"Although ed-tech companies tout huge learning gains, independent research has made clear that technology rarely boosts learning in schools—and often impairs it. A 2024 meta-analysis of 119 studies of early-literacy tech interventions, led by Rebecca Silverman of Stanford University, found the studies described programmes that delivered at best only marginal gains on standardised tests. The majority had little effect, no effect or harmful ones. Jared Horvath, a neuroscientist and author of a book called “The Digital Delusion”, has reviewed meta-analyses covering tens of thousands of studies. His verdict: “In nearly every context, ed tech doesn’t come close to the minimum threshold for meaningful learning impact.”

The prevalence of tech in schools owes less to rigorous evidence than aggressive marketing. Teachers are now flooded with daily offers for free tech. In 2024 American schools spent $30bn on education technology. Globally, it is a $165bn industry.

Technology does save money on textbooks and streamline lesson planning. But licensing and training costs add up, and many teachers feel burdened rather than liberated by all the admin and dashboards.

Long-term trends raise the possibility that the rise of in-class devices is responsible for an alarming decline in performance in reading and other subjects. Scores on 21 nationwide benchmark tests rose from 1994 until peaking in 2012-15, when screen use started to soar; they then began to sink(see chart 1). In major assessments for maths, science and reading from 2011 to 2019, greater in-school computer use for learning correlates with lower scores. In contrast, students in classes with rare or no computer use at all typically score highest (see chart 2).

Distraction is one likely culprit. Another is that some tools emphasise gamification at the expense of education, meaning that children focus more on winning points than mastering concepts."

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2026/01/22/ed-tech-is-profitable-it-is-also-mostly-useless

EdTech #Education #Schools #Gamification

Years ago, I studied computer science and interned in Silicon Valley. Later, as a public school teacher, I was often the first to bring technology into my classroom. I was dazzled by the promise of a digital future in education.

Now as a social scientist who studies how people learn, I believe K-12 schools need to question predominant visions of AI for education.

A Kansas school is shelving Chromebooks for pencil and paper.

On Tuesday, McPherson Middle School announced in a letter to families that students will be turning in their Chromebooks at the end of the semester.

There’s real science behind a popular discussion activity called hexagonal thinking routines, developed and made popular by former teacher Betsy Potash.

It’s more than an engagement strategy. It helps students to engage in productive struggle that doesn’t even look like struggle at all to them. It also helps build

conceptual understanding as students are asked to make connections between big ideas.

Often used in ELA, it’s helpful in any subject, including math and science.

Zaretta Hammond's take on:In the article “Why Students Resist Retrieval Practice and How to Change That” in Scientists in the Making, Los Angeles teacher Marcie Samayoa shares that although retrieval practice is an excellent way to get information into long-term memory, students often resist using it. For example, when a teacher asks students to write answers to a few questions on what they learned the day before, some sneak a look at their notes or copy from their elbow partner.

Why the shortcuts? Students may think learning this stuff doesn’t matter, or they may resist the cognitive effort it takes to recall information that has started to slip into oblivion. “Copying takes no effort,” says Samayoa. “Our brains are wired to conserve energy, so if there’s an easier way to complete a task, we take it.”

But the mental effort involved in retrieving recently learned information is what makes it effective. Students need explicit instruction on how retrieval works and an understanding that the mental effort (and sometimes the frustration) is worth it. It’s far more effective than time-worn study methods like re-reading, underlining, and copying.

“It is this struggle that contributes to long-lasting learning,” says Samayoa. “This is why shifting students’ mindset is so important. We have to normalize the discomfort and reframe it as a sign of growth, not failure.”

She recommends using a weightlifting analogy to explain why effort is required. “Explaining the science behind retrieval practice can increase student buy-in,” says Samayoa. “However, keep in mind that breaking old habits takes time.”

She also gives a great summary of the key points students need to understand about how the brain remembers and retrieves learned information. Read and reflect on her article here.