that needs in adoption and use may vary by teacher, classroom, and student. Imagine using ChatGPT for a history vs. an art class, for students whose first language is not English, and for students with learning disabilities. Different issues can pop up in various use cases, so across-the-board bans, and even restrictions for that matter, could limit the ability of students and instructors to take advantage of relevant learning benefits, and in turn, have effects on adoption and use during postsecondary opportunities, or in the workplace.

Integrating generative AI

New York City Public Schools—the first school system to block access to ChatGPT—was also the first to reverse its ban. Within four months of the initial ban, the reversal came after convenings of tech industry representatives and educators to evaluate emerging risks and understand how to leverage ChatGPT’s capabilities for the better. To support teachers, NYC school district leaders have promised to provide resources developed by MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), along with real-life examples of successful AI implementation from classrooms in the district that have been early adopters of technology. The district also plans to create a shared repository to track each school’s progress and share findings across schools.

Schools like Peninsula School District in Washington had already been working to integrate AI into their curricula, so when ChatGPT arrived, they were prepared: digital learning teams visited classrooms across different grade levels to share how language models work, as well as how to identify and leverage AI-generated content. Alliance City School District in Ohio is also embracing ChatGPT’s potential, resolving to proactively set boundaries on its usage to prevent misuse. In Lower Merion School District, students from Pennsylvania will hone their critical thinking skills by analyzing and editing AI-generated writing. In all the above cases, responsibly integrating generative AI as a teaching tool will require school districts to invest in proper oversight procedures and professional development for educators.

As such, Garden City Public Schools in New York has held training sessions for educators to demonstrate the capabilities of different generative AI tools, along with how to incorporate them effectively and tailor materials to students’ needs. Schools like Norway-Vulcan Area Schools in Michigan also plan to provide professional development opportunities for teachers, as well as strengthen the school community’s understanding of its honor code and plagiarism policies. The district has encouraged teachers to use Turnitin’s AI detector to check for cases of plagiarism, as they prepare to teach with generative AI in the fall.

There are some schools that are being more cautious as they integrate generative AI. In Texas, Mineral Wells Independent School District has adopted a more cautious approach, testing generative AI use in an experimental set of classrooms, and sending those instructors for general training in AI. Elsewhere in Texas, Eanes Independent School District is similarly focused on helping teachers make the most of generative AI, as they first try ChatGPT for administrative use cases, like scheduling or lesson planning.

Placing generative AI under review

While districts like Prince George’s County (MD), Jefferson County (KY), and Chicago (IL) have not banned ChatGPT, they have placed the chatbot under review . School districts that haven’t acted yet are watching and waiting, and most fall into this category. A recent survey by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) found that less than 10% of schools have implemented guidance on generative AI, and of the schools with policies in place, 40% reported that the guidance was only communicated verbally—not in writing.

Just as we demand transparency from developers on how AI is built , we need to provide transparency for students and teachers on how AI can be used . Not enough schools have issued formal guidance on generative AI. A nationwide survey of K-12 teachers revealed that 72% have not received guidance on generative AI use. Generally, the longer schools delay their deliberation of bans or integrated use of new generative AI technologies, the higher the stakes—especially with a new school year on the horizon. As one of many generative AI tools being used for education, ChatGPT is increasingly accessed by students and teachers, and the absence of institutional policies may enable counterproductive use cases. Without an educational sandbox for generative AI usage, schools run the risk of having students deploy these rapidly developing technologies in unplanned ways with unintended outcomes affecting safety, equity, and learning.

School districts also have a critical opportunity to govern the use and misuse of generative AI tools before the academic year begins. Districts can shape its use and role in the future of education, instead of letting generative AI write it for them. In California, education policy researchers have made a similar call to action. More important, national concerns around the digital divide in education can make technology more useful in bridging learning gaps created by the lack of home internet. But that also means that schools must support the equitable distribution of generative AI’s benefits. Being proactive about the adoption and use generative AI now will prepare school districts to set precedents about using future technologies in the classroom.

Recommendations for moving forward

Many classroom policies thus far are too narrowly focused on one tool: ChatGPT. Right now, there are thousands of generative AI products that are on the market, and more are being developed every week. School districts need to consider the use not just of ChatGPT, but other generative AI applications, like Llama 2 or BARD , as well as the widespread educational tools, like PowerSchool , Kahoot! , or Khan Academy .

In closing, we recommend strategies below for how school districts can approach generative AI governance, regardless of the product.

Establish guiding principles

In collaboration with edtech specialists, teachers, and students, school districts should develop a set of common, guiding principles for students and teachers around generative AI use. These guidelines should define the purpose and scope of generative AI in the classroom, along with acceptable use cases. These may also serve to establish privacy protections for students and formalize procedures for how teachers can supervise student usage, give feedback, and handle misuse.

Provide training resources for teacher professional development

Whether administrators and/or teachers fear generative AI may disrupt their classrooms or instead welcome its potential, school districts can offer accessible training that will equip all teachers to meet the present moment. These training opportunities may not have to be developed from scratch – districts can adapt online resources, like the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN)’s resource library and TeachAI , who also offer some guiding principles. When educators gain a robust understanding of generative AI, they can apply it productively in their classrooms, as well as support responsible use and understanding among their students.

Empower educators to implement principles

Recognizing that there is no one-size-fits-all policy on generative AI, districts should empower educators to implement institutional recommendations and enforce academic integrity within their classrooms – while applying the technologies in ways that serve their students. This approach models that taken by Department of Education’s recent AI Report , which provides general guidance for learning and teaching with AI—without commenting on specific generative AI tools, due to their rapid progress. Teachers can reference district-level principles as a guiding framework, upon which they can design transparent, well-defined expectations for their students.

Help overburdened districts

Finally, we need to help overburdened and under-resourced districts that already are struggling with instructional, infrastructure, and financial challenges. There remain sharp inequities in public school resources, and modern technologies often accentuate those disparities. Some schools have good digital infrastructures, while others do not. The same also applies to the equitably available financial means to integrate new teaching tools in the classroom.

As schools consider how to utilize generative AI, we should be cognizant of these disparities and provide help to make sure marginalized districts are not left behind. Federal and state officials could earmark money to public school districts who receive minimal assistance on using generative AI to help teachers, students, and administrators deal with its utilization. In the end, for districts to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion in the deployment of these tools, school leaders ought to level the playing field for their use, especially before its unyielding adoption and use.

The proposed strategies are not required of school districts in any order. Rather, they are the beginning of both immediate and future conversations for how to understand how to leverage generative AI tools in educational settings.

Related Content

Jeremy Baum, John Villasenor

July 18, 2023

Cameron F. Kerry

July 7, 2023

Darrell M. West

May 3, 2023

Meta and Google are general, unrestricted donors to the Brookings Institution. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions posted in this piece are solely those of the authors and are not influenced by any donation.

K-12 Education

Artificial Intelligence

Governance Studies

U.S. States and Territories

Center for Technology Innovation

Jing Liu, Cameron Conrad, David Blazar

May 1, 2024

Hannah C. Kistler, Shaun M. Dougherty

April 9, 2024

Darrell M. West, Joseph B. Keller

February 12, 2024

• Trends in Education

Pros and cons of technology in the classroom, and which tools to use

April 26, 2021 •

8 min reading

Technology in Education has been among us for a long while, and due to the Covid-19 pandemic, technology-based teaching took a sprint. But let’s face it, it has not always been for the better. This article delves into the pros and cons of technology in the classroom.

Recent surveys among students show that they are longing for going back to class, to meet their fellow students and have face-to-face conversations instead of staring at a screen. Teachers have shared that they are experiencing something called technology-fatigue, and instead of embracing a potential positive solution, they have a deep desire for going back to class too.

We do not claim that online teaching is better than face-to-face, however we all know that with using the right technology for the right purpose, disruptive learning environments are now made possible. So, what are we doing wrong – how come we have reached this technology-fuelled online teaching fatigue? Let’s take a deeper look into some “situational” pros and cons of technology in the classroom.

INVEST IN EDUCATION TOOLKIT With this 10-step process, you will have all the tools you need to master the critical areas of a successful school.

Teach with video (killed the radio star).

Videos are engaging, they limit the amount of reading materials and speed up the content delivery. If well done, they also help with understanding complex matters, and can bring fun and more interesting learning experiences. Using video teaching content in class or as an asynchronous tool, it requests different production, content, and call to action.

Although there are also a lot of good videos out there that can support your learning materials, it is rather simple nowadays to create your own. Even without having the most expensive high-tech in house. If you create your own, it does require some technique to avoid boring formats, bad sound or visual quality. Bad production means the video risks being a hindrance rather than bringing you any helpful benefits.

Here are a few of the best inexpensive video creation tools for teachers:

• Most likely, your mobile phone, your computer software package or your LMS have an instant video recording feature. This may limit you for editing, but it works well if you make sure the camera captures the right image and the sound quality is good.
• Camtasia, an easy tool. It includes easy editing and animation tools https://www.techsmith.com/tutorial-camtasia.html
• Vimeo, video creation made easy and fun, and the tool has a lot of examples to give you ideas, https://vimeo.com/create.

Furthermore, be careful not to overkill one format and use video ALL the time. Take into consideration what the video is used for: is it replacing something, adding something, increasing the understanding or engagement? A simple audio piece, podcast, a reference, or a discussion as a means of delivering learning content is still recommended.  

• Video is engaging and fun, it triggers more senses and can enhance learning.
• Video can help in explaining difficult subject matters.
• Video reduces the time of reading and allows you to “instruct” asynchronously.
• Creating a good quality educational video can be time-consuming.
• Overkill of video content is not what students want; bad videos are even more distracting.
• If not used well, video does not always have a significant outcome or impact on learning.

Best tools and platforms for teaching: Lost in a jungle

Padlet, Google Doc, Miro, - Canva, Poll Everywhere, Quizlet, - MS Team, Skype, Zoom - the use of certain tools and the integration in our daily teaching has exploded. All these tools do not only take time to understand and integrate, but are also confusing for the student. Variations are good, however it is essential to create some consistency in which tools we select for assessment, communication, discussion, etc. Also, keeping structure and consistency of integrated tools in your LMS, means less time lost in the need to explore new tools. If a tool has the same functionality, do not start exploring for alternatives. Make a decision on which tool is best for what function and share among teachers, or even better, allow management to decide which tools are used and which not.

This also avoids major differences between the teaching methods of tech-savvy faculty and those who struggle with using MS teams for a group connect session. In this case, it is really the technology that is used as a support element, not as a disruptive tool to enhance learning outcomes. Meaning, spend as little time as needed to re-invent the wheel.

• Creativity and diversity in communication and group work can enhance learning.
• Some tools have proven to be essential in this remote teaching time and allow a-synchronous and synchronous teaching.
• Tools allow the use different types of assessment and could fit well within the concept of active learning.
• New tools take time and investment. Some variations only allow limited amount of free trials.
• When the tool is not essential for what needs to be achieved, we may question it in general.
• Overkill of online quizzes and Padlet’s has quickly ruined the surprise effect and the collaboration of enthusiasts.

Bottom-line investment in technology for the classroom: money & time

Teachers spend a lot of time working “outside” of actual teaching; technology has the potential to save some time in repetitive or not “core related” tasks. Whether we seek the potential in an automated marking tool, using digital content to transmit knowledge, use video conferencing from home, using and re-using pre-made activities in a digital setting; all in all, there is a huge potential and variety to actually save time and save money. In many environments, Covid-19 has brought variable costs even more to the surface. Technology could help cut back on “hidden” costs.

But before it comes to that, it requires an enormous investment of time, patience, and money. Before using new technology, each teacher has to dive in, practice and become confident in using it in the teaching-approach. Often, no extra time is given, compensated for, or there is simply no time to invest in understanding and using new technology. Therefore, it is hugely important to determine “nice-to-have” versus “essential benefit” in adopting a new tool or service.  

When deciding on certain technology and implementation, it is also important to have user-friendly tools, whereby technology and user support is guaranteed either from the supplier or from your “in house” IT support team. If neither are available, limit your time on exploring new tools and systems, as eventually this does not lead to money or time savings.

Change and improvements require time investment and support on all levels, It will lead to fewer frustrations and ambiguity once you know why you are making the investment (money or time) first. It will also mirror positivity on the students, as once it is clear why certain decision have been made and changes are implemented, they will also experience the benefits.

• Technology can save time and resources.
• Technology can help teachers to focus on their core tasks.
• The right set-up and tools will enhance the learning environment for teacher and student.
• It costs time and money, continued support and updates.
• Resources require support and understanding before it “works”.
• Due to technology, the role of the teacher is assessed and monitored differently and when not adjusted, this can impact quality.

Technology can be collaborative even when we’re far apart

It is clear that all technology strategies in teaching don’t always make a difference to learning outcomes, let alone enhancement of student learning. Technology does not create better students and unfortunately, it also does not create better teachers. It could even do the opposite.

Therefore, the education sector is in a unique situation as remote teaching was enforced in the academic year 2019/20 when the pandemic took hold, and still is ongoing in most countries (where COVID-19 restrictions apply or where students have not been able to travel yet). If we do not embrace and integrate technology for a disruptive purpose, we need at least to make sure it is supporting us in our teaching practices. 

For example, there are technology solutions that still give us great advantage in remote sessions with our students and enforce collaboration. Here are some examples of the best technology solutions for collaboration:

• MS team breakout rooms
• Google shared documents
• enhanced discussions via LMS communication tools
• integrated video to reduce lecturing and reading, etc.

Technology can still add something meaningful, regardless if you are forced to teach remotely or if you are back in the classroom. Used correctly, it can enhance engagement, motivation, broaden the perspective of new sources online, help with student-centered learning and promote digital savviness among students. Technology in the classroom means students get to learn new ways of research, gathering sources, collaboration, documentation, communication, participatory media, etc.

Technology that has no clear objective for either your benefit or for the entire organization should be given very little attention until it is framed within an overall strategy.

• Teaching that otherwise would not have been possible.
• Technology has broadened our horizons, has given us worldwide communication, collaboration, and resource sharing that otherwise was not possible during the pandemic.
• Due to the big shift, we have accelerated in our “need” to change traditional educational environments.
• Technology may have increased loneliness, isolation, digital discrimination and other impacts that we could not have planned.
• We feel lost and uncertain if and how to integrate technology wisely when our situation goes back to normal.
• We may have spent a lot of time and energy on things that have not enhanced learning, reduced costs, or increased efficiency.

Is it right to bring technology into the classroom?

Technology has immense potential for education, but it makes only a significant difference if used “correctly” and / OR if the strategy of the organization has brought up a clear rational for the use of technology

If not used properly, or lacking a distinct rationale, it is understandable that many teachers would want to go back to “the old days” as the new setting has not been satisfying learners or educators alike. Maybe a mistake for educators and school leaders is to think: What can I do with technology? Asking that question will most likely lead to dissatisfaction, as opposed to "What can this technology do for me?" This question may bring back the pros needed to successfully integrate technology into the classroom and mitigate any cons outlined in this article.

Business Development Senior Manager - Consultant at EHL

Keep reading

EHL named World's Best Hospitality Management School in Global Rankings

May 01, 2024

8 effective strategies for retaining and motivating teachers

Apr 25, 2024

Exploring the future of higher education with Luciana Vaccaro

Apr 18, 2024

INVEST IN EDUCATION: A 10-step process to tackle your school's biggest challenges.

1. Branding & Identity 2. Legal & Operating Requirements 3. Business Plan & Budget 4. Marketing & Recruitment 5. Facilities & Infrastructures 6. Staffing & Development Plan 7. Funding & Finance 8. Program & Curriculum 9. Policies & Procedures 10. Industry Relationships

This is a title

This is a text

• Bachelor Degree in Hospitality
• Pre-University Courses
• Master’s Degrees & MBA Programs
• Executive Education
• Online Courses
• Swiss Professional Diplomas
• Culinary Certificates & Courses
• Fees & Scholarships
• Bachelor in Hospitality Admissions
• EHL Campus Lausanne
• EHL Campus (Singapore)
• EHL Campus Passugg
• Host an Event at EHL
• Contact our program advisors
• Join our Open Days
• Meet EHL Representatives Worldwide
• Chat with our students
• Why Study Hospitality?
• Careers in Hospitality
• Awards & Rankings
• EHL Network of Excellence
• Career Development Resources
• EHL Hospitality Business School
• Route de Berne 301 1000   Lausanne 25 Switzerland
• Accreditations & Memberships
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Terms

© 2024 EHL Holding SA, Switzerland. All rights reserved.

• State Policy

New Research Answers Whether Technology is Good or Bad for Learning

Michael B. Horn

For years educators and scholars have debated whether technology aids learning or inhibits it.

In the most recent issue of Education Next, for example, Susan Payne Carter, Kyle Greenberg, and Michael S. Walker write about their research finding that allowing any computer usage in the classroom “reduces students’ average final-exam performance by roughly one-fifth of a standard deviation.” Other studies have shown similarly dismal numbers for student learning when technology is introduced in the classroom.

Yet there are also bright shining stars of technology use—both in proof points and in studies, such as this Ithaka study or this U.S. Department of Education 2010 meta-analysis .

So what gives? Since 2008 I’ve, perhaps conveniently, argued that scholars and advocates on both sides of this debate are correct. As we wrote in Disrupting Class in 2008, computers had been around for two decades. Even 10 years ago, we had already spent over $60 billion on them in K–12 schools in the United States to little effect. The reason quite simply was that when we crammed computers into existing learning models, they produced begrudging or negative results. To take a higher education example, when I was a student at the Harvard Business School, far fewer of us paid attention to the case discussion on the couple days at the end of the term when laptops were allowed, as we chose to instead chat online and coordinate evening plans. In that context, I would ban laptops, too.

When the learning model is fundamentally redesigned to incorporate intentionally the benefits of technology, say, in a blended-learning model , however, you can get very different results. To use another personal example, I fervently hope that the public school district where my daughters will go to school will comprehensively redesign its learning environments to personalize learning for each student through the use of technology. As we disruptive innovation acolytes like to say, it’s almost always about the model, not the technology.

This finding isn’t unique to the technology of computers in classrooms. It was true with chalkboards as well.

As Harvard’s David Dockterman recounts , the blackboard was reportedly invented in the early 19th century. The technology was adopted quickly throughout higher education in a lecture model to convey information to all the students at once. The first recorded use in North America was in 1801 at the United States Military Academy in West Point—ironically the location of the study that Carter, Greenberg, and Walker conducted—and it spread quickly.

Having observed the success of the blackboard in college, schoolhouses began installing the technology, but the teaching and learning changed minimally. The blackboards were largely unused because teachers had difficulty figuring out how to use them. Why? At the time, the prevalent model of education in public schools was the one-room schoolhouse in which all students, regardless of age or level, met in a single room and were taught by a single teacher. Rather than teaching all the students the same subjects, in the same way, at the same pace—like in today’s schools—the teacher rotated around the room and worked individually with small groups of students. As a result, the blackboard didn’t make much sense in the context of the one-room schoolhouse because the teacher rarely, if ever, stood in front of the class to lecture.

It wasn’t until the early 1900s when the public education system changed its instructional model—to today’s factory model—that the blackboard became a staple of American education. Lesson? The model matters.

Fast forward to today, and we see the same dynamic. A new—and very helpful— analysis of the research helps tease this out and perhaps can at last break the infuriating log-jam between those who argue technology is a distraction at best and those who argue it is an extremely positive force.

At J-PAL—MIT’s Poverty Action Lab—Maya Escueta (Columbia), Vincent Quan (J-PAL North America), Andre Joshua Nickow (Northwestern), and Phil Oreopoulos (University of Toronto; Co-Chair, J-PAL’s Education sector) released a review of more than 100 experimental studies (RCTs and RDDs) in education technology to examine the evidence across four key areas of education technology: access to technology, computer-assisted learning, technology-based behavioral interventions in education, and online learning.

Among the findings, according to the summary J-PAL provided:

• Computer-assisted learning, in which educational software helps students develop particular skills, is particularly promising, especially in math. This is likely because of the software’s ability to personalize by adapting to a student’s learning level and letting the student learn at the right pace for her, as well as the ability to provide teachers immediate feedback on student performance that is actionable. This is of course no surprise to those of us who have been excited about blended-learning models that personalize learning for students.

• Technology-based behavioral interventions—like nudging a student to register for a course—produce consistently improved learning outcomes.

• Initiatives that provide computers to every student in a classroom do not improve learning outcomes. That is very predictable given our research on the perils of cramming technology . I’ll repeat myself again here: You have to focus on the learning model first followed by the technology in service of that learning model. Initiatives that start with the technology almost always fail in my experience.

• Research on online courses is still early, but it appears that “blended” courses produce similar outcomes as in-person courses, which could drive down costs. In-person classes outperform fully online ones—a reason to still keep fully online courses focused on areas of nonconsumption, where the alternative is nothing at all and therefore not competing against an in-person course.

In my view, this is what I’d expect a review to find, as it points to the tremendous promise of technology to personalize learning (note: the outcomes here are still reliant on good learning design) and the peril of merely cramming technology in to existing, analog learning models.

Will this spur the research community to take note and sharpen the questions it asks about technology and learning going forward? Let’s hope so. It’s high time we move beyond a broken debate and simplistic research around whether technology in education is good or bad that serve no one’s interests.

— Michael B. Horn

Michael Horn is a co-founder of and a distinguished fellow at the Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation.

This post originally appeared on ChristensenInstitute.org

Last Updated

License this Content

Latest Issue

Spring 2024.

Vol. 24, No. 2

We Recommend You Read

Virtual Reality Digs Into Brick-and-Mortar Schools

by Michael B. Horn

Complement and ‘Commoditize’ Teachers, But Don’t Substitute For Them With Tech

Blended Learning Can Enable Teachers to Focus on Cognitive Skills

by Thomas Arnett

What Educators Think About Using AI in Schools

• Share article

For years, educators have already been using some products powered by artificial intelligence to teach or to help with logistics, such as planning bus routes.

But in recent months, the rise of ChatGPT —an AI-powered tool that can write anything with just a simple prompt—has ignited debates about the benefits and drawbacks of the use of artificial intelligence in education.

Some educators are worried about how students might use AI-driven technologies like ChatGPT to cheat on school assignments , and others are embracing these products to save them time in responding to emails and creating rubrics .

Nearly half of educators who responded to a recent EdWeek Research Center survey said AI would have a negative or very negative impact on teaching and learning in the next five years. Twenty-seven percent said AI’s impact would be positive or very positive.

In the open-ended response section of the survey—which was conducted between March 29 and April 11 and had responses from 863 teachers, principals, and district leaders—two dozen educators told us how they felt about AI.

From concerns about its harms to ideas on how it will change the education system, here’s what they said.

AI will change education

   schools will need to engage in deep discussions of what students should know and be able to do in the new era of ai. i think ai will push making education more relevant to the individual student, and the knowledge and skill s/he will need to transact with his/her life circumstances..

—District superintendent | California

   The ultimate effects of AI products such as ChatGPT on education are completely up in the air at this point. If educators follow their traditional patterns of incorporating new technologies into their instruction, then it will most likely be negative and lead to an increase of plagiarism and a lack of ultimate education for our students. If on the other hand, educators evaluate the potential for how these technologies are going to change our lives and adjust instruction to teach how to use these as tools, then it will help prepare students to ethically use them to enhance their lives. This will take a wholesale change in how we teach the writing process in secondary schools as the focus now becomes on asking intelligent questions to the AI interface and then using the response as a foundation that needs to be edited and revised using writing skills.

— Elementary school principal | California

   Since AI is not going away, we need to rethink assessment methods and find ways to harness the power of AI rather than shunning it.

— High school principal | Washington state

   Generative AI, like ChatGPT, will fundamentally change education and our belief in what future-ready means.

— High school principal | Georgia

Educators need to discuss and learn more about AI

   ai is here to stay and will be further developed. it cannot be feared but in education we better understand its use and how we can embrace it or we will once again be left behind..

— District superintendent | West Virginia

   The question on artificial intelligence platforms is a reality that will impact our school systems in the future.

— District administrator for curriculum/instruction | Tennessee

   AI must be implemented with research-based results indicating effective use as well as cautions.

— District assistant superintendent | Oregon

   Artificial intelligence is a technology that we need to learn and teach about if students are going to be able to understand and use it effectively.

— High school principal | Wisconsin

Some educators believe AI will be harmful

   technology is hindering students' ability to think critically and mathematically. they think the computer should find the answers for them, through google or some other app. they have become reluctant to write formulas and problems down. they need to interact with the numbers and formulas more. students and parents complain that six to eight math problems a day is too much for the students to do, and my district discourages the assigning of homework. what does that teach children about adulthood everyone i know does some work at home that they don't get paid for. so, i don't think ai is going to help.

— Middle school teacher | Massachusetts

   Students are having many more mental health issues which stem partly from technology/social media. AI will only make this worse—students need to accomplish things on their own to feel proud and build confidence. Students need to be taught to think and problem solve for themselves.

— District administrator for student services | Iowa

   I believe students already have too many readily available resources, such as answers to tests, essays, reports, etc. AI just makes it even easier for students to gain answers without gaining knowledge.

— High school teacher | Missouri

   AI will make it where people are totally dependent upon it. Students need to learn how to think, solve problems, and make decisions based upon facts not what AI says. We are dumbing down our country when we take away the skills needed to make wise decisions.

— District administrator for curriculum/instruction | Arkansas

Some say it will be useful

   ai can be beneficial if taught correctly to enhance the curriculum. we have added it as a component to our schools’ professional development program..

— District administrator for curriculum/instruction | New Jersey

   I am typically a new adopter of tech and other new approaches. I will embrace AI and figure out how my students will best benefit.

— Elementary school teacher | Idaho

Others acknowledged the nuance between the benefits and drawbacks

   artificial intelligence can be both helpful and hurtful. it can really help teachers (for example, a spanish teacher can ask it to write a short story using certain vocabulary words and certain grammatical features). however, it can be harmful when students use it to get answers for questions on their assignments or to do writing assignments for them, because it's impossible to prove, unlike traditional plagiarism..

— High school teacher | California

   I think AI is a super interesting new technology that is emerging and has great propensity to change the world in which we live. I think it can also be a double-edged sword if we are not careful and do not tread lightly. We must avoid at all costs it replacing teachers as it does have the propensity to do so.

— Elementary school principal | Texas

Data analysis for this article was provided by the EdWeek Research Center. Learn more about the center’s work.

Sign Up for EdWeek Tech Leader

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

What Makes Technology Good or Bad for Us?

Everyone’s worried about smartphones. Headlines like “ Have smartphones destroyed a generation? ” and “ Smartphone addiction could be changing your brain ” paint a bleak picture of our smartphone addiction and its long-term consequences. This isn’t a new lament—public opinion at the advent of the newspaper worried that people would forego the stimulating pleasures of early-morning conversation in favor of reading the daily .

Is the story of technology really that bad? Certainly there’s some reason to worry. Smartphone use has been linked to serious issues, such as dwindling attention spans , crippling depression , and even increased incidence of brain cancer . Ultimately, though, the same concern comes up again and again: Smartphones can’t be good for us, because they’re replacing the real human connection of the good old days.

Everyone’s heard how today’s teens just sit together in a room, texting, instead of actually talking to each other. But could those teenagers actually be getting something meaningful and real out of all that texting?

The science of connection

A quick glance at the research on technology-mediated interaction reveals an ambivalent literature. Some studies show that time spent socializing online can decrease loneliness , increase well-being , and help the socially anxious learn how to connect to others. Other studies suggest that time spent socializing online can cause loneliness , decrease well-being , and foster a crippling dependence on technology-mediated interaction to the point that users prefer it to face-to-face conversation.

It’s tempting to say that some of these studies must be right and others wrong, but the body of evidence on both sides is a little too robust to be swept under the rug. Instead, the impact of social technology is more complicated. Sometimes, superficially similar behaviors have fundamentally different consequences. Sometimes online socialization is good for you, sometimes it’s bad, and the devil is entirely in the details.

This isn’t a novel proposition; after all, conflicting results started appearing within the first few studies into the internet’s social implications, back in the 1990s. Many people have suggested that to understand the consequences of online socialization, we need to dig deeper into situational factors and circumstances. But what we still have to do is move beyond recognition of the problem to provide an answer: When, how, and why are some online interactions great, while others are dangerous?

The interpersonal connection behaviors framework

As a scientist of close relationships, I can’t help but see online interactions differently from thinkers in other fields. People build relationships by demonstrating their understanding of each other’s needs and perspectives, a cyclical process that brings them closer together. If I tell you my secrets, and you respond supportively, I’m much more likely to confide in you again—and you, in turn, are much more likely to confide in me.

This means that every time two people talk to each other, an opportunity for relationship growth is unfolding. Many times, that opportunity isn’t taken; we aren’t about to have an in-depth conversation with the barista who asks for our order. But connection is always theoretically possible, and that’s true whether we’re interacting online or face-to-face.

Close relationships are the bread and butter of happiness—and even health. Being socially isolated is a stronger predictor of mortality than is smoking multiple cigarettes a day . If we want to understand the role technology plays in our well-being, we need to start with the role it plays in our relationships.

And it turns out that the kind of technology-mediated interactions that lead to positive outcomes are exactly those that are likely to build stronger relationships. Spending your time online by scheduling interactions with people you see day in and day out seems to pay dividends in increased social integration . Using the internet to compensate for being lonely just makes you lonelier; using the internet to actively seek out connection has the opposite effect .

“The kind of technology-mediated interactions that lead to positive outcomes are exactly those that are likely to build stronger relationships”

On the other hand, technology-mediated interactions that don’t really address our close relationships don’t seem to do us any good—and might, in fact, do us harm. Passively scrolling through your Facebook feed without interacting with people has been linked to decreased well-being and increased depression post-Facebook use.

That kind of passive usage is a good example of “ social snacking .” Like eating junk food, social snacking can temporarily satisfy you, but it’s lacking in nutritional content. Looking at your friends’ posts without ever responding might make you feel more connected to them, but it doesn’t build intimacy.

Passive engagement has a second downside, as well: social comparison . When we compare our messy lived experiences to others’ curated self-presentations, we are likely to suffer from lowered self-esteem , happiness, and well-being. This effect is only exacerbated when we consume people’s digital lives without interacting with them, making it all too easy to miss the less photogenic moments of their lives.

Moving forward

The interpersonal connection behaviors framework doesn’t explain everything that might influence our well-being after spending time on social media. The internet poses plenty of other dangers—for two examples, the sense of wasting time or emotional contagion from negative news. However, a focus on meaningful social interaction can help explain decades of contradictory findings. And even if the framework itself is challenged by future work, its central concept is bound to be upheld: We have to study the details of how people are spending their time online if we want to understand its likely effects.

In the meantime, this framework has some practical implications for those worried about their own online time. If you make sure you’re using social media for genuinely social purposes, with conscious thought about how it can improve your life and your relationships, you’ll be far more likely to enjoy your digital existence.

This article was originally published on the Behavioral Scientist . Read the original article .

About the Author

Jenna Clark

Jenna Clark, Ph.D. , is a senior behavioral researcher at Duke University's Center for Advanced Hindsight, where she works to help people make healthy decisions in spite of themselves. She's also interested in how technology contributes to our well-being through its effect on our close personal relationships.

You May Also Enjoy

Are Smartphones Bad for Teen Mental Health?

Five Ways to Build Caring Community on Social Media

How Smartphones Are Killing Conversation

How to Stop Your Smartphone From Hurting Your Health

How to Keep Your Smartphone from Hurting Your Relationships

Does Technology Cut Us Off from Other People?

• Value networks
• Competency-Based Learning
• Course Access
• Data & Assessment
• Personalized & Blended Learning
• Social Capital
• Software & Hardware
• Teacher of the Future
• Accreditation
• Affordability
• Business Model Innovation
• Community College
• Credentialing
• For-Profit Providers
• Workforce Readiness
• Chronic Diseases
• Enabling Science & Technology
• Interoperability
• Medical Research & Education
• Policy and Regulations
• Precision Medicine
• Provider & Reimbursement Models
• Entrepreneurs
• Humanitarian Aid
• Infrastructure
• Institutions
• Market-creating innovations
• Nonconsumption
• Private Sector
• Disruptive Innovation
• Jobs to Be Done
• Interdependence & Modularity
• Publications

Filter by Author

• Alana Dunagan (58)
• Alex Hernandez (11)
• Allison Akhnoukh (1)
• Amy Anderson (2)
• Andrew Sears (2)
• Ann Somers Hogg (54)
• Anna Arsenault (1)
• Anna Gu (1)
• Anny Chou (1)
• Aroop Gupta (4)
• Ben Wanamaker (20)
• Bryan Hassel (1)
• Chandrasekar Iyer (11)
• Charity Eyre (2)
• Chelsea Waite (56)
• Christensen Institute (192)
• Christina Ross (4)
• Clayton Christensen (13)
• David Sundahl (7)
• Devin Bean (6)
• Efosa Ojomo (221)
• Emmanuelle Verdieu (11)
• Evan Shore (2)
• Gisele Huff (1)
• Heather Staker (88)
• Horace Dediu (2)
• Jacob Fohtung (12)
• Jenny White (15)
• Jessica Plante (82)
• Jason Hwang (7)
• Jon George (3)
• Julia Freeland Fisher (253)
• Katherine Mackey (129)
• Katrina Bushko (3)
• Lee Weinstein (1)
• Lily-Hayes Kaufman (1)
• Lincoln Wilcox (33)
• Lisa Duty (1)
• Lisa McIntyre-Hite (1)
• Luis Flores (4)
• Mahnaz R. Charania (27)
• Mallory Dwinal (2)
• Meg Evans (1)
• Meredith Liu (5)
• Meris Stansbury (3)
• Michael Horn (538)
• Michael Devonas (14)
• Michael Lemaire (2)
• Michele R. Pistone (3)
• Michelle R. Weise (41)
• Parthasarathi Varatharajan (4)
• Blended Learning (27)
• Rebecca Fogg (37)
• Rich Alton (5)
• Richard Price (49)
• Robert Markle (6)
• Ryan Marling (31)
• Sandy Sanchez (36)
• Stepan Mekhitarian (1)
• Subhajit Das (6)
• Terry Armstrong (1)
• Thomas Arnett (250)
• Tim Brady (1)

New research answers whether technology is good or bad for learning

By: Michael B. Horn

For years educators and scholars have debated whether technology aids learning or inhibits it.

In the most recent issue of Education Next, for example, Susan Payne Carter, Kyle Greenberg, and Michael S. Walker  write  about their research finding that allowing any computer usage in the classroom “reduces students’ average final-exam performance by roughly one-fifth of a standard deviation.” Other studies have shown similarly dismal numbers for student learning when technology is introduced in the classroom.

Yet there are also bright shining stars of technology use—both in proof points and in studies, such as this Ithaka  study  or this U.S. Department of Education 2010  meta-analysis .

So what gives? Since 2008  I’ve, perhaps conveniently, argued  that scholars and advocates on both sides of this debate are correct. As we wrote in  Disrupting Class  in 2008, computers had been around for two decades. Even 10 years ago, we had already spent over $60 billion on them in K–12 schools in the United States to little effect. The reason quite simply was that when we crammed computers into existing learning models, they produced begrudging or negative results. To take a higher education example, when I was a student at the Harvard Business School, far fewer of us paid attention to the case discussion on the couple days at the end of the term when laptops were allowed, as we chose to instead chat online and coordinate evening plans. In that context, I would ban laptops, too.

When the learning model is fundamentally redesigned to incorporate intentionally the benefits of technology, say, in a  blended-learning model , however, you can get very different results. To use another personal example, I fervently hope that the public school district where my daughters will go to school will comprehensively redesign its learning environments to personalize learning for each student through the use of technology. As we disruptive innovation acolytes like to say, it’s almost always about the model, not the technology.

This finding isn’t unique to the technology of computers in classrooms. It was true with chalkboards as well.

As Harvard’s David Dockterman  recounts , the blackboard was reportedly invented in the early 19 th  century. The technology was adopted quickly throughout higher education in a lecture model to convey information to all the students at once. The first recorded use in North America was in 1801 at the United States Military Academy in West Point—ironically the location of the study that Carter, Greenberg, and Walker conducted—and it spread quickly.

Having observed the success of the blackboard in college, schoolhouses began installing the technology, but the teaching and learning changed minimally. The blackboards were largely unused because teachers had difficulty figuring out how to use them. Why? At the time, the prevalent model of education in public schools was the one-room schoolhouse in which all students, regardless of age or level, met in a single room and were taught by a single teacher. Rather than teaching all the students the same subjects, in the same way, at the same pace—like in today’s schools—the teacher rotated around the room and worked individually with small groups of students. As a result, the blackboard didn’t make much sense in the context of the one-room schoolhouse because the teacher rarely, if ever, stood in front of the class to lecture.

It wasn’t until the early 1900s when the public education system changed its instructional model—to today’s factory model—that the blackboard became a staple of American education. Lesson? The model matters.

Fast forward to today, and we see the same dynamic. A new—and very helpful— analysis of the research  helps tease this out and perhaps can at last break the infuriating log-jam between those who argue technology is a distraction at best and those who argue it is an extremely positive force.

At J-PAL—MIT’s Poverty Action Lab—Maya Escueta (Columbia), Vincent Quan (J-PAL North America), Andre Joshua Nickow (Northwestern), and Phil Oreopoulos (University of Toronto; Co-Chair, J-PAL’s Education sector)  released a review  of more than 100 experimental studies (RCTs and RDDs) in education technology to examine the evidence across four key areas of education technology: access to technology, computer-assisted learning, technology-based behavioral interventions in education, and online learning.

Among the findings, according to the summary J-PAL provided:

• Computer-assisted learning, in which educational software helps students develop particular skills, is particularly promising, especially in math. This is likely because of the software’s ability to personalize by adapting to a student’s learning level and letting the student learn at the right pace for her, as well as the ability to provide teachers immediate feedback on student performance that is actionable. This is of course no surprise to those of us who have been excited about blended-learning models that personalize learning for students.
• Technology-based behavioral interventions—like nudging a student to register for a course—produce consistently improved learning outcomes.
• Initiatives that provide computers to every student in a classroom do not improve learning outcomes. That is  very predictable given our research on the perils of cramming technology . I’ll repeat myself again here: You have to focus on the learning model first followed by the technology in service of that learning model. Initiatives that start with the technology almost always fail in my experience.
• Research on online courses is still early, but it appears that “blended” courses produce similar outcomes as in-person courses, which could drive down costs. In-person classes outperform fully online ones—a reason to still keep fully online courses focused on areas of nonconsumption, where the alternative is nothing at all and therefore not competing against an in-person course.

In my view, this is what I’d expect a review to find, as it points to the tremendous promise of technology to personalize learning (note: the outcomes here are still reliant on good learning design) and the peril of merely cramming technology in to existing, analog learning models.

Will this spur the research community to take note and sharpen the questions it asks about technology and learning going forward? Let’s hope so. It’s high time we move beyond a broken debate and simplistic research around whether technology in education is good or bad that serve no one’s interests.

Michael B. Horn

Michael is a co-founder and distinguished fellow at the Clayton Christensen Institute. He currently serves as Chairman of the Clayton Christensen Institute and works as a senior strategist at Guild Education.

Hello! Thank you for visiting. Stay up-to-date with us by signing up for our newsletter.

We won’t sell your information to anyone.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Subscribe to our mailing list

• Global Prosperity
• Emerging Research
• Higher Education

We appreciate your interest and support in the Christensen Institute. We will be sending out your first newsletter at the beginning of next month.

AI Is Good For Education — And Bad For Teachers Who Teach Like Machines

BOGOTÁ - Early in 2023, Microsoft tycoon Bill Gates included teaching among the professions most threatened by Artificial Intelligence (AI), arguing that a robot could, in principle, instruct as well as any school-teacher. While Gates is an undoubted expert in his field, one wonders how much he knows about teaching.

As an avowed believer in using technology to improve student results, Gates has argued for teachers to use more tech in classrooms, and to cut class sizes. But schools and countries that have followed his advice, pumping money into technology at school, or students who completed secondary schooling with the backing of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have not attained the superlative results expected of the Gates recipe.

Thankfully, he had enough sense to add some nuance to his views, instead suggesting changes to teacher training that he believes could improve school results.

I agree with his view that AI can be a big and positive contributor to schooling. Certainly, technological changes prompt unease and today, something tremendous must be afoot if a leading AI developer, Geoffrey Hinton, has warned of its threat to people and society.

But this isn't the first innovation to upset people. Over 2,000 years ago, the philosopher Socrates wondered, in the Platonic dialogue Phaedrus, whether reading and writing wouldn't curb people's ability to reflect and remember. Writing might lead them to despise memory, he observed. In the 18th and 19th centuries, English craftsmen feared the machines of the Industrial Revolution would destroy their professions, producing lesser-quality items faster, and cheaper.

Their fears were not entirely unfounded, but it did not happen quite as they predicted. Many jobs disappeared, but others emerged and the majority of jobs evolved. Machines caused a fundamental restructuring of labor at the time, and today, AI will likely do the same with the modern workplace .

Many predicted that television, computers and online teaching would replace teachers, which has yet to happen. In recent decades, teachers have banned students from using calculators to do sums, insisting on teaching arithmetic the old way. It is the same dry and mechanical approach to teaching which now wants to keep AI out of the classroom.

But it is a mistaken perspective, as we need to reduce routine-bound and repetitive teaching, and instead concentrate on processes that favor the student's holistic or integral development. AI can help.

A passionate teacher is irreplaceable

The pandemic showed what some technological optimists like Gates could not understand: that good education is not about quantitative learning, but development. It involves teamwork, communication, interaction, and even emotion and artistry. That means people gathered in a classroom.

Teachers with a passion make an impression. Their eagerness is contagious. Their challenges and oversight, and the reading and essays they set for their pupils, promote an ability to reflect, to articulate and to argue. Beyond the page or screen, a good teacher will foment life abilities including resolve and a desire to succeed. Good teaching is key to the student's broader personal development.

Schools that merely transmit information to pupils are at risk.

Teachers have protested the dangerous idea of pupils using an AI chatbot to do their homework. But they are mistaken if they see AI as a simple tool to 'copy' the answers. What AI does do, instead, is threaten a repetitive model of education based on the accumulation of facts and data.

This is the prevalent model in Colombia and Latin America, and it has done nothing to change the profound structures students use to think, read, feel and act. Schools that merely transmit information to pupils are at risk — indeed, they should have disappeared decades ago, because the internet already holds that information.

Some teachers do not realize, however, that the internet does not hold the skills needed for thinking, communicating or living with other people . The educational system should devote itself to developing such skills, and not burden youngsters with facts and rules.

In the future, students will hand in two pieces of written work: one, the chatbot-produced draft and the other, what the student elaborates on its basis. That elaboration is the indicator of the educational process, because learning inevitably entails a significant modification of previous cognitive structures. This is the first condition of development, and the second is integrality.

Teachers to teach

In the future, chatbots will help teachers assess students more accurately. Education must feed and consolidate processes that aid students to overcome weaknesses and access more complex ethical and thought systems. Traditional education stifled this with routines, grading and reports.

Machines will help us transform education to change society for the better.

Feedback is a part of the educational process, which is a dialogue between teacher and pupil. Here, AI will act as a singular monitor of students' progress in learning and absorbing skills in reading, thinking and conceptualization. With this information at hand, the priority for teachers will be to guide, or better guide, mediate , communicate and consolidate the relevant concepts. Our focus will be to advance the developmental process.

Teachers will be able to devote themselves to essential tasks, not the trivial transmission of information or grading. AI can do that, so we can work on developing more empathetic, concerned and creative individuals. Our task will be to shape youngsters who have greater autonomy and understanding of themselves and others, and are able to forge a life project for themselves. These tasks will remain, for some time yet, the preserve of humans.

Gates was mistaken when he said AI could teach as well as people, but right in saying it can provide teachers with great opportunities. I would even say it is the ideal ally in hastening the teaching changes we need to help coming generations.

As the Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai has said, a single girl, a book or a teacher can change the world. I believe education is the best tool to change the people who will change the world.

If Bill Gates is a technological optimist, I am an educational optimist — hoping machines will help us transform education to change society for the better. This should not however be taken as an expression of faith in "technologized" education.

I shall soon ask a chatbot to see what it thinks of this. I know one thing: whatever it says, I shall rework and enhance its feedback, cognizant of its risks , like those of every contraption we have invented since the dawn of our time.

Like our content? Follow us for more. This article first appeared on Worldcrunch.com It was translated and adapted by Worldcrunch in partnership with EL ESPECTADOR . For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here .

More From Forbes

Navigating the future: edtech investment and the new learning paradigm.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Denys Vorobyov, CEO at EltexSoft : Custom software solutions for accelerated business success.

The educational technology (edtech) sector has seen unprecedented growth in recent years, particularly accelerated by the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on learning modalities. In fact, according to HolonIQ, global edtech funding reached record levels in 2021, illustrating the growing investor confidence in the sector.

The last several years have been quite dynamic, with increased investments in digital infrastructure and a shift toward remote learning during the pandemic. This transition has necessitated reevaluating traditional educational models and spurred innovation.

The pandemic highlighted the necessity of digital solutions in education, leading to a "new normal" where hybrid learning environments have become more common. This significant shift suggests that technology integration in education is now a long-term trend rather than a temporary solution.

How The Pandemic Impacted EdTech

The pandemic accelerated educators' familiarity with edtech tools and curriculum, and the new wave of AI has enabled teachers and students to innovate and be more effective.

Samsung Issues Critical Update For Millions Of Galaxy Users

How to watch real martha baby reindeer interview with piers morgan, a ukrainian sport plane drone just flew 800 miles into russia to blow up an oil refinery.

This trend invigorated the edtech space. During the pandemic, Managing Director Ian Chiu of Owl Ventures, a venture capitalist firm that specializes in education, noted that the pandemic brought more talent into the education technology space and more companies working "at the intersection of education and other major sectors."

Increasing talent and resources helps to ensure quality innovation. Long-term success and acceptance of edtech solutions, though, depend on the balance between innovation and educational integrity.

Current Investment Strategies And Challenges

While there has been a general decline in funding across sectors since the pandemic, edtech presents a unique landscape. Despite the changes in the capital markets, the industry still has significant opportunities for growth and innovation.

However, securing funding has become more complex , with investors looking closely at companies' abilities to balance innovation with tangible educational outcomes. To secure and sustain investment, edtech-focused investors want to see startups that can significantly improve educational outcomes and experiences.

Likewise, artificial intelligence (AI) stands out as a transformative force in the future of edtech. AI solutions, from adaptive learning platforms to AI-driven tutoring systems, offer a lot of potential to revolutionize education.

However, the integration of AI into educational settings is challenging. There is a need for careful implementation to ensure that AI tools are accessible, ethical and effectively augment the learning experience without replacing the human elements of education.

Building Transformative Businesses

Based on these trends, venture capitalists and edtech leaders are increasingly focused on balancing short-term innovation with long-term educational outcomes. Many are investing in platforms that innovate through technology and deeply integrate educational research to ensure that learning improvements are sustainable and impactful.

For instance, VCs prioritize companies that develop adaptive learning technologies that personalize education at scale. For example, Discovery Education recently acquired Dreambox Learning, an intelligent adaptive learning platform that dynamically adjusts to the learner's interactions and proficiency in math.

Investors in these types of products often collaborate with educational experts and institutions to validate and refine edtech products, ensuring they align with pedagogical goals and show real-world efficacy. This approach helps create innovative educational tools capable of delivering long-term value to students and educators.

Strategies For EdTech: Balancing Innovation With Educational Integrity

For edtech companies navigating the current landscape, balancing innovation with educational integrity is essential. Here are a few strategic steps to doing so:

1. Focus on user-centric design. Develop products that address real educational needs, ensuring that the technology enhances learning outcomes rather than merely adding complexity. This involves continuous feedback loops with users—students, teachers and administrators—to tailor solutions that resonate with and support the educational community.

2. Invest in scalable solutions. With the rapid adoption of edtech tools, scalability becomes crucial. Invest in robust back-end infrastructures that handle increased demand without compromising user experience. This ensures that your innovations can effectively reach a broader audience.

3. Emphasize data security and privacy. As edtech solutions handle sensitive data, prioritizing security and privacy is crucial. This protects users, builds stakeholder trust and helps to comply with educational regulations and standards.

3. Collaborate with educational institutions. To ensure educational integrity, collaborate closely with schools, colleges and academic authorities. These partnerships help align your technological innovations with educational curriculums and pedagogies, ensuring they add value to the educational process.

4. Commit to continuous learning and improvement. The edtech landscape is perpetually evolving. Stay ahead by committing to ongoing research and development. This includes keeping up with technological advances and incorporating pedagogical innovations into your offerings.

5. Measure impact and iterate. Regularly assess your products' educational impact. This involves not just user satisfaction but also tangible learning outcomes. Use this data to refine and improve your offerings, ensuring they contribute positively to education in the long term.

By following these guidelines, edtech leaders can effectively balance the drive for innovation with the responsibility to provide educational value, ensuring their solutions are both cutting-edge and deeply rooted in enhancing learning experiences.

Forbes Technology Council is an invitation-only community for world-class CIOs, CTOs and technology executives. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions