Dylan Kane, a seventh-grade math teacher, eliminated educational technology from his classroom to test whether removing screens would affect student learning. The results surprised him: the absence of digital tools made instruction harder, but that difficulty appeared to drive deeper engagement.
Kane's approach required him to redesign lessons that previously relied on educational software. Without tablets, laptops, or interactive platforms, he returned to traditional methods like handwritten problems, paper-based practice, and direct teacher-student interaction. The shift forced both students and instructor to work more deliberately through math concepts.
Teachers across the country report similar patterns as they reconsider heavy reliance on ed-tech. Some schools and districts have begun scaling back screen time after years of rapid digital expansion, particularly following pandemic-driven remote learning shifts. Educators cite concerns about distraction, reduced face-to-face interaction, and questions about whether technology genuinely improves outcomes.
Kane's experience aligns with emerging research suggesting that increased cognitive load, rather than reducing it, can enhance learning. When students cannot simply click to the next problem or rely on automated scaffolding, they engage more actively with material. The friction of working without digital shortcuts may strengthen understanding through struggle and persistence.
His experiment reflects broader skepticism about ed-tech adoption rates. Schools invested heavily in devices and platforms with expectations of efficiency gains, but classroom data often shows mixed results. Some tools help specific learners, particularly those needing accessibility features, while others function mainly as compliance tools that don't boost achievement.
Kane has not permanently abandoned technology. Instead, his experience suggests a more balanced approach: using screens strategically rather than as default delivery systems. This middle ground appeals to educators who recognize technology's legitimate value while acknowledging its limitations and potential downsides.
The shift in thinking matters for districts planning tech budgets and for teachers designing instruction. Rather than asking whether schools should use ed-tech, the better question becomes when and how