While studying different sources on EdTech’s role in education, we often came across one promise from EdTech companies: technology will make learning more effective than anything that came before. But the research has not kept pace with the investment.
International test scores in countries with the highest levels of classroom technology adoption have not improved. In many cases, they have declined. Student mental health has deteriorated sharply in the same period that screen time increased. What have researchers, neuroscientists, and educators actually found about technology in schools? Is it really as useful as Big Brother says?
The five myths that keep EdTech alive
According to neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath, who specializes in human learning and brain development, the EdTech industry remains resilient in the face of disappointing results because of five myths.
Myth one: education is broken, and technology will fix it
This narrative treats traditional schooling as a failed system desperately in need of disruption. The historical record does not support it. Schools were performing reasonably well by most international measures until the widespread introduction of screens into classrooms. If anything, the arrival of technology correlates with the declines in performance and wellbeing we are now so worried about.
Myth two: multimedia enhances the learning experience
Be it interactive animations, embedded audio, or colorful visual effects, these things don’t really enhance understanding. When your child or you yourself is entertained, it doesn’t mean that you’re learning anything.
Myth three: letting students choose supports better learning
"Personalized learning" is a common marketing term for EdTech products. But learning usually works best when it involves intentional, hard work under professional guidance. Following the path of least resistance in a self-selected digital environment yields few, if any, visible results.
Myth four: with technology, children can learn independently
Consider young children. For learning to be effective, they need to be physically present. Do you really believe that a six-year-old can follow a digital curriculum independently and be productive at the same time? Even developmental research doesn’t support this idea.
Myth five: AI tutoring systems outperform human teachers
AI tutoring tools consistently fail to match the outcomes of skilled human instruction. Why? A human educator can recognize a child’s frustration and adjust their approach in real time. Teachers can also offer invaluable emotional support. Currently, no AI system is capable of doing this.
Why using technology for studying can be genuinely dangerous
The risks of digital technology in education are not hypothetical or minor. Here are a few of them from Jared Cooney Horvath’s book The Digital Delusion.
First, reading from screens produces significantly lower comprehension and retention than reading from paper. This “mode effect” extends beyond reading. For example, students perform worse on computerized versions of tasks than on equivalent pen-and-paper ones. It happens even when the content is identical.
Attention is another serious issue. Most EdTech companies business models are incompatible with deep learning. They focus on maximizing the time clients spend on their platforms through visual rewards or rapid feedback loops. Meanwhile, for true learning, people need to sustain focused attention.
According to Justin Reich, an educational researcher, classroom technology tools that assess student progress can only measure what computers can assess: structured, routine tasks with defined correct answers. As digital assessment becomes more central, educational systems narrow their focus toward these measurable skills. Simultaneously, they move away from complex communication and creative problem-solving.
The physical and emotional costs are real, too. Long-term screen use in children is associated with increased rates of anxiety and depression, disrupted sleep, and chronic physical complaints. What’s more, many EdTech platforms collect a lot of data on children. This raises real concerns about how it’s used and who it ultimately serves.
Although the use of artificial intelligence is becoming a part of EdTech, we should be more careful. The most immediate concern is the erosion of independent thinking. When students use AI to generate or process information, they bypass the cognitive effort through which genuine learning occurs. We genuinely understand something when we go through the process of self-discovery and surpass our limits. Students who outsource this process to AI get simplified explanations of difficult topics and texts with no grammatical mistakes, but they are not learning more efficiently.
We have created something that has convinced many smart people that it is, in some way, the spark of a new form of intelligence.
— Ethan Mollick, Co-Intelligence
Co-Intelligence
What can schools actually do?
The picture painted by the research is sobering, but we shouldn’t despair. All the mentioned facts do not mean we must reject new educational technology wholesale. Instead, it’s worth being much more deliberate about when, why, and how it is used.
Return to paper
Many sources, including The Digital Delusion, advise using paper where it works best — for reading, note-taking, and most forms of written work. Schools shouldn’t issue devices as the default classroom resource for every task. Instead, they should ask specifically which tasks genuinely benefit from a screen and which do not.
Ban smartphones
Another recommendation from Jared Cooney Horvath is to create phone-free schools. Real-life examples of schools that have implemented full bell-to-bell bans consistently show improved focus, better classroom relationships, and academic gains.
Adopt technology skeptically
This advice comes from Failure to Disrupt by Justin Reich. In fact, technology shouldn’t be adopted in response to marketing pressure or the fear of being left behind. Try the “tinkering” approach instead. It comes down to making small, evidence-based changes and evaluating them honestly before scaling. Simply put, when a new tool is about to be integrated into the teaching process, the person in favor of it must provide verified evidence that this tool produces meaningful learning gains. If the evidence doesn’t exist, the tool isn’t ready.
Failure to Disrupt
Put teacher collaboration at the center of innovation
This is yet another recommendation from Justin Reich. In his opinion, teacher communities are among the most powerful forces for genuine educational improvement. When teachers have time to share what works, to develop classroom resources together, and to push back collectively on technology that doesn’t serve their students, the quality of teaching improves. For example, tools like Scratch and Desmos succeeded in educational settings because they were built in genuine collaboration with teacher communities.
Don’t leave parents out of the equation
In Digital Delusion, to use technology wisely for kids’ studying, parents should care. A single concerned parent can be ignored. A coordinated group of parents demanding transparency on student data and evidence behind tools is much harder to dismiss. In practice, parents can develop a shared “Learning First Charter.” It’s a document that defines what families expect before technology is introduced into classroom resources.
The history of EdTech is sometimes a history of promises that have not been kept. Yet this doesn’t mean that new educational technology has no place in schools. When all participants in the educational process are aware of the dangers and benefits of new tools, they become a valuable addition to the traditional approach.
Credentials:
