For years, the conversation around educational technology centered on one question: How can we get more technology into classrooms? Today, we’re facing a different challenge. It’s time to move beyond debates about screen time and start thinking more intentionally about when technology leads to deeper learning and when it simply leads to greater screen dependence.
Listen to the Podcast
If you enjoy this blog but you’d like to listen to it on the go, just click on the audio below or subscribe via iTunes/Apple Podcasts (ideal for iOS users) or Spotify.
I’m a Reluctant Techie
I was never supposed to be a techie. Growing up, we had a computer (a Tandy we bought from Radio Shack) but I never had much of an interest in learning to code. I wasn’t much of a gamer, either. Instead, I spent hours using a word processing program and crafting my own stories and essays and then gluing together articles to craft make believe newspapers. In middle school, I did a massive History Day project where I typed everything by hand (on a typewriter) and made slides with a camera and film. I recorded my voice in a radio studio and spliced together the reel to reel tape using a razor blade and Scotch tape.
As long as I could remember, I would daydream about making media. I wanted to produce documentaries and maybe create my own animated show. I would dream up books I wanted to write and imagine them as movies. I thought it would be cool to have a radio show and talk about ideas and interview interesting people.
Then, in high school, I joined the journalism team. I didn’t take the class but I often wrote articles and editorials on the side. Suddenly, I was using the brand new computer lab and learning the dark art of newspaper layout. And for me, when I saw the physical newspapers printed out and distributed to the whole school, it felt like magic. In college, I learned how to code, not for the love of coding, but because I wanted to make a “weblog” and a website where I would share what I was learning as a student teacher. The weblog became a blog called Musings from a Not-So-Master Teacher and this is a continuation of that process.
Looking back on it, you might think I was a techie. I learned about audiovisual equipment, computer coding, video editing editing software, and photography. But I never felt like a techie. I didn’t join the AV club but instead learned about it through theater. For me, the audio-visual technology was part of the creative magic of making a musical. Coding was okay but the real magic was in sharing my writing with a larger audience.
In other words, I have never really nerded out on technology. For me, it’s always been about the creative and connective capacity of technology. I had a childhood dream of writing books. I can do that in a way that was never possible when a few large publishers were the gatekeepers. I wanted a radio show. I get to have my podcast. And, yes, I have had the chance to interview some of the smartest experts on so many subjects. I loved doing journalism but now I have a blog. And while I might not be an animator, I have sketch videos that have had millions views all around the world.
But it’s more than that. Technology platforms have allowed me to find true community that would never have been possible otherwise. I have deep but also silly conversations with long-term friends on Instagram. I have a mastermind group I connect with via Voxer. So, when I think about the role of technology in my life, I actually feel really grateful for the opportunities technology tools have created.
And the same is true as a educator. I am currently crafting asynchronous courses that will allow teacher candidates to access content in a previously unimaginable way. I’ve already seen how certain marginalized teacher candidates are getting into the profession and making a difference because they could take courses on their own terms. I’ve been able to connect with rural teacher candidates in the courses I teach via Zoom. And, again, we have connected to experts and built community despite our physical distance. That’s pretty awesome.
As a middle school teacher, I think about Social Voice Media that my students ran. They had blogs, podcasts, and videos that they published to both the local and larger community. We crafted documentaries that we screened in front of a larger audience. They interviewed experts via Skype (remember that?) and eventually Google Hangouts and then Zoom. We did a really cool long distance apprenticeship project and some fascinating global collaboration projects.
So, when I think about this idea of low tech learning, I want to be clear. I love technology. I see it as a powerful tool for creativity, connection, and deeper learning. But I also love technology enough to be critical of it and to recognize the dangers inherent in technology dependence. For years, we fought for access. Now, we’re fighting a different battle.
For Years, The Issue Was Access
In my second year of teaching, I convinced a few teachers who weren’t using their iMacs (picture the slick round candy-colored ones) to let me have them in the back of my classroom. We used Writely (the precursor to Google Docs) and I created a custom blog. Not long after, we got into podcasting by using audio recorders that could plug into USB ports. A year or two later, I worked with my colleague, Javi, and we refurbished old computers and ran them on Linux so that we could go one-to-one (though we both actually switched to a different approach where we had two students for every one computer). We spent hours programming the computers and hard-wiring the ports.
I led a team of social studies teachers to design a project-based curriculum that integrated technology through digital composition. I designed a personalized and differentiated professional development program for our Thursday staff meetings and I not only built the platform but co-taught the technology strand. I was a technology for language acquisition coach. I helped plan our district technology conference. All while blogging and connecting with teachers online.
During this phase, I advocated hard for student access to technology. It was always about creativity and connection, though I did have a misstep where I went “paperless” and shifted into a tech-driven approach. But for me, it was mostly a vintage innovation approach where I would fight for technology access but combine those with things that were low-tech and hands-on.
To be clear, it wasn’t just access to technology. The main focus was always on how we used technology. In fact, one of my earliest sketch videos was about the SAMR model and the need for tech integration to hit the Redefinition stages. Note that the upload is 2015 but I actually created this video in 2011.
For nearly two decades, I was an advocate for increased and improved technology integration in schools. So, what happened? Why would I go from being an advocate for more access into someone promoting a more low-tech approach to learning?
The New Challenge is Overuse
For the longest time, we fought the battle for access. It’s easy, years later, to think of this as misguided or naive. But actually, I still believe in the power of technology for authentic learning. Like I mentioned before, I am glad my students learned to code with Scratch Video Game projects. I am proud of the podcasts, blogs, and videos they created. I still have students who message me and mention moments when they connected with experts. Sometimes it’s simple things, like the Community Editors we had (retired teachers who gave meaningful feedback on their writing via Google Docs).
However, the technological landscape has changed in a few ways. I think it helps here to think about this as a technological ecosystem where the platforms, the content, and the devices all interact with social and economic systems in profound ways. Put simply, the internet of 2010 (when the SAMR model was developed) is not the same as 2026. For one, the devices themselves have changed. It’s easy to forget this but a Chromebook is not the same as desktop. A browser-based device is much more distracting than something with dedicated programs. We used to use dedicated video and audio equipment for a single task. We now use our smart phones for capturing video and audio.
But even more so, the platforms have evolved in profound ways. We have seen the rise of not only social media but short form media socially engineered to be addicting. True, we had Facebook and even Instagram but they didn’t have the same gamified “Snap streaks” of Snapchat. In other words, these platforms have become more addictive and more passive than previous iterations of social media.
Our technological tools are also becoming more powerful than ever. With the rise of generative AI, we are three years into facing newer challenges. Academic dishonesty is easier than ever to pull off and harder than ever to detect. Instant feedback was once unattainable but now we run the risk of getting feedback that’s quick we allow the AI to do the thinking for us. We are seeing a rise in learned helplessness and a struggle with cognitive atrophy. Moreover, some students are getting far too positive feedback from AI and aren’t learning how to accept necessary criticism.
These technological changes coincide with the larger social reality of students being raised on tablets. Young children spend hours with choices but not freedom. It’s pre-programmed with instant dopamine hits in a way that runs counter to human development. At a time where they need boredom, tactile interaction, and a slower pace, they get 15 second short videos they can scroll through. When they should be conjuring imaginary worlds, they have fast-paced games with instant stimulation.
I actually think it’s a bit more nuanced (which I’ll address in the next section). Still, I do think technology is impacting student focus, resilience, deeper problem-solving, and collaboration. Which is ultimately why we need to embrace an approach of deeper learning. We are seeing big challenges at every level of K-12 education.
I see this when I talk teachers and when I visit classroom. Students are coming into class more distracted than ever. Many students are struggling with resilience and self-direction. They’re having a harder time collaborating with their peers. We’ve seen these trends increasing since the advent of the smartphone.
What’s really going on? Students are stuck in a short-term dopamine cycle, where they go to their devices to play games, scroll through social media, or watch short videos. This leads to a temporary boost of happiness followed by a crash and an immediate need to return to their devices.
Pundits have told educators to “be more engaging.” But we see these challenges during the best-crafted lessons. Simply aiming for Redefinition in the SAMR Model doesn’t address a harder current reality of our technological ecosystem. Even when we use technology ethically and wisely, we need to be cognizant of technology overuse. After fighting for technology access, we now have to fight against a newer challenge of technological dependence.
Facing the Current Tech-Lash
It feels like we’re in the middle of a tech-lash. For years, the conversation centered on getting more devices into classrooms and finding better ways to use them. Now the conversation is shifting. Parents are worried about screen time. Community members are asking hard questions about attention, mental health, and childhood. School leaders are beginning to wonder whether adaptive learning programs have actually improved student learning outcomes. And teachers are sharing their frustrations with students being distracted and disengaged.
As I wrote about before, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has adopted some of the strictest classroom screen time limits in the nation. None of this means people have suddenly become anti-technology. Instead, it reflects a growing realization that more technology doesn’t automatically lead to better learning.
But I think we need to be careful to avoid sharp distinctions or black and white thinking. Consider the role of technology and childhood. I am not in the Jonathan Haidt or Jared Cooney Horvath camp of blaming all current learning and social challenges on devices. I am skeptical of any kind of overly simplistic fear-mongering and moral panic around technology (in the same way that I didn’t buy into the social paranoia around rock music or video games in the 1908s). I think the overly structured childhood and the loss of play certainly impact students in profound ways.
Moreover, I’m concerned that a binary good/bad focus on technology fails to grasp certain nuanced realities. First, not all screens are equal. An iPad is not a desktop. Also, not all programs are the same. There’s a huge difference between filling out digital worksheets and typing up a blog post. Which leads to the next concern. The learning process itself is critical. Are students talking to each other? Are they using devices but also engaging in face-to-face interaction? Are they mentally engaged?
My concern with current screentime audits is that they focus on purely on the external behavior (what’s easiest to manage) but not the mental engagement with the technology. We end up with rigid quotas that curtail technology use (a noble goal) but fail to address the way that we use technology. They focus on the time spent on screen but not on something more profound – technology dependence. We know something has to change. It needs to address both the time spent using technology and the quality of our technology integration. This is why I want to take a Low Tech Learning approach.
A More Nuanced Approach
Low Tech Learning isn’t a nostalgic call for the past. It doesn’t require desks in rows, with students spending hours doing worksheets. Nor is it an anti-technology rejection of all devices or apps. Instead, it’s a different approach that recognizes the power of technology for both positive and negative outcomes.
Low Tech Learning goes beyond simply auditing screen time by focusing on making more intentional technological decisions. It avoids the two traps of techno-futurism (where you use technology to drive the learning process) and low tech nostalgia (where you block all technology and go back to desks in rows). Low Tech Learning combines both the quantitative element of screen time with the qualitative element of deeper learning.
In terms of the quantity, it’s not just minutes in front of a device but also how screen-dependent the learning is. Think about two classrooms that each use devices for twenty minutes. In one, students create a podcast after spending days discussing, sketching, debating, and building ideas together. In the other, the device is required for reading, writing, discussion, feedback, and assessment. The screen time is identical, but the level of screen dependency is completely different. The goal isn’t simply fewer minutes on screens. It’s creating classrooms where technology fades into the background and students spend more time interacting with ideas, materials, and one another.
If we do think about time using technology, many of us are wondering what is the ideal ratio? I’m not sure there is a magical number so much as a range – and this range should follow human development. Certainly younger students should have minimal time on screen. I’d love to see something close to a ban for K-3 but when they do use technology, I want it to be creative and connective. I actually think middle school and high school can go higher in screen time and certain subject areas lend themselves better to it. Also, some projects are going to be more screen dependent (filming a documentary) while others can be entirely non-tech (an in-person low-tech simulation).
We definitely need to reduce screen time in schools and, thankfully, quantity is easy to measure. But ultimately, quality is critical. Schools often default to measuring minutes because they’re easy to count, while the more meaningful question is, “What happened during those minutes?” Here’s where the qualitative element of deeper learning comes in.
Low Tech Learning Recognizes that the Ultimate Goal Isn’t Less Tech. It’s Deeper Learning.
Reducing screen time is a great first step, but we need to ask, “What are we ultimately trying to accomplish?” We want to prepare students to have the depth advantage that they’ll need in an unpredictable world full of distractions. Low Tech Learning focuses on how we can use tech in ways that lead to the following outcomes.
In other words, we want to see technology focus on:
- Increased Focus Leading to Deeper Mastery
- Improved Resilience Through Productive Struggle
- Better Curiosity to Spark More Problem-Solving and Creativity
- Better Collaboration Based on Deeper Human Connection
The Low-Tech Learning Matrix
The Low Tech Learning framework recognizes the importance of both the quantity of technology use (screen time) and the quality of technology integration (deeper learning).
The Low Tech Learning Matrix is built around two simple questions. First, how much does the learning depend on screens? This isn’t just about the number of minutes students spend on devices (though that plays a part). It’s about whether technology is one tool among many or whether it has become the default environment for learning.
Second, how deep is the learning? Some activities focus on surface learning, where students acquire foundational knowledge and skills. Others emphasize deeper learning, where students analyze, create, solve problems, collaborate, and transfer their understanding to new contexts. Neither axis is inherently good or bad. Instead, they provide a way to think more intentionally about instructional design.
When these two dimensions intersect, they create four distinct instructional spaces. We want to spend most of our time in the upper-left quadrant, where students engage in deep learning with low screen dependence. The lower-left quadrant represents foundational learning with low screen dependence. This is a vital part of the learning process and it’s often where we see school use digital worksheets where low-tech options work best. The upper-right quadrant represents a high-tech trade-off, where technology supports deeper learning but also increases screen dependence. There are times when this trade-off is worthwhile, like the aforementioned documentary or podcast projects. The lower-right quadrant, however, is where technology is often misplaced. Here, students spend more time on screens without gaining the benefits of deeper learning. These are often digital substitutions for activities that could be just as effective, or even more effective, without a device.
Brain-Based Tech Integration
Low Tech Learning is a brain-based approach to teaching and learning. Rather than reacting to the latest app or debating whether technology is good or bad, it begins with how students actually learn. Research on attention, cognitive load, memory, and motivation reminds us that learning isn’t just about access to information. It depends on focus, productive struggle, meaningful practice, and human interaction.
Our goal is to begin with a research-based understanding of how the brain works and use that to drive technology implementation.
For years, educational technology companies have promoted a model of content delivery in which students passively consume content, only to be tested on it, and then the new content is modified. We see this with current AI-driven adaptive learning systems. But students are real people who actively construct meaning in ways that are often messy!
Technology can support this messy process, but it can also compete with it when used without intention. This is why we have designed Low Tech Learning to be research-based and aligned to how the brain actually works.
Instead of waiting until students are distracted, overwhelmed, or disengaged, Low Tech Learning takes a proactive approach. It helps schools design learning experiences that preserve attention, reduce unnecessary cognitive load, and interrupt the constant dopamine cycles that encourage students to seek novelty rather than sustained thinking.
I Actually Love Technology
I actually love technology. I study technology in-depth as a researcher and a teacher. I’m in classrooms often, and I’m constantly talking to teachers. I see technology as a powerful tool. But it’s so powerful that if we aren’t careful, the technology does the thinking for us, leading to cognitive atrophy.
For me, Low Tech Learning isn’t a pivot away from educational technology. It’s kind of how I’ve always been. I actually began my educational technology journey reluctantly. I was never a “gadget guy,” but instead saw the connective and creative capacity of technology to help students with documentary, blogging, and podcasting projects. For me, technology was a way to make project-based learning a reality.
I also see some of the dangers of technology and attention span reduction and cognitive atrophy. I think it’s critical that we pay attention to both the quantitative and qualitative elements of technology as we focus on intentional tech integration.
