Stepping Back From Technology in Education
In the economy of convenience, technology has been continually hailed as the revolutionary that will come to solve education. However, research continually points to it being quite the opposite.
As we continue through the first half of this decade, technology continues to be a contentious topic in educational institutions. Many institutions have engaged in the belief that technology has incredible potential to improve learning outcomes. However, after decades of digital technology use in education there is still a lack of evidence that it improves upon traditional methods. In fact, over–reliance on the technology can negatively impact learning outcomes, and modern AI systems can worsen this through cognitive offloading. These negative impacts directly correlate to the amount technology is used in the process of learning; something that corporations and schools must come to contend with. It is time that educational institutions develop a more informed relationship with the technology they use.
This article is a practical article that was conceived alongside the idealist philosophy espoused here.
As such, some of the content shares overlap with the previous article.
Firstly, a definition of technology is needed. Throughout this article, the term technology is used to refer to digital technologies which predominantly focus on computers and smart phones. However, the principles laid out throughout this article can—in a more limited sense—be extended towards graphing calculators, smart boards, and other educational technologies that inhibit attention by providing distractions to the student. This focus on attention is key throughout all of education, as it is itself the only true measurable quality of a student that correlates directly to the efficacy of learning. Additionally, while the predominant focus of educational research is that of the developing child, these distractions may very well impact adult learners. If the reader has experienced how difficult it is to read, or otherwise engage in deep attention, one must think on how technology plays a role.
The Consequences of Technology
Despite the promise of a technological revolution in education, very little has been actualized in academic outcomes. The average academic performance across 23 countries has been falling on average since the early 2010s (OECD, 2022). This trend predates the COVID-19 pandemic, and more closely correlates to the mass adoption of smart phones; which grew steadily alongside this decline (Pew Research Center). Despite the promise of technological revolution coming with improvements in learning, it seems the opposite has occurred. For this reason it is time academic institutions abandon the notion that technology will improve learning; instead pedagogues must determine ways to best avoid the problems technology has created. This rhetorical inversion will be a difficult one; but one that must occur as mounting evidence shows that the over–reliance on technology is harming students internationally.
Technological Usage Lowers Academic Performance
In order to begin this rhetorical change, we must see reason to believe that this correlation is, in fact, causal. Indeed, the evidence supports causation: The OECD (2015) found a consistent negative relationship between technology availability and PISA performance across 23 countries (pp. 151-152). This is a clear trend across the 23 member countries; the more technology is available for students, the worse their learning outcomes are. Additionally, they found that very few other studies reported positive learning outcomes when technology was prioritized in schools. Instead, most studies showed either little change or a negative change in learning outcomes (p. 162). While the variance of the studies cited by the OECD shows the difficulty in meaningfully measuring education, the lack of any positive studies is damning towards technology use within school settings.
There can be infinite uses of the computer
and of new age technology, but if
teachers themselves are not able to
bring it into the classroom and make it work,
then it fails.
— Nancy Kassebaum
The trends revealed via reports created by the OECD showcase the dire need for change in education. Phones, online coursework, and other uses of technology all contribute to this negative effect; the OECD sees consistent outcomes once a certain amount of technology use is exceeded. This comes despite the promises of technologists and entrepreneurs, who argue that technology will usher in an improved academic landscape. We need to move away from the optimistic arguments of potential outcomes; instead looking at the real outcomes we are currently experiencing, and using what we are seeing occur throughout academic to develop a healthier relationship towards these systems. For the OECD has observed a mild improvement in performance with limited technological access, and such a maxima may just be the answer in education. However, finding this maxima is especially important as AI systems are beginning to become commonplace in educational institutions.
Artificial Intelligence in Academia
With the modern rise of generative AI, a new issue in academia has emerged. Students now have access to software that can generate entire papers, ideas, and research by merely asking a question. However, this convenience comes at a very important cost: Our ability to think. Michael Gerlich shows that the more individuals use generative AI tools, the worse their critical thinking becomes. Additionally, younger individuals show a more pronounced decline in ability. This result may be surprising, but it fits neatly into a simple model of cognition: Learning is the application of effort to mentally retrieve knowledge, synthesize new information from that knowledge, and then being capable of applying of that knowledge to another subject. When we circumvent any individual component of this process, we interrupt learning as a whole.
For example: Suppose a student is given an assignment to write an analysis of Plato’s Theory of Forms. If the student simply submits the response of a generative AI chatbot, then they had little involvement besides prompting, leading to little focus on the actual analysis. Even if the student generated this paper through continual prompting to engage with the AI, they have only learned how to prompt that system. Furthermore, however, even if the student only used such a system minimally—such as for answering direct questioning—the attention towards problem solving still diminishes as the research and analytical processes are being offset by the immediate availability of answers. The student needs not interpret, or reflect upon, information with these systems; instead they are immediately provided with information that they can then use. Therefore, one can see how if any step of this becoming relegated to a machine will inhibit the entire learning process, surrendering it to the computer.
This cognitive surrender is alarming in general, but is especially important in the context of education. Generative AI detection tools have gotten worse as these models improve, including false positives on human writing (Elkhatat). If institutions cannot rely on traditional concepts of academic integrity—and the recognition of plagiarism—consistently, they must adapt in a proactive way if they are to retain the rigor needed throughout academia. This may involve providing a thorough education as to the impacts of AI on learning, as well as operational and curricular changes to make the use of AI more difficult. This could be the return to written assignments and banning of unrestricted electronics within schools; these efforts serve to enforce that the student remains engaged in the academic process. Even if the student continues to cheat, the cheating relies on a manual transcription process that imparts a greater learning effort than the process of digital copying.
While these steps are important to take within educational institutions, it is important to maintain a cooperative relationship between pedagogues and students. AI addiction and dependence is already linked to higher academic burnout (Lan et al.). If educators are to proactively mitigate the impacts of AI, then it must be done so in a manner that also mitigates this academic burnout. No amount of education or prospective punishment will persuade those who will not engage with the content to begin with. As such, in addition to operational changes, educators should focus on student engagement where possible. This in tandem with phone bans may lead to better engagement in classroom settings, ideally assisting burnt out students as well. It must be said, however, that an overburdening of teachers is already a well established problem in education; the educators referenced here are more likely to be administrative faculty and the academic institutions themselves.
Reducing Technology Is Imperative
As academic issues continue to be discussed in the context of technology, a framework of meaningful interaction must be developed for pedagogues. It is clear that quantity—from time in front of a screen to perpetual access to them—has failed to provide an improvement to student learning. However, there is reason to believe that regulated technology use can help students. So what sort of evaluation framework can be developed to find the best ways to integrate technology into academia? The approach described here relies on evidence backed actions that can be taken by schools to not only drive academic achievement, but also student engagement and well-being. The limitations of this research are that of any meaningful education research: Measuring living, willed individuals in a setting of education is consistently fraught with problems in scientific rigor. As such, this follows the thermometer metaphor used previously.
Phone Bans and Academic Performance
One of the most immediate actions that schools can take is the bell-to-bell banning of phones. These phone bans have been shown to have a positive impact on student bodies: Reducing bullying and increasing academic performance in the United States (Böttger & Zierer). Additionally, these improvements have also been replicated in schools across Spain (Beneito & Vicente-Chirivella). Phone bans are an example of directly attacking the problem by removing technology from classrooms, and it has had measurable benefits within the schools that implement them. This direct action is the first step in developing a better schooling environment throughout So while differing studies showcase different scales of these results, this trend shows that there is a methodology behind phone bans that can improve student learning and well–being.
These bans should be seen as the evidence needed to further restrict technology use. Utilizing pen and paper assignments and essays, oral dialectics in group or classroom settings, and physical activities all may give students more substantial learning outcomes. This focus on learning is what must be remembered, as these approaches do not always negate technology use or cheating outside of the school environment. Extracurricular behavior without, these activities within school settings require the student to be an active participant in the work they do. This active participation increases their attention on the given material, and this attention may just be the most critical component in a student’s learning. So while things like phone bans can help, it is important to understand why they tends towards a beneficial relationship with education, not only that they do.
Improving Attention is the Key
Neuroscientist, and proponent of phone bans, Jared C. Horvath argues that a primary reason that they are effective is that it improves the attention of students. Additionally, he shows that technology consistently falls below the minimum learning outcomes for all students except for specific learning needs, despite the outcomes being positive overall. This further refutes the idea that technological reliance will improve academic performance. Even though we do see learning, it simply isn’t enough: Students who rely upon digital computers in learning environments are, on average, falling behind. He attributes this consistent, but unacceptable, learning improvement to an observation: That the only measured variable to consistently change learning outcomes is the amount of time learning; the attention given towards the activity.
People have access now to amazing amounts
of information, but their attention spans
are getting shorter, their focus is gone.
Instant gratification. Instant knowledge orgasm!
I think that a lot of the great thinkers
couldn’t achieve what they did through a computer.
— Jaz Coleman
For the reasons outlined by Horvath, it is clear that in order to ensure quality technology use in schools a focus must be put on maximizing attention. General purpose computers provide an ample marketplace of distractions, intentionally or not, and these distractions reduce the amount of learning possible on them. This marketplace may useful in some circumstances, but in learning it is a sabotage to the process itself. An effort must be made to remove distractions from the computing environment: Placing a focus on the academic content and removing extraneous—and superfluous—information. Some software systems exist to improve this—including the kiosk mode of browsers, and virtual testing software—but these are bandages attempting to patch an issue inherent to these complex, multifaceted machines.
Therefore, any meaningful change to the academic environment must hold the attention of the student as a primary concern. Pen and paper will always hold fewer distractions than a networked computer, even if the student may choose to scribble or draw in the margins. Modern computers, even when locked down, have far more methods of interaction that a student can be distracted by: Attempts to break the lock-down; multi–modal stimulation through the screen, speakers, and interface devices; and a greater access to information all become sources of this damaging hail that rains upon attention. Just like how a cheating student must still work to transcribe work onto a piece of paper, the slower pace of the activity enables a greater opportunity for reflection and retrieval in meaningfully engaged students.
Working With Students
Students, especially those in secondary school, presently use technology in order to develop their social intelligence (Davis). If schools are to effectively limit the access students have to technology, they must place an added effort on replacing their social role within their campus culture. Additionally, students must be educated as to why the technology they rely on elsewhere is not available within an academic setting. With this education comes the need to foster a cooperative—but authoritative—relationship with students, instead of a punitive or authoritarian environment. This distinction is critical as teachers must be able to establish rules and expectations for a classroom. This means that a teacher must be able to enforce these rules, relying on the enforcement apparatus of an institution, as otherwise academic performance can plummet (Cisero & Reese–Weber).
This distinction between authoritative and authoritarian is critical in fostering a cooperative classroom environment. An authoritarian environment is solely punitive—the goal of the environment is to coerce certain behaviors in individuals. Authoritative environments, meanwhile, establish goals and outcomes for individuals and then focus on assisting them to reach them. This means that while behaviors destructive to these outcomes—including the undue use of technology—may be punished, firstly these expectations must be explained and mistakes distinguished from intentional rule-breaking. For an effective school environment must facilitate growth of the mind, not merely trained responses according to either rote memorization or conditioning. A deeper discussion of the nature of this authoritative environment is pending, as such a discussion warrants more than a paragraph.
Another important factor in reducing technology is the budgets of the families of students. By reducing the technology budget in schools, it frees up resources to provide students from lower income families to be provided with school supplies; In fact, such a push away could be enough such that the supplies are subsidized uniformly, further providing students with equal access to a quality education. Working with the students—and their families—in this way not only provides them with the materials needed, it is an opening step towards building that cooperative environment: A school that places direct value in their students can then come to build in them the value of learning that the school wishes to instill. Reducing, or even removing, these burdens upon students and their families gives them the space to nurture the curiosity innate in all students; emboldening this curiosity into a force of learning is the penultimate goal of the academic institution itself.
In Reflection
As technology continues to be omnipresent throughout the human world, pedagogues and academic institutions must be wary of their use. As technology use increases we see a pronounced drop in academic performance. Similarly, as generative AI becomes prominent, a decrease in critical thinking is presently being observed. As a result schools must take a quality–first approach to technology use: Banning phones, removing distractions, and providing alternatives to digital social spaces. This way, schools can begin to foster a cooperative relationship with students, and students can benefit from a healthier learning environment. This builds the foundation for a more positive schooling environment, as rigor and meaningful engagement can grow tall with the axes of the digital world pushed out.
This cooperative environment provides students with a more active and beneficial learning environment: Social and physical activities in the classroom, and active homework that requires their attention to the content even if they use detrimental technologies. This could be made manifest through appropriate changes to curriculum; many aspects of the curriculum can be made to be technology resistant, at the overly beneficial cost of forcing student engagement with learning. This all leads to the fact that convenience is antithetical to learning; proper learning of material requires both the initial acquisition of knowledge, but also the retrieval and transference of that material to other topics. Non-technical solutions provide opportunities for this far most often than digital alternatives.
Despite all the promises of technology in education, little positive has materialized. As yearly performances continue to drop, pedagogues and institutions alike need to take a serious look at these problems and prospective solutions. A return to attention maximizing education, using procedures that force student’s to engage with the material, will yield better learning outcomes. Additionally, with the evidence that less technology improves learning, institutions should seriously consider technology bans and restrictions throughout their academic curriculum. Through these changes, academic institutions can begin to move towards a new system of education that pushes students to engage in their own learning; builds curriculum that is resistant to the erosive forces of technology; and works towards a larger revolution of education overall.
Works Cited
Beneito, Pilar, and Óscar Vicente-Chirivella. “Banning Mobile Phones in Schools: Evidence from Regional-Level Policies in Spain.” Applied Economic Analysis, vol. 30, no. 90, 25 Jan. 2022, doi.org/10.1108/aea-05-2021-0112.
Böttger, Tobias, and Klaus Zierer. “To Ban or Not to Ban? A Rapid Review on the Impact of Smartphone Bans in Schools on Social Well-Being and Academic Performance.” Education Sciences, vol. 14, no. 8, 20 Aug. 2024, p. 906, doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080906.
Cheryl Cisero Durwin, and Marla J Reese-weber. Edpsych Modules - Interactive Ebook. Sage Publications, Incorporated, 21 Jan. 2020.
Davis, Katie. Technology’s Child. MIT Press, 7 Mar. 2023.
Elkhatat, Ahmed M, et al. “Evaluating the Efficacy of AI Content Detection Tools in Differentiating between Human and AI-Generated Text.” International Journal for Educational Integrity, vol. 19, no. 1, 1 Sept. 2023, doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00140-5.
Gerlich, Michael. “AI Tools in Society: Impacts on Cognitive Offloading and the Future of Critical Thinking.” Societies, vol. 15, no. 1, 3 Jan. 2025, p. 6, doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006.
Horvath, Jared Cooney. “The EdTech Revolution Has Failed.” Afterbabel.com, After Babel, 12 Nov. 2024, www.afterbabel.com/p/the-edtech-revolution-has-failed.
Lan, Yanling, et al. “Exploring the Formation of Learning Burnout among College Students in AI Context: A Serial Mediation Mechanism of AI Dependence and Addiction Based on I-PACE Model.” Frontiers in Computer Science, vol. 8, 4 Mar. 2026, doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2026.1756441.
OECD. Students, Computers and Learning. PISA, OECD, 14 Sept. 2015, www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-students-computers-mexico-eng.pdf.
OECD. “Performance Trends.” OECD, 2022, www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/pisa-education-and-skills/performance-trends.html.
Pew Research Center. “Mobile Fact Sheet.” Pew Research Center, 13 Nov. 2024, www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile.
Wentworth, Diane Keyser, and June H. Middleton. “Technology Use and Academic Performance.” Computers & Education, vol. 78, no. 0360-1315, Sept. 2014, pp. 306–311, doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.012.