Technology was introduced into classrooms with the promise of innovation, access, and equity. Chromebooks became commonplace, and suddenly every student had a screen. On paper, it looked like progress.
What rarely came with those devices, however, was a shared vision for how technology should support learning.
Years later, many educators and families are noticing something unsettling. Teachers are detecting declines in certain skills: critical thinking, problem-solving, perseverance, a sense of wonder, and even basic fluency, such as memorizing math facts or understanding procedures deeply.
This is not a claim rooted in blame or panic.
It’s a reflection grounded in lived classroom experience.
And it’s critical to say this clearly: teachers did not cause this shift.
Teachers Were Put in a No-Win Situation
When Chromebooks were first rolled out, many teachers were handed powerful tools with minimal training, limited pedagogical guidance, and enormous expectations. The message was often implicit: Use the technology. Figure it out.
What followed was predictable.
Most available tools at the time were consumption-based:
- Students practiced skills through programs
- Computer-generated assessments
- “Learning” games
- Watch videos and click through content
These tools promised efficiency, and in some ways, they delivered. Teachers could quickly gather data, assign differentiated work, and manage classrooms stretched thin by increasing demands and limited time.
For many teachers, this wasn’t laziness or lack of creativity.
It was survival, as they were told to use technology, follow pacing guides, differentiate, improve test scores, etc.
When Consumption Became the Default
Over time, consumption-based technology became mainstream. Students spent more time interacting with screens and less time explaining their thinking, constructing arguments, or grappling productively with struggle.
This matters because consumption alone does not build deep understanding.
Selecting an answer is not the same as defending one.
Completing digital practice is not the same as reasoning.
Engagement is not the same as learning.
Still, teachers used these tools because they were what districts purchased, what schedules allowed, what was expected, and what, if any, professional development supported.
Arguments for the Opposite Can Be Made
Some teachers pushed against this trend. I was one of them. This was a luxury and an interest for me.
Technology has always interested me, and I had the time, energy, and inclination to learn how pedagogy and technology could work together. I gravitated toward production-based uses of technology: students explaining, creating, representing, and discussing their thinking.
When tools like Prodigy became popular, many teachers saw motivation and engagement. I saw more game than practice and chose not to use it. Instead, I decided to use programs like Fog Stone Isle to help build capacity with fractions. That doesn’t make one choice morally superior; it highlights how context, interests, and capacity shape decisions.
Many teachers did see value in those tools for their students. And for those teachers, it made complete sense. There are times when consumption-based technology is appropriate and works. As teachers, we do what we feel works best for our students.
The Larger Systemic Issue
The deeper issue isn’t about individual tools. It’s about a system that often invests in products instead of practices.
Districts and lawmakers frequently purchase or mandate programs, platforms, and devices without funding the time and training teachers need to use them well. Pedagogies like HyperDocs and EduProtocols emphasize student production and thinking, but learning them is often left entirely to individual teachers.
And teachers already carry an impossible load.
Technology changes yearly. Research evolves. Expectations increase. Teachers are asked to adapt constantly, often without sustained professional learning or structural support.
When systems fail to lead with pedagogy, companies fill the gap. Many tools genuinely aim to help, but convenience can quietly override cognitive demand if we aren’t careful.
What Research Actually Tells Us (And What It Doesn’t)
To be clear: there is no definitive research proving that technology has caused a universal decline in student skills. What we do have is:
- Research showing that active learning and retrieval are more effective than passive consumption
- Cognitive science emphasizing the importance of productive struggle, explanation, and practice
- Multimedia learning research (like Richard Mayer’s work) demonstrating that technology must be intentionally designed to support learning, not overload it
- Large-scale assessments (such as PISA and NAEP) showing stagnation or uneven growth, which educators interpret through classroom experience
What teachers are reporting should not be dismissed, but it should be understood as contextual, nuanced, and systemically influenced, not a simple cause-and-effect story.
Moving Forward: Balance, Not Backlash
This is not a call to remove technology from classrooms.
It’s a call to use it differently.
Production-based strategies don’t have to be complex. They can start small:
- Choice boards instead of one-size-fits-all programs
- Students explaining their thinking orally or visually
- Simple routines that prioritize reasoning over speed
These changes can be technology-based or not technology-based. For example, explaining thinking can be done in a class setting, in groups, or with the use of tools like Snorkl.
Frameworks like MathReps and EduProtocols offer powerful examples, but they are not mandates. They are models. Entry points. Proof that technology can amplify thinking when pedagogy leads the way.
A Message to the Public and to Decision Makers
Teaching today is not the same as “when you were in school.”
Technology has changed. Research has evolved. Students’ needs are different.
Educators are not resisting change; they are navigating it in real time.
If we want technology to improve learning, then teachers need more than devices. They need time, training, and trust. Districts and lawmakers must invest not just in tools, but in the pedagogy that makes those tools meaningful. And all of this needs to be done without adding more to teachers’ plates.
The goal isn’t balance sheets or dashboards. It’s thinking.
And the question we should all be asking is not whether technology belongs in classrooms, but whether we are brave enough to demand that it truly serves learning and teachers are put in a position of power, not left scrambling to figure it all out.
This has been a subject that has been weighing on me heavily lately. I think this will be the beginning of a series. I would love to hear your thoughts. I am not here to persuade anyone one way or another, but rather have open discussions on where, as a community, educators, parents, districts, and policymakers, we can do better.
Nowa Techie 