When Tech Meets Chalkboards: Can Technology Really Enhance Learning

Technology is one of the most pervasive aspects of the modern classroom. Interactive whiteboards, learning management systems, personalized learning apps—the list goes on. But for the debate class, the question asked this week, it was neither practicality nor pervasiveness that was at the center of discussion. We discussed if, and more importantly why, technology should be used in the classroom in the first place. In writing this post, I wanted to try to connect the research, the critiques, and my classmate’s persuasive arguments together. In short, I found that technology, while not perfect, does have the potential to improve learning. Especially if it’s used intentionally, inclusively, and, most of all, in combination with excellent teaching.

Points of argument were

Agree Side

Customizable for diverse students: Advocates for diversity highlighted how tech-enabled tools, such as adaptive software and interactive simulations, empower students with learning differences to progress at their own pace.

Combatting boredom: Echo chambers, where “students stare at their books,” were contrasted with tech-enhanced environments as “stale.” Technology was framed as a tool to rekindle curiosity through gamified lessons and real-time feedback.

Adjunct, not substitution: Emphasizing that tech should augment traditional instruction, rather than replace it. Technology was most potent when layered over robust pedagogy and human interaction.

Disagree Side

Efficiency for specific learners? Dustin’s rebuttal: Adaptive tools can feel “robotic and cold,” leading to confusion for students who require individualized support.

Boredom and no engagement: Inserting “screens” into classrooms as teaching aids alone does not prevent student disengagement because they can still lose interest if the content lacks depth and practical relevance.

Equivalence vs. replacement: Dustin challenged the notion of “equal use” as a standard, arguing that technology must not just coexist with but also match or outperform traditional methods in effectiveness.

What I Learned from the Pro-Technology Side

The most convincing argument in  Leanne and Jenni’s debate (in my opinion, and apparently others too) was made by pro debaters from Team 1. The point that struck me most was the benefit of technology for children with learning differences. The speaker highlighted how voice-to-text software, screen readers, and adaptive learning programs helped students work at their own pace and based on their individual strengths. The McKinsey study backs this up, estimating that up to 13 hours per teacher could be shifted to direct support by automating certain tasks (Bryant et al., 2020).

Boredom is also a very real, but sometimes overlooked, phenomenon in the classroom. But for those students, the lack of engagement is not a matter of effort or intelligence—it’s simply a mismatch with their skills and interests. In those cases, the pro debaters made a very convincing point that classroom tools (Kahoot, Flipgrid, Quizlet games, etc.) can engage students through collaboration, gamification, and variety. As a student, I can definitely speak to this: on days when learning is coupled with an exciting use of technology, school doesn’t feel so bad!

I also appreciated the measured, practical tone of the argument in favor. This speaker was at pains to make the point that technology should not replace teachers or the classroom experience. In fact, she was very explicit: technology is a supplement to instruction, not a substitute. We also went over two pedagogical models that aligned with this sentiment in class TPACK and SAMR (University of Calgary). In both models, technology is a layer that can either modify or completely redefine a learning task, but both require strong pedagogical intent to do that. For me, all these points came together to form a well-founded belief in a blended approach to the future of education: in the classroom, both teachers and technology play a role.

What I Learned from the Disagree Side (Dustin’s Arguments)

On the other side of the debate, Dustin’s arguments were also surprisingly resonant and instructive for me. I was taken aback when I realized that some of his most compelling arguments resonated with me in ways I hadn’t expected. Dustin’s first outburst (also one of the more controversial topics in education) was the limitations of adaptive technologies. Adaptive learning platforms are growing in popularity (Kessler, 2022) and often promise to be “personalized” and “student-centered.” But in practice, these algorithms are often much less flexible than they seem. One example Dustin used was how a fixed “learning path” often backfires for students with complex or atypical learning needs. A real learning plan should allow for fluidity between concepts based on the student’s needs, strengths, and interests. It’s one of the major critiques I’ve also come across in my research.

The second point I found especially convincing and topical was the use of technology as a “Band-Aid” for curriculum or planning that isn’t otherwise engaging. One line in particular stuck with me: “You can have all the screens but if the lesson isn’t meaningful, students will still zone out.” And I’d be lying if I said I hadn’t been in classes like that. Classes where all the tech was used…but it still felt like none of the learning was happening.

A third salient point from the disagree side was the need for outcomes, not just equalized use. Equal time with tech and equal time with books (or whiteboards) doesn’t automatically mean equal outcomes. While the exact framework was different, the overestimation of learning technology’s positive effect is the same point Hamilton and Hattie (2021) made after their meta-analysis of 15,000 studies.

Also backing up was a study by Vodopivec (2024), who found that BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) policies in classrooms reduced overall student academic performance and increased both smartphone distractions and cheating behaviors. The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship also had a great video featuring Sophie Winkleman, who warned about all the downsides of replacing in-person learning with devices. This ranged from problems with social skills and mental health to increasing distractibility among younger learners. With so many potential downsides, I found the call to be cautious all the more convincing. Thanks to these points, I began to understand technology in the classroom through a different lens.

My Final Reflection: Balance, Not Blind Adoption

After the debate, I came to the conclusion that technology (used right) will be part of a classroom of the future. In the same way I see students, I also see technology as a bridge and a mediator not an authority or a replacement.

For tech in the classroom to improve learning outcomes, it should:

• Be used intentionally, not automatically
• Be inclusive and accessible, with a special focus on helping those with learning differences
• Be used in combination with strong teaching, emotional support, and real-world skills and knowledge.

And we must always ask:

• Does this tool work in our local context?

• Are our teachers trained to use it effectively?

• Does it enhance human connection, not replace it?

Learning, no matter how fun or well-presented, will always fail to engage without an excellent teacher guiding the process. Technology itself is a tool, but with the right teachers and training, it can be one of the best tools in the learning toolbox.

The debate also gave me some practical advice: I can walk into the future of learning with my LMS, which will not replace the high school teacher I so appreciated but will hopefully be one of the tools in my teacher’s kit.