Screens, Learning, and Getting the Balance Right

This week I was asked to speak with the SLT group in a local school who are wrestling with the issues being raised in their community around the use of digital technologies in their school. It seems the conversation about digital technology in schools has taken a sharp turn. What was once driven by enthusiasm is now clouded by anxiety. Neither position fully serves our students – so what does a balanced, evidence-informed approach actually look like?

From Promise to Pushback

For me it doesn’t seem so long ago that digital technology in schools felt like a straightforward win. I was a lecturer in Educational Technology during the 1990s when much of this was happening. The promise was that devices would make learning more engaging, more personalised, more future-focused. Schools invested heavily. Every student would have a laptop. Classrooms would transform.

That enthusiasm has now collided with a harder reality. Concerns about digital distraction, screen time, wellbeing, and underwhelming academic outcomes have shifted the mood dramatically. In some quarters, the pendulum has swung all the way to calls for blanket bans – removing devices altogether and returning to pencil and paper.

The truth, as usual, sits somewhere more nuanced. And for schools trying to make sensible decisions, “somewhere more nuanced” isn’t particularly useful on its own. This post attempts to provide something more practical.

What the Research Actually Says

From my perspective, the honest summary of the international evidence is this: digital technologies are neither the revolution they were promised to be, nor the disaster some now fear. Their effects on learning are conditional, not automatic.

One New Zealand review found that some use of digital technology benefits learning – but that frequent or poorly structured use is associated with reduced outcomes. The context of use matters enormously: what task, for how long, whether teacher-directed or left to student choice. OECD research echoes this, finding that digital tools can meaningfully support learning – particularly when they provide targeted feedback or structured instructional scaffolding – but that benefits are uneven across tools, subjects, and age groups.

The most consistent finding is that technology works best when it extends a teaching strategy rather than replaces it. Adaptive software can help a teacher differentiate practice for students but it is far less effective as a stand-alone solution for developing deep understanding.

The areas where benefits are most reliably demonstrated include:

• Personalised practice and feedback in literacy and numeracy
• Simulations and intelligent tutoring systems that guide students step by step
• Teacher-directed use integrated into a clear lesson plan

What has not been realised is the original headline promise: that ICT would automatically make learning more engaging, more effective, and more personalised across the board. The potential was real; it was simply overstated as a general solution when it works better as a carefully chosen instructional resource.

Beyond Tools: Technology as a Learning Environment

The three benefits listed above – personalised feedback, structured simulations, teacher-directed tasks – are real and evidence-backed. But they share a common assumption: that technology is essentially a tool, something a teacher deploys to support a specific learning activity. That framing, while useful, undersells what digital technology can do at its best.

Many schools I’ve worked with over recent years have moved toward something more ambitious: using platforms like Google Workspace or Microsoft 365 not as a collection of tools, but as an integrated learning environment – a space where learning happens, is represented, and is curated over time.

Consider what this can look like in practice. A teacher shares the instructions, resources, and context for a topic within Google Classroom – not just once at the start of a lesson, but in a persistent, accessible form that students can return to whenever they need it. Students access curated links and materials as their understanding develops. They contribute resources they’ve discovered themselves, sharing them with peers in a common space. They engage in asynchronous dialogue – with classmates, with their teacher – reflecting on ideas outside the boundaries of a single lesson period.

As the work develops, students build a body of artefacts: notes, drafts, presentations, videos, collaborative documents. These aren’t just products to be handed in – they become a curated portfolio of learning that the student can navigate, reflect on, and add to over time. Against the indicator statements of a progression or rubric, students are encouraged to make ongoing judgements about their own performance, drawing on feedback from teachers, peers, and parents to build an evidence base that justifies an assessment decision.

This is a fundamentally different relationship with both learning and assessment. Rather than receiving instruction and demonstrating understanding at a single fixed point in time, the student becomes an active agent – taking ownership not just of what they learn, but of how they document, evaluate, and communicate their learning.

In SAMR terms, this is firmly in Redefinition territory. It describes learning experiences that are not simply enhanced by technology – they are made possible by it. A student curating evidence of their own growth over a year, engaging in dialogue with their teacher asynchronously, and making self-assessments against shared criteria cannot do that with a pencil and exercise book alone.

This is the version of educational technology worth fighting for. And it is also, arguably, the version that has been least visible in the public debate – which has tended to focus on devices in classrooms rather than on the deeper question of what a well-designed digital learning environment can enable.

Why the Mood Has Shifted

It’s worth pondering some of the reasons this shift in perspective is occurring – particularly for school leaders seeking to lead conversations within staff and community settings. Several forces are driving the change in tone – and it is worth separating them out, because they require different responses.

Distraction during learning time is one of the clearest concerns. OECD data indicates that nearly one in three students is distracted by digital devices in class, and that distraction is associated with weaker performance in mathematics. When devices are available for non-learning purposes during learning time, many students use them that way – and this is especially true when the alternative activity is demanding.

Wellbeing and health concerns extend well beyond the classroom. Questions about sleep disruption, attention span, physical activity, social development, and the design of social media platforms themselves have widened the debate. Paediatric guidance endorsed for New Zealand schools recommends age-sensitive limits and more deliberate, purposeful use. These are legitimate concerns that schools cannot simply set aside.

The quality of implementation has also been a problem. Much of what has happened under the banner of “educational technology” has operated at what educationalists call the substitution level – essentially using a device to do the same thing a textbook or exercise book would have done. Little use has genuinely transformed how students learn. A significant reason for this is that the education workforce has not been adequately prepared to integrate technology in ways that make a meaningful pedagogical difference.

A Framework Worth Knowing: SAMR

For those who want a mental model to evaluate how technology is being used, the SAMR framework (developed by Dr Ruben Puentedura) is a helpful lens. It describes four levels of technology integration:

• Substitution – technology replaces a tool with no functional change (typing instead of writing)
• Augmentation – technology replaces a tool with some functional improvement (using spell-check, hyperlinking)
• Modification – technology allows significant redesign of the task (collaborative online documents, peer feedback tools)
• Redefinition – technology enables learning that was previously not possible (global collaboration, real-time data collection, simulations)

The evidence suggests most school technology use sits at the bottom two levels. The higher levels – where technology genuinely changes what’s possible – require deeper pedagogical thinking and stronger teacher capability. The World Economic Forum’s work on the reskilling needed for Education 4.0 is relevant here: the technology has run ahead of the workforce capacity to use it well.

The Developmental Continuum Matters

One of the biggest mistakes in this debate is treating “digital technology in schools” as a single question with a single answer. It is not.

A blanket ban on devices in the early years of schooling, while children are building foundational literacy, numeracy, and social skills, may be entirely appropriate. Young children benefit from embodied, hands-on, relationship-rich learning. The evidence for significant learning gains from screens in this age group is thin, and the concerns about health and developmental impact are more acute.

At the senior secondary level, the picture is different. Students preparing to enter tertiary education, the workforce, and adult civic life in an increasingly digital world need genuine fluency with digital tools – the ability to research critically, evaluate sources, create and communicate digitally, and manage information responsibly. A school that bans devices in Year 12 may be protecting students from distraction while simultaneously leaving them underprepared for the world they are about to enter.

But fluency here means more than knowing how to use specific applications. The modern workplace increasingly operates within integrated digital environments – shared platforms where teams collaborate, communicate asynchronously, manage projects, curate knowledge, and document progress over time. The capability to work effectively within those environments – to manage your own contributions, engage in professional dialogue digitally, and take ownership of how your work is represented and evaluated – is now a baseline expectation in many fields. Students who have spent their senior years developing exactly those habits within a well-designed school learning environment are not just better prepared academically. They are better prepared for work and life.

This is one of the strongest arguments for the kind of integrated digital learning environment described earlier in this post. It is not merely good pedagogy. It is genuine preparation for the world students are about to enter.

Age-appropriate, developmentally informed policy is not a compromise – it is the right answer.

The ‘Whole Child’ Lens

One of the things I feel important to re-iterate here is that schools are not simply academic institutions. They are charged with looking after the whole child – academic progress and wellbeing, social development, physical health, and safety. Any honest approach to digital technology must hold both concerns simultaneously.

This means the health and safety dimensions – screen time, posture, lighting, online safety, cyberbullying, privacy, and the risks associated with social media – are not obstacles to good educational technology practice. They are part of it. Schools in New Zealand are legally obliged to manage these risks as health and safety responsibilities.

Framing this correctly is important. Schools that create clear boundaries around device use are not being anti-technology. They are being responsible stewards of the learning environment and the children in their care.

What Should Schools Actually Do?

The evidence points toward a clear direction, even if the details will differ by school context. Here are some principles I believe should guide decisions.

1. Start from your ‘why’

Any school’s approach to digital technology should be traceable back to its stated values, vision, and graduate profile. If your school says it is developing independent, critical thinkers who can evaluate information and distinguish fact from opinion, then your approach to how students access and use digital information must actually develop those capabilities – not undermine them.

This is the “line of sight” test: can you draw a clear line from the technology decision you are making to the kind of learner you are trying to develop? If not, the decision needs revisiting.

2. Be purposeful rather than expansive

The strongest policy direction from the evidence is not “more screens” or “no screens,” but more selective use. Give priority to tools with a genuine evidence base – structured literacy supports, adaptive practice platforms, simulations, tasks that would be harder to do as well without technology. Be sceptical of any technology that is being used simply because it is convenient or because the school invested in it.

3. Distinguish educational use from personal use

Schools need policies that clearly separate technology used for learning from personal or social device use. These are different activities with different effects, and they warrant different rules. A student using adaptive reading software is not the same as a student checking social media. Policy needs to reflect this distinction.

4. Apply age-appropriate limits

For the early years prioritise human interaction, physical activity, foundational skill development, and relationship-based learning. Technology use should be selective, brief, and directly purposeful. In the middle years introduce more structured, teacher-directed technology tasks while maintaining clear limits on personal device use during learning time. At the senior level develop genuine digital capability – critical evaluation, responsible creation, digital communication – as preparation for life beyond school.

5. Build teacher capability

Technology will only work as well as the educators using it. Schools and the system need to invest in professional learning that helps teachers design effective technology-integrated tasks – not just how to use tools, but when and why. It is important to note here that the professional learning must be ongoing – because of the changing nature of the technologies being used, we can never assume that a single PLD experience will equip teachers for whatever happens into the future. The ambition should be to move use up the SAMR framework toward genuine transformation.

6. Engage whānau and community

The wellbeing concerns about screen time, social media, and online safety extend well beyond school hours. Schools cannot address these concerns alone. Effective approaches involve parents and families in understanding the school’s approach, the reasoning behind it, and the role they play at home. On reflection I think this should be number one on my list – for unless there is a strong connection between what happens at home and at school on this issue, educators are limited in the ways they can address what needs to be done here.

The Question Worth Asking

The debate must move from “Should schools use digital technology?” to a better question: “What kinds of use are educationally justified, and under what safeguards?”

That is the right question. It acknowledges that the technology is here, that some of its applications genuinely support learning, that others genuinely cause harm, and that the difference lies in how thoughtfully schools design and govern its use.

The most defensible position for any school is not “digital or not digital” – it is “digital where it improves learning better than the available alternative, with appropriate safeguards for the whole child.”

That framing will not fit neatly on a policy poster. But it is honest, it is evidence-informed, and it is sustainable.

---

References used in developing this post:

• Cullen; Marsh; Simmons; Duncan (2025) The impact of digital technologies on children and adolescents in Aotearoa New Zealand: A case for the development of best-practice recommendations for schools: Waikato Journal of Education (https://wje.org.nz/index.php/WJE/article/view/1095)
• Dept. for Education (UK) (2025) Technology in Schools survey: 2024 to 2025 Research report (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/692834a6ce50d215cae9610e/Technology_in_schools_survey_2024_to_2025_research_report.pdf)
• Ministry of Education (2025) Health and safety management of digital device use by staff and students (https://www.education.govt.nz/education-professionals/schools-year-0-13/health-and-safety/health-and-safety-management-digital-device-use-staff-and-students)
• OECD (2025) The impact of digital technologies on students’ learning – Results from a literature review (https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/the-impact-of-digital-technologies-on-students-learning_9997e7b3-en.html)
• OECD (2025) Can the targeted use of digital devices in education win over the naysayers? (https://oecdedutoday.com/can-the-targeted-use-of-digital-devices-in-education-win-over-the-naysayers)
• OECD (2024) Managing screen time – How to protect and equip students against distraction (https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/managing-screen-time_7c225af4-en.html) 
• Paediatric Society of NZ (2025) Protecting Tamariki Online: A Paediatric Perspective on Harm, Responsibility, and Systemic Solutions (https://www.paediatrics.org.nz/knowledge-hub/view-resource?id=153)
• Powerschool (2021) SAMR Model: A Practical Guide for K-12 Classroom Technology Integration (https://www.powerschool.com/blog/samr-model-a-practical-guide-for-k-12-classroom-technology-integration/)
• Ruijia; Wenling; Zeumei (2025) The impact of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) on learning outcomes in early childhood and primary education: a meta-analysis of moderating factors (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1540169/full)
• World Economic Forum (2025) Reskilling Revolution | Ep 2 | The Role of AI in Education 4.0 (https://www.weforum.org/videos/reskilling-revolution-ai-education-4-0/)