In my years as a classroom science teacher, I’ve seen my fair share of education technology solutions. Some significantly help — and others sometimes hinder — the teaching-learning process. Disagreement about the benefits and drawbacks of certain technologies has led to substantial strain among teachers and other decision-makers (see UNESCO’s 2023 GEM Report). Implementing edtech effectively and equitably hinges on respecting and actively involving teachers and learners throughout the design, adoption, and implementation process.

The smartphone wars are an example of how broad policies can threaten classroom agency

While many advocate for smartphone bans in places of learning, others argue that personal devices offer important access to digital resources, especially in low-resource contexts. Many science educators around the world see appropriately used smartphones and carefully designed mobile apps as essential tools for scientific data collection students might otherwise have no access to. Flat bans could remove a tool that empowers student-led inquiry and data gathering, reducing their ability to make independent decisions in the scientific process. And those advocating for these uses may be drowned out in conversations that only consider general, high-level perspectives.

It’s important to remember that edtech is not simply a mechanism for efficiently conveying information to students. Dedicated and thoughtful teachers can make it part of the structure of their teaching, maximizing learners’ engagement and ownership in the learning process.

We need all hands on deck to respond effectively to new educational technologies

In evaluating new technologies, education stakeholders should consider three recommendations.

1. Edtech designers and developers should work closely with teachers and learners to center their innovations on solving teaching-learning challenges.

Designers need deep experience directly working with learners and educational professionals — ideally including teachers and education researchers on the design team. We often already have rich, contextualized data about specific learning challenges. Developers should use edtech while also embracing insights and observations shared by educators and students. Where there isn’t enough data, designers can engage teachers and learners in participatory research as a core process of the design.

At PhET Interactive Simulations at the University of Colorado Boulder, US, we’ve taken this holistic approach. PhET develops intuitive, game-like digital environments for teaching science and mathematics distributed as open (free) educational resources and used more than 250 million times each year around the world.

The design team is predominantly made up of experienced educators. They anchor the work in discipline-based education research, their own practical classroom experience, and in-depth think-aloud interviews with learners as they work through early versions of a simulation. The results of this work are resources teachers can adapt for various teaching contexts and methods. Similarly, they promote learner agency by sparking curiosity and questions, supporting student-driven learning. We get ongoing feedback from education stakeholders so we can respond to shifting needs.

2. Educational decision-makers who influence edtech use have a responsibility to include multiple user perspectives.

Policymakers and administrators who drive edtech guidelines should not do so in a vacuum. They can only avoid unintended, negative consequences by including teacher and student (and, when appropriate, parental) perspectives. Some policymakers achieve this through dedicated advisory councils, open periods of public commentary on proposed policies, or community-based town halls.

In the education ecosystem in particular, effective cross-talk demands that high-level decision-makers and teachers are willing to engage in conversations and address the tensions and opportunities imposed by new technologies. Recognizing this need, PhET invests in developing teacher leadership through, for instance, the PhET Fellowship program, originally launched with the support of the Yidan Prize Foundation.

The PhET Fellowship has involved teachers across 35 countries to develop three leadership competencies: instructional, association, and policy. They focus on how their selective use of edtech should improve their teaching and that of their colleagues; establish and nurture professional learning communities; and foster productive dialogue with policymakers and influence their decisions. Our hope is that our parallel investments in edtech creation and teacher leadership contribute to the robustness of the global education ecosystem.

3. Edtech implementers, especially teachers, must develop a ‘pedagogical prudence’

People often want edtech solutions that are ‘one-size-fits-all’ and maximize learning efficiency. The reality is that not all edtech solutions are equally effective in all contexts, and efficiency can compromise the quality of teaching and learning — not least by restricting agency at the classroom level. Administrators and experienced teachers working together can bring valuable perspectives about the cost-benefit ratio of new technologies, and can shed light on the financial, infrastructure, and professional investments needed to keep technologies working smoothly on a day-to-day basis.

Good edtech minimizes costs and maximizes learning in the long run. As the source of expertise who know their disciplines and their students best, effective teachers should feel both an invitation and an obligation to share their perspectives about what works in edtech — and what does not.

Responding to innovations in edtech is not only about finding effective solutions but about supporting collaborative ecosystems. By embracing teacher and learner agency in edtech design and development, empowering educators to contribute to decision-making, and inviting teachers to inform policy, we can harness edtech to genuinely enhance, rather than undermine, meaningful teaching and learning.

——
Dr Rebecca Vieyra
Director of Global Initiatives, PhET Interactive Simulations, University of Colorado Boulder