Key takeaways
-
Ensure any technology in the classroom is teacher directed and gives your team control over when, how, and for how long students use it.
-
Check whether the technology is tied to learning outcomes rather than just student engagement.
-
Ask for the technology’s connections to the science of learning, which will give it more universal application and effectiveness.
Technology has become one of the most debated topics in education. Across the country, states and districts are taking a fresh look at how—and even whether—it should be used in classrooms. Some studies raise legitimate concerns about excessive or ineffective technology use, while others point to the positive impact technology can have when it’s implemented intentionally.
I don’t believe the answer is to remove technology from classrooms. Instead, we need to be much more thoughtful about how we use it.
When technology is used well, it can help teachers personalize instruction, provide meaningful insights into student learning, and create learning experiences that simply aren’t possible otherwise. But technology should never be used just because it’s available. It has to earn its place alongside great teaching, meaningful discussion, print resources, and hands-on learning.
When I’m evaluating instructional technology—or talking with district leaders who are—I always come back to three questions:
- Is it teacher directed?
- Is it tied to learning outcomes?
- Is it grounded in the science of learning?
If the answer to any of those questions is no, it’s worth taking a closer look before putting the tool in front of students.
Is the Technology Teacher Directed?
Teachers remain the single most important in-school factor influencing student learning. Technology should strengthen their impact—not replace it.
Teachers should continue to lead the classroom by building relationships, setting expectations, defining learning goals, and making instructional decisions. Technology works best when it supports those efforts rather than trying to take them over.
That also means teachers should control when, how, and for how long technology is used during instruction. Whether they’re using a digital resource to guide whole-class learning or students are interacting individually with a tool, the teacher—not the technology—should always be driving the experience.
Is the Technology Tied to Learning Outcomes?
This is where I think we sometimes lose our way.
It’s easy to create technology that’s engaging. It’s much harder to create technology that actually improves learning.
Every instructional technology decision should begin with a simple question: “What learning outcome are we trying to improve?” If that answer isn’t clear, the technology probably isn’t adding much value.
Students should understand why they’re using the tool, not just what they’re clicking. Likewise, teachers should be able to connect every digital interaction back to a specific instructional objective.
The best technology also requires students to think—not just consume. It should ask them to analyze, solve problems, explain their thinking, create, or apply new knowledge. And ideally, it enables learning experiences that would be difficult or impossible without technology, whether that’s adaptive instruction, interactive simulations, or visualizing concepts at a scale beyond what a traditional classroom can provide.
Technology should deepen learning, not simply digitize existing instruction.
Is the Technology Grounded in the Science of Learning?
The research on how students learn continues to grow, and instructional technology should reflect what we’ve learned—not simply what’s possible technologically.
Effective tools are intentionally designed around established learning science principles and make those principles clear rather than leaving educators to guess.
As Bryan Goodwin, CEO of McREL Institute, recently shared during a Discovery Education webinar, “The real power of the science of learning is that it’s universal.” His work reinforces the importance of understanding the different phases of learning and adjusting instructional strategies accordingly. That’s another reason why keeping teachers at the center of instruction matters so much—they’re the ones best equipped to make those decisions.
Beyond design principles, education leaders should also look for evidence that a solution actually works. Review independent case studies, third-party efficacy research, and design evaluations whenever they’re available. Organizations like Evidence for ESSA at Johns Hopkins University can be valuable resources, and vendors should be able to clearly explain the research supporting their products.
Ultimately, the question isn’t whether technology is innovative. It’s whether it helps students learn more effectively than they would without it.
Final Thoughts
Technology isn’t inherently good or bad. It’s simply a tool.
The real question is whether it’s helping teachers teach more effectively and students learn more deeply.
As districts continue evaluating their instructional technology investments, I’d encourage leaders to look beyond flashy features or engagement metrics. Instead, ask whether the solution keeps teachers at the center of instruction, whether it’s intentionally designed to improve learning outcomes, and whether it’s built on what we know about how students actually learn.
If the answer to those three questions is yes, technology has earned its place in the classroom.
A Framework for Technology Evaluation
We’ve explored some important criteria for whether technology may earn its place in the classroom. However, finding the time and developing a plan to evaluate a technology may be a significant challenge. To help, we’ve created a framework called “Learning by Design” that district leaders can use.
Download your free framework to simplify evaluation!
