Practical principles for stakeholders

While access to technologies and resources (as well as the skills to use them) remain important, our research shows that this are often positioned as compensatory for other forms of disadvantage. Our research suggests there should be a greater focus on the way in which technology is experienced in different ways, according to resources, culture, and power dynamics. For example, is the technology reflective of schools’ teachers’ or students’ needs and characteristics? We suggest greater attention to the variation in cultures of schools and learners, especially pupil background or specific learning difficulties and disabilities, and attention to flexibility of design that can accommodate these differences in real classroom contexts.

What values does the technology promote, and are educational values prioritised? All technologies promote particular values, whether intended or not. For example, in our research we saw examples of technology where a strong focus on completion or gamification over understanding of the content. On the one hand, it is clear how these values are seen as useful. For example, a focus on completion encourages a focus on spending more time doing something, which often leads to positive outcomes. Similarly, gamification can be a useful way to support external motivation. However, our findings show the significant problems that can arise when these goals begin to interrupt or over-ride the educational intention; where the appearance of mastery became more important than developing an understanding of the topic.

Which pedagogic principles have been used in the design of the software? What are the underlying logics of how this technology works? Teachers and schools are provided with very limited information about how specific edtech works (e.g. why a certain software categorises a student in a particular way, why a concept is explained in a certain way, or why specific information about the student communicated via dashboards is viewed as the most important. For a teacher to use technology in an educatively meaningful way requires some sense of how it works, and how it is designed to support teaching and learning. Otherwise, significant teacher time can be taken up by either changing their practices to fit the technology or deal with these tensions as they arise in the classroom.

What are the infrastructural requirements for this technology, and is this likely to change? Schools require clarity about the technical requirements of any edtech, for example, the specification of the devices and networks required to run software, its interoperability with existing school systems, and associated “startup costs” such as registering students on the system. Technologies that schools can rely on over a specific time period (without them being withdrawn, or requiring expensive upgrades) with clear costings help schools in their planning and decision-making. Schools also seek clarity on questions of data ethics in relation to the use of generative AI and other technologies

At present, the relatively few evaluations of edtech that do exist tend to be insufficient. Such evaluations typically centre around some form of experimental study to test the relationship between technology use and learning outcome. They often suffer from the typical methodological challenges of such approaches, including a lack of control group, problematic sampling, inadequate theorisation, and measures that are of questionable validity (e.g. often focusing on outcome measures that are based within the edtech system as opposed to validated measures beyond it). If such evaluations are to be used by schools, they need to be of a high quality.

In many cases, edtech tends to be designed for an ‘average’ fictional student rather than being able to accommodate a range of student needs, even where personalisation is promoted as a central feature of a technology. For example, is the content presented by these technologies contextually appropriate and culturally inclusive? To what extent is this technology appropriate for students with different needs? For example, lower vs higher attaining students tended to want different kinds of feedback or explanation from some of the adaptive edtech they used.

How has this technology been designed with an understanding of the needs of teachers and what happens in the classroom? At times, technologies are developed with a limited understanding of the varied environments of secondary school classrooms, what teachers need to support their students, or how such technologies might fit into existing school practices. In our data this ranged from relatively simple problems, such as a technology being designed for use for a certain amount of time per day that did not work within timetabling constraints; to teachers feeling that the technology created an unhelpful / distractive third actor in the classroom that detracted from the learning and teaching process. In our data, arguments around saving teacher time are not fully supported, instead it would be more accurate to suggest that technologies tend to reconfigure teachers’ work.

All technologies promote particular values, whether intended or not. For example, in our research we saw examples of technology with a strong focus on completion or gamification over understanding or mastery of the content. With increasing concerns around the distractions of technology and students taking academic shortcuts, it’s important to consider whether edtech is supporting or interrupting a school’s educational goals and values.

Edtech often claims to adapt or “personalise” students’ learning experiences. However, much edtech is designed with a generalised “average” learner in mind, which may not cater to a full range of student need, even where personalisation is advertised as a key feature. Does the content provided by the technology align with a schools’ curriculum intent and reflect the backgrounds and experiences of their student community? What kind of teacher support do students require to positively engage with the technology? How well does the technology seem to diagnose and remedy student needs?

Technologies do not have a uniform effect in schools, and what students do with technology in and out of school can impact their academic identities. How will the technology be experienced by those, for example, who are digitally excluded, who have EAL or SEND? It is often those students who are most economically disadvantaged or culturally marginalised who have the most negative experiences of technology.

Educational technologies are often promoted as time-saving, however, our research shows that the reality is more complex. Technology in some cases does make organisation and resource preparation more efficient, yet it can also make some activities more time consuming, particular when used in the classroom. Ultimately it may be more useful to focus on how teachers work is reconfigured by technology, and if it is making the work of a teacher more or less rewarding.

EdTech can support a range of different pedagogies in the classroom. What are the dominant pedagogies in your school/classroom? Are technologies doing what they need to do?

Our research shows large disparities in school and digital infrastructure, such as differences between quality and types of available devices, connectivity at home and in school, access to software (free vs premium versions; creative packages etc.), pandemic-prompted technology choices and levels of IT support. These disparities constrain pedagogical options and ambitions of technology use. Alongside government infrastructure funding, tech decisions need to be based upon the infrastructural realities of the school context. Age and computing power of devices, quality of wifi connections, availability of headphones, and limited software availability can all cause problems that have to be balanced against other investment priorities of the school.

Technology is often viewed as a neutral or positive intervention. There is an assumption that access to technology, skills and resources, will lead to better, more equitable, educational outcomes. However, technology is not straightforwardly positive. It is important to consider the experiences of learning as well as the outcomes, and what broader educational opportunities for students may be gained or lost by the use of technology.

Our research highlights the importance of critically engaging with the edtech market when selecting technology. School leaders should look beyond branding and claims, and critically evaluate edtech options according to their own educational values, or student needs. This may involve resisting pressure to adopt widely marketed or dominant platforms. School leaders can also play a role in signalling demand for products that better reflect educational priorities. Procurement is power. By deciding to purchase or not to purchase, schools have the opportunity to influence the market.

Despite a persistent narrative of the digital native, our research shows there are some apparent skills ‘gaps’ that stymie student use of available technology. This is partly due to digital inequities in the home, varied digital experiences at primary school, or lack of capacity in the curriculum to address digital skills. Those with lower traditional literacy levels often struggle to engage within the digital sphere. Where in the curriculum such skills should be supported, and who has responsibility for digital literacy can sometimes get lost – caught between the narrow demands of the computer science curriculum and the use of technologies for learning across subjects.

Couceiro, L., Eynon, R., & Hakimi, L. (2026). Turning back the page on digital literacy: the role of traditional literacy in shaping digital practices. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2026.2640004

Schools are navigating the tensions between current assessment practices (on paper), the future (potential) shift to digital exams, and specific technology requirements of certain exam boards, particularly in creative and vocational subjects. There are variations in the range and quality of individuals’ and schools’ access to technology for assessed coursework, which constrain educational outcomes for some students. The availability of generative AI leads to even greater complexity in defining and detecting digital malpractice. These tensions need to be given greater attention in terms of the support provided to schools and the decision-making around future assessment frameworks.

Our research shows important links between young people’s digital literacy and their traditional literacy skills. Rather than treating these as separate domains, our findings show how reading and writing continue to shape the ways young people navigate digital environments, and teachers express concerns about the way reading, handwriting and critical thinking skills are being affected by technology use. We suggest that framing technology as a straightforward solution to literacy challenges without attending to ways students engage with such technologies risks reinforcing the very disparities they seek to address.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17439884.2026.2640004

Educational technologies are often promoted as time-saving in policy discourse. However, our research suggests that the reality is more complex. Technology in some cases does make organisation and resource preparation more efficient, yet it can also make some activities more time consuming. Significant teacher time is invested in managing devices, developing an understanding of the tech, preparing backups in anticipation of technical failures, and compensating for the shortcomings of the technology while teaching. It may be more useful to focus on how teachers work is reconfigured by technology as opposed to understanding it as time saving.

Technology does not have a uniform impact in different school environments. Differences in access, school and student characteristics, and digital skills can significantly shape students’ experiences with technologies. Current policy approaches often overlook these variations, assuming a level of consistency in how students experience technology and a uniformity in learning outcomes. Our research shows that technology very rarely compensates for these inequities, and can often make them worse.

When we think about equity in education, there is often a policy emphasis on fair access to resources, which can be used to compensate for educational disadvantage or to close an “attainment gap”. Access to resources is important but only one aspect of an equitable school system. Our research suggests there should be a greater focus on the way in which technology is experienced in different ways, according to resources, culture, and power relations, which has implications for identity, agency and connections with others.

Pedagogical design can have important implications for student-teacher relationships, student agency and learning experiences. In particular, our data shows concern from teachers and students about the distractive nature of technologies in the classroom, as well as efficiency logics and the introduction of academic shortcuts into learning. Policy making should take these into account, calling for designs that are educative, that support focus and reduces opportunities for cognitive shortcuts, rather than relying on teacher monitoring or for students to exercise high levels of self-regulation.

It is important to critically engage with technology itself. Technology should not be treated as fixed or inevitable, but as something designed by humans, and therefore open to change. Policymakers have an opportunity to create conditions for greater professional dialogue, and procurement practices, for schools to ask not only whether a technology works in broad terms, but whether it aligns with their values, priorities, and the differing needs of their students.

No technology will have consistent impact across all classrooms. Policymakers should support approaches that recognise the value of diverse, context-sensitive forms of evidence, and consider whose knowledge counts in evidence-making processes. Currently, the perspectives of developers, well-funded organisations, researchers, policymakers, and investors are often prioritised, but experiences and insights of school leaders, teachers, students, and parents/carers should also be included.

Our research suggests a need to actively reshape the edtech market to better serve schools, teachers and students. This includes greater regulation of large technology companies, and holding all providers accountable for the educational and social impacts of their products. Policymakers are encouraged to create incentives for the development of technologies that align with educational goals, such as through procurement frameworks or funding models, while reducing the disproportionate influence of commercial interests on what is developed and adopted in schools. SMEs and the third sector can help to redistribute power across the sector for educational benefit.