This is the first in my summer series I’m calling Low Tech Learning. In today’s podcast and article, I explore the negative aspects of a tech-centric environment and the movement toward going low tech. I also want to provide some nuance and balance to set the tone for the rest of this summer series.
I know this might sound odd. I’m a professor of educational technology. I teach our ed tech course in the MAT program. I wrote a book about distance learning and another one on AI. But I also wrote Vintage Innovation and The Depth Advantage and I don’t see technology as good so much as powerful. My hope, then, is to offer a perspective that embraces nuance and complexity but is still clear and practical.
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.
Sometimes Low-Tech Is the Answer
It’s an early morning in Phoenix and I’m having coffee with a former middle school student. She is currently teaching sixth grade and absolutely crushing it.
“Hey remember that really cool activity I did last year where I set up multiple AI avatars who could answer questions as if they were engineers?” she asks.
“Yeah, you told me about it,” I answer.
“Well, I abandoned that and I have mixed feeling about the results,” she says.
“Tell me more,” I say, taking a sip from my coffee.
“Okay, I brought in Ricardo. He’s an engineer and I thought it would be cool to talk to a real human who came from my neighborhood. I know there’s so much focus on girls and coding but I wanted them to see a young, Latino male in the field as well. Does that make sense?”
“It does,” I answer. I love Ricardo’s story and I can see how it would resonate in any classroom.
“I thought so too but then it was kind of a disaster at first,” she admits.
“What?” My eyebrows raise.
“He was so nervous. Like shaking. Sweating. Barely whispering when he presented at first,” she points out.
“What?!? He did theater. He’s a performer!” I practically shout in the fairly quiet coffee shop.
“Bro, can I call you bro?”
I nod.
“Well, bro, he was terrified. I told him that he was cooler than anyone there. None of them can drive, right?”
I smile.
“But then, he opened it up for questions and it got better,” she says.
“How so?”
She smiles. “God, he was so honest and vulnerable about being a first year college kid and doubting whether he belonged. He told stories and things were clicking and then it fell apart again.”
“Oh no!”
“Someone asked about math and he went on this super detailed tangent about vector calculus and they were so lost. Like kids whispering and fidgeting and whatnot.”
“Okay, that sounds like him,” I point out.
“Then one kid. This guy who always causes problems asked him if he was gay. Just straight up asked. Or gay up asked, I guess. But you get the idea.”
“No?!?” I gasp.
“Yeah. And before I told him he didn’t have to answer it, Ricardo was like, ‘I am. Proudly. And let me tell you what it’s like to be gay and an engineer in an environment with really cool lesbians and nice but clueless and sometimes accidentally mean straight guys.’ Then he did. Just honest. Told stories.”
“How’d that go?” I ask.
“It was so honest and human and . . . well . . . you know how authentic Ricardo can be.”
“I do,” I nod.
“Then he led them on this maker challenge and it went really well. But then he tried to lead a debriefing but they kept working while he was talking because he doesn’t know classroom management. How can he? The man’s an engineer.” She shrugs her shoulders.
“And next year?” I ask.
“For as messy as it was, I’m bringing Ricardo back if he’ll let me. Look, I know AI can mimic an engineer and you don’t have cringey moments where a kid asks it if its gay. Seriously, what was Francisco thinking? But also, it was so vulnerable and so human and so real. I still believe in the power of AI but this was a good reminder that human connection will always trump technology.”
I realize this is an isolated moment but it’s an example of a trend I’m seeing. After years of technology integration, many teachers are being deliberate about rejecting technology and choosing a more hands-on, human-centered approach.
The Issue Used to Be Access. Now It’s Overuse.
In 2003, Larry Cuban wrote Oversold and Underused, where he argued that schools were overestimating the transformative power of technology while underestimating the complexity of teaching and learning. He made a fascinating point about how technology ends up reinforcing existing instructional practices rather than fundamentally changing classrooms. This happens because teachers try to fit the technology into their pre-existing structures and thus fail to transform it. But it also happens because tech integration tends to be top-down and fails to respect teacher agency.
Over two decades later, this work still resonates. When I visit schools, I see 3D printers gathering dust. I notice high-end video production studios remaining largely empty. And a significant reason continues to be precisely what Cuban pointed out in his book. Technology implementation has been largely top-down with very little empathy toward students or input from teachers. Rather than focusing on agency and efficacy, trainings have largely focused on technology skills and fidelity to district plans.
But I also think a new challenge has emerged. For years, the issue was one of access and use. But now we’re actually seeing the problem of technology overuse in schools. I’ve watched districts spend millions of dollars on adaptive learning programs (think iReady) without any significant gains in student achievement. Coming out of COVID, many districts pushed for tech-based assignments that could easily work within Learning Management Systems that would integrate into grading portals where parental figures could have real-time access to their child’s scores.
Moreover, with the proliferation of Chromebooks, it has become easier to manage digital assignments. Copy machines are finicky. Besides, this technology often seems cheaper. Paper is expensive. Google Docs are cheap (on the surface). Expo markers cost a pretty penny (though technically we’re not using pennies anymore) but an interactive white board remains a simple, fixed cost. Meanwhile, so much of the training and implementation of AI has focused on how these tools can save districts money by limiting the need for paid curriculum while also saving teachers time and reducing stress.
It’s no wonder, then, that technology usage seems to be increasing in schools. After struggling to gain access to technology, schools have largely bridged the access and implementation gap. Teachers and students know how to use and often the tools seem faster, cheaper, and more efficient than their low-tech counterparts.
And yet . . .
We are collectively seeing a backlash to technology in schools. For all the promises of adaptive learning programs, we aren’t seeing improvements in reading and math. Meanwhile, many parental figures feel frustrated by the sheer amount of screentime their children experience in schools. So many of the teachers I work with seem frustrated as well. They’re tired of the constant cat-and-mouse game of distractions when students use iPads and Chromebooks. They feel hopeless with AI and cheating. But it’s more than that. So many of these teachers want something deeper and more human for their students, many of whom have been raised with a screen in their hands going all the way back to toddler-hood.
With that in mind, I’d like to explore some of the negative aspects of a technology-centered environment.
The Pitfalls of Tech-Centric Environments
When the Gutenberg Press arrived on the scene, few people could have envisioned its impact on the rise of the nation-state, the increase in personal liberties, the immense scientific discoveries, or the dawn of the Enlightenment. Then again, few could have predicted the spread of propaganda, the environmental destruction it would unleash during the Industrial Revolution, or the expansion of imperialism. Similarly, few could have predicted how the telegraph would drastically reduce attention spans while increasing both the access to information and the speed in which it travels. More recently, when we hopped aboard the Information Superhighway, we had no idea that we would eventually end up with social media echo chambers that would impact democracy. As we think about Artificial Intelligence, we have no idea what the long-term impact will be.
The hard reality is that we cannot predict how technology will impact society. We can, however, ask, “How is it currently transforming society in negative and positive ways?” So, let’s think about some of the challenges technology has created.
1. Distractions
Our students carry powerful computers in their pockets. As a middle school teacher, I often had students record podcasts and videos on their phones. They recorded their fluency and rated themselves with on a rubric. They often checked information instantaneously and added key details to the points they wanted to make during a Socratic Seminar.
But these devices also function as dopamine casinos. Social media platforms have been engineered to capture and hold their attention in ways that they often can’t see. Social media feeds, short-form videos, and mobile games give students the instant dopamine release their brain craves. But then, that’s followed by a crash and they move through the cycle even faster.
Many students find themselves battling distractions that previous generations never faced, making sustained focus and deep learning more difficult. Quick note here. I’m not a fan of The Anxious Generation or the way Jonathan Haidt oversimplifies technology and anxiety. I actually see a reduction in attention within members of every generation but I’ll be exploring that topic in a future blog posts.
2. Challenges with Collaboration
When I talk to teachers, they often share the same concern. Their students struggle with collaborative projects. They have a hard time sharing. They want to turn group assignments into individual endeavors. They don’t listen well and they can’t seem to negotiate differences or navigate conflict. This is, like the point above, an oversimplification. But it’s also a trend I’ve seen firsthand with students of all grade levels.
I’m not entirely sure why collaboration has been so hard for them. Perhaps they missed out on core socialization during the pandemic (though I see it more acutely with students who are current pre-school and kindergartners). Maybe it connects to the overly structured nature of modern childhood, with the constant extracurricular activities and the lack of unstructured free play with their peers. Perhaps it relates to trends in parenting styles. I honestly, have no idea. The variables are simply too complex to de-tangle.
However, I wonder how much of it connects to the sheer amount of screen time students experience in formative years. When students are playing Roblox at the dinner table and watching YouTube Kids in the car, they’re missing out on key moments of in-person socialization. And when they play a game or watch a video tailored to their personal tastes, they can internalize the notion that the world is built for them. Now imagine they have iPads in the classroom. They’re doing an adaptive learning program, getting instant badges and rewards for reading. Is it any wonder, then, if they struggle with communication or conflict resolution?
3. Lack of Self-Direction
Students seem to have a hard time with self-direction. They are struggling to be self-starters who can take initiative but also self-managers. Again, I don’t think this is true of all students and I don’t place the blame entirely on screentime. However, as technology has become more personalized and predictive, students have fewer opportunities to practice making decisions, managing uncertainty, and setting their own goals. If you’re raised on an iPad, you’re essentially moving through programmed technology. And while it looks more complex, it’s far more predictable than an open prairie and far less imaginative than a refrigerator box.
Algorithms increasingly decide what to watch, what to read, where to go, and even what to think about next. This reduces the need for intentional choice at the student level. Now imagine adding an adaptive learning tool on top of this. Kids are moving through a predetermined course on autopilot. As a result, many students struggle with ambiguity, persisting through challenges, and directing their own learning.
4. Lack of Resilience
This is similar to the issue of self-direction. Students seem to have a hard time with resilience. So many teachers I talk to describe students giving up the moment when they’re faced with a challenge.
So much of modern technology has been designed to eliminate friction. We can get instant answers, instant directions, instant entertainment, and instant connection. While these tools offer real benefits, they also reduce the opportunities students have to wrestle with confusion or persist through difficulty. They don’t experience boredom or long-term mental struggles as they engage in problem-solving.
Add to this the very real challenge of cognitive atrophy, where technology does so much of the thinking for them. We may think that we are navigating our city but Google Maps has done the thinking for us. We think we have crafted a query for Google but autofill did the heavy lifting. And it’s so invisible we miss it entirely.
This challenge will only become more pronounced as AI becomes more powerful and more accessible. Students can now generate explanations, solve problems, and create polished products in seconds. Used well, AI can support learning and free students to focus on deeper thinking. But when it becomes a substitute for thinking rather than a tool for thinking, it can short-circuit the productive struggle that leads to growth.
So, as we think about all of these challenges, it’s no wonder many educators are embracing the low-tech revolution.
Is it time for a low-tech revolution?
During an AI workshop, a principal laments, “In terms of AI, we have a group of teachers who are worried about cheating and they’re doing things like interactive notebooks or handwritten warm-ups.”
I nodded. “I’d do the same.”
“But don’t we want students to learn to use AI ethically?”
“Absolutely. And there are key moments where we can integrate AI into the writing process. But we will often move across the continuum of AI integration. We will need to be AI-resistant, AI-integrated, and AI-driven. And we’ll get into these approaches in our workshop. But AI-resistant strategies have their place with writing. Most of the time, we should see things like sketchnotes, quick-writes, and interactive notebooks.”
I share this story because I’ve seen teachers villainized for going paper and pencil with writing. And yet, they have every reason to be concerned about cognitive atrophy. They’re not simply burying their heads in the sand. They’ve helping students write in a human way that will help their writing stand out surrounded by AI slop. They’re guiding them through the writing process so they learn through writing. In other words, they’re going low-tech with intentionality.
This is a small part of a low-tech revolution I see in schools (and, in many respects, in our society as a whole). People are saying, “Let’s go with the tactile, the lo-fi. Let’s pay closer attention to things like screen time.”
It’s easy to see this low-tech revolution as reactionary or fear-based. But it’s not. Parents worried about screen time. Teachers taking back attention. Educators are rediscovering the power of discussion, hands-on projects, outdoor learning, sketchnotes, and collaborative problem-solving as ways to foster deeper engagement in a distracted world.
But this movement isn’t about rejecting technology or pretending we can return to some idealized past. Instead, it’s about being more intentional with tech. Low-tech learning is human-centered learning. It starts with the belief that relationships, curiosity, creativity, and meaningful experiences matter most. Thus, technology works best when it supports those goals rather than competing with them.
Here’s what I find fascinating. This low-tech revolution doesn’t seem to be partisan right now. Oregon and Texas are both embracing smartphone bans in the classroom. I can’t think of the last time my home state of Oregon chose significant educational policy that aligned with Texas!
Furthermore, I’ve seen this low-tech revolution roll out in systems that seem philosophically opposed to each other. I’ve seen progressive education embrace outdoor learning spaces, screen time limitations, and hands-on prototyping. They’re doing screen time audits and limiting technology usage. In fact, I just recently worked with a school district to implement a screentime audit that focused on deeper learning rather than just tech usage. But I also see classical education, which tends to reject progressive education, choosing to do Socratic Seminars, reading from physical books only, and limiting screen time to the moments when it actually augments the learning process.
Low-Tech Doesn’t Mean Anti-Tech
I think it’s important to recognize that technology shapes the way we think (hence my digression into printing presses and telegraphs). But it also depends on how we use it. There’s a huge difference between using a smart phone and a laptop to film a documentary versus binge watch a tv show. There’s a significant difference between mindlessly scrolling TikTok and accessing journal articles on Google Scholar. I have had times when I checked out and played WordScapes to avoid my emotions but also times when I used a guided meditation to help me get more centered. I’ve learned so much from audiobooks but I also know the danger in getting sucked into a social media echo chamber.
A Socratic Seminar could use digital articles. A sketchnote video might be made on a tablet. A maker project might involve Arduino and coding mixed with duct tape and cardboard. A game could have a digital component. An outdoor expedition might use GPS or photography.
I know I’m using the term “low-tech” here and, yes, we’ll be exploring the need for reducing screen time. But the goal isn’t to be anti-tech. It’s not even to be low-tech. It’s about high engagement. Not just participation but actual mental engagement in the learning process. When a learning experience becomes too screen-centered, what is the first thing students lose? Is it focus? Observation? Embodied learning? Creative risk-taking? Human connection?
Our focus isn’t on banning devices. Instead, we want to focus on designing better learning experiences. And these learning experiences tend to be defined by presence. Presence with ideas. Presence with materials. Presence with the environment. Presence with people.
Similarly, my goal isn’t a nostalgic call for the “good old days.” In fact, I’ll be exploring why smart phone bans didn’t lead to an increase in student achievement. And throughout this series, I’ll highlight key moments where a low-tech approach focuses on being ethical, intentional, and restrained with technology. As we move forward, we’ll focus on two big ideas. The first is that we should take a Vintage Innovation approach. The second is that we should integrate technology in a way that leads to deeper learning.
The Power of Vintage Innovation
A low-tech approach rejects the fear-mongering of anti-technology and instead focuses on being ore mindful and intentional with our technology. Instead of embracing futurism, it uses a vintage innovation approach. Vintage innovation is the overlap of the tried and true and the never tried. It’s the mix of best practices and next practices. It’s the mash-up of lo-fi tools with high tech gadgets. A vintage innovation approach might use paper handouts for reading but then do recorded Socratic Seminar podcasts. It might do a sketchnote video writing prompt shown on a projector but then use an AI-resistant writing prompt and a physical handout as part of a notebook.
Vintage innovation recognizes that relevance isn’t about what’s flashy and new. It’s about what’s timeless and important.
So, as we go through this series on low-tech learning, I want to use this vintage innovation framework as a way to keep some of the necessary nuance we need to avoid the fear-mongering of anti-technology.
The Power of Deeper Learning
One of the core ideas of low-tech learning is that the best way to prepare students for a tech-saturated world is actually to be different. Learn to focus in a world of distractions. Choose mastery in a culture of shallow. Learn to collaborate even when it’s a challenge. Develop deep communication skills that stand out in a world of AI slop. In other words, our students will need to become really good with what AI can’t do and really different with what it can do.
Here’s where deeper learning becomes so critical. With deeper learning, students develop the skills that become habits that then become mindsets that they use in a tech-centric world.
So, as I start this summer series on low-tech learning, I want to end with a final thought. Every teacher is different. Every classroom is different. My hope is I can explore these topics with wisdom and nuance. But also with a recognition that nobody has this completely figured out.
