There’s been a growing public outcry against screen time in schools, fueling debates that range from outlawing cell phones to calling for the complete ban of technology. Books like The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt (Penguin, 2024) and The Digital Delusion by Jared Cooney Horvath (Harmony, 2025) raise legitimate concerns about excessive screen use and its effect on attention, sleep, and mental health. However, much of the conversation treats screen time as a single category rather than distinguishing between instructional technology use and unstructured recreational use.
A good example is the JAMA Pediatrics study (Adelantado-Renau et al., 2019), often cited as evidence that screen time negatively affects academic achievement for children and adolescents ages 4 to 18. However, the study linked lower achievement primarily to entertainment-focused screen use, such as television and recreational video games, rather than to all forms of technology use. The authors also emphasized the need to differentiate among the various types of screen use when evaluating their relationship to academic performance.
So, what does educational technology research actually tell us about the use of devices in schools?
It’s About Use, Not the Device
Research on educational technology has generally pointed toward the same conclusion: the impact depends more on how the technology is used than on the device itself. When digital devices are connected to teaching and learning, the results are usually positive, although they’re often more moderate and nuanced than both advocates and critics sometimes claim.
Studies conducted before 2015 in reading and mathematics (Cheung & Slavin, 2012; Cheung & Slavin, 2013) found positive effects on student achievement when technology supported learning goals rather than functioning as a stand-alone add-on or digital replacement for traditional work. A broader meta-analysis (Chauhan, 2017) in elementary classrooms found similar positive results, while also emphasizing that outcomes varied based on the pedagogical strategies and how the technology was integrated. More recent research has reached similar conclusions. A meta-analysis focusing on literacy outcomes found that technology can positively affect student learning when integrated into instruction, although its effectiveness still depends heavily on instructional design and learning goals (Silverman et al., 2024). Taken together, this progression of research continues to demonstrate that technology, when integrated thoughtfully and with intention, actually supports gains in instruction.
Blended learning, mobile learning, and intelligent tutoring research have similarly shown stronger outcomes when technology supports active learning, feedback, collaboration, inquiry, and problem solving, rather than when it’s used passively or for low-level tasks (Cao, 2023; Ran et al., 2022; Sung et al., 2016). In other words, replacing a paper worksheet with a digital one doesn’t change the learning. But using technology to provide immediate feedback, support collaboration, deepen research skills, personalize instruction, or engage students in authentic problem solving can improve student outcomes.
Research continues to demonstrate that technology, when integrated thoughtfully and with intention, actually supports gains in instruction.
Again, simply providing access to devices does not automatically improve learning outcomes. Studies on home computer and laptop initiatives for students found increases in technology skills but inconsistent effects on academic achievement, particularly when use was unstructured or disconnected from instruction (Beuermann et al., 2015; Fairlie & Robinson, 2013). Research on large-scale 1:1 initiatives has reached the same conclusion—that access to devices alone is not enough. These programs often show mixed or modest short-term results, with stronger outcomes often appearing later on as teachers adjust their instructional practices and technology becomes more integrated into learning (Hull & Duch, 2019; Zheng et al., 2016). More recent studies have also shown positive benefits for less-advantaged students when technology is paired with instructional supports and personalized learning approaches (Di Pietro, 2025).
Three Ways to Ensure Healthy Technology Integration
These findings highlight a more intentional approach to technology integration. The question is not simply whether students should use technology, but how schools can ensure that the technology genuinely supports learning. Three approaches can help.
1. Clarify Your Why
Frameworks such as SAMR (Puentedura, 2006), TPACK (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), and Triple E (Kolb, 2017) all point to the same core idea: schools should use technology in support of learning goals, not simply because it’s available. The SAMR model focuses on how technology can change the learning task itself. It describes four levels of technology integration—Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition—that range from simply replacing a traditional tool with a digital one to creating learning experiences that wouldn’t be possible without technology. TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) emphasizes the intersection of the understandings in technology, pedagogy, and content that teachers need to have to use technology well within a given subject area. The Triple E framework (Engage, Enhance, Extend) asks educators to consider whether the technology in use engages students in the learning goal, enhances their understanding of the topic, and extends learning beyond the classroom.
Regardless of the framework used, schools need a clear vision for what meaningful technology integration should accomplish. In practice, this means using technology to deepen understanding, support meaningful research, facilitate collaboration, provide timely feedback, and create learning experiences that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to execute. For example, students might collaborate with peers across schools or countries, analyze real-world datasets, use AI tools to research and solve community problems, create digital products and media for authentic audiences, design prototypes using emerging technologies, or launch entrepreneurial projects that extend beyond the classroom. These experiences move beyond simply digitizing traditional assignments and, instead, leverage technology to expand what students can create, investigate, and contribute in the world around them.
Ultimately, the reason for using technology in the classroom should be to help students learn, communicate, and solve problems in ways that align with instructional goals and reflect the spaces students will live and work in.
2. Provide Focused Support
The quality of instruction is one of the strongest factors influencing student achievement. However, isolated webinars, conference sessions, and one-time professional learning events rarely cause meaningful instructional change. Research consistently shows that sustained, collaborative, and job-embedded professional learning models are more effective than isolated workshops, particularly when paired with purposeful coaching and support tied directly to classroom instruction (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Kraft et al., 2018). Research on edtech integration similarly emphasizes the importance of ongoing support, teacher confidence, and instructional context in determining whether technology meaningfully affects learning (Amemasor et al., 2025).
A clear vision for technology integration focuses on the learning experiences and outcomes that the technology makes possible.
At the same time, budget reductions and staffing shortages often target the positions that provide this type of support—these include instructional coaches, educational technology coaches, and school librarians. When schools cut back on or remove those roles, they’re also reducing the support that helps teachers use technology meaningfully and sustainably in the classroom.
3. Talk with Students and Families
Schools often leave students out of conversations about technology use, digital citizenship, and online behavior, even though those issues directly affect them. Being surrounded by technology from an early age doesn’t mean that students naturally understand how to use it safely, responsibly, or effectively. Being a digital native is not the same thing as being digitally literate.
Students need to be able to recognize the addictive design of apps and games, spot AI-generated content and deepfakes, evaluate online information, protect their own privacy, and think critically about what they consume and share online. Conversations about these issues should not be limited to a single lesson, a single class, or a single subject. They should be integrated into classroom instruction in all subject areas and in all grade levels.
In addition, schools should regularly communicate with families, making sure they understand not only what technology their children are using, but also the purpose behind it. As classroom lessons address such topics as digital citizenship, data privacy, online safety, media literacy, and the ethical use of AI, schools should share resources about these issues with families so they can continue these conversations at home. Schools can connect with families through newsletters, classroom communications, family nights, and district websites and by sharing examples of student work. These opportunities help families see how teachers are using technology to support curriculum, collaboration, creativity, feedback, and problem solving. When families understand the instructional purpose behind technology use, conversations become less about screen time and more about how to participate responsibly in a digital world.
A Word About the Neuroscience Connection
Much of the public discussion surrounding screens and student well-being focuses on neuroscience, including the effects of excessive social media on sleep, attention, and mental health. While these are genuine concerns that warrant serious attention, there’s a caveat. Research has shown that people tend to find explanations more credible simply because those explanations reference neuroscience—even when that neuroscience information is irrelevant to the conclusion (Weisberg et al., 2008). Of course, that doesn’t mean we should ignore neuroscience research. We just need to make sure not to automatically apply research on unstructured or entertainment-focused screen time to all forms of technology use in schools.
Technology with a Purpose
Educational technology research has consistently shown that outcomes depend less on the device and more on how the technology is used in instruction. The research doesn’t support removing technology from schools. It supports using technology better, more intentionally, and with a clearer understanding of how students learn.
Modern technology gives students opportunities that were previously inaccessible to many learners. Technology is pervasive—and schools need to focus on helping students navigate it thoughtfully, ethically, creatively, and safely.
