Technology is reshaping the landscape of education. Accessibility of materials is a non-issue due to the advent of filesharing. Devices are taking the place of textbooks, chalkboards, worksheets, and even notebooks in some classrooms. The benefits are plain to see. Although, it is unclear what exactly schools are giving up by replacing the physical materials which they have relied on since the inception of academia. These changes may be irreversible, and the time for this conversation is now.
As a student myself, it is my preference to maximize the effectiveness of my studies. I find myself asking whether new developments in technology can so easily surpass the effectiveness of methods thousands of years in the making. However, this idealistic view does have some issues of practicality and finance which must not be ignored.
Digital materials have the potential to reach students who would otherwise fall behind. This is particularly apt in a college setting. While a textbook list can price students out of courses, online textbooks or textbook files could lower or negate these costs. A device is one purchase which will serve a student in every class, and it can take the place of lengthy material lists. Online textbooks can also incorporate features for disabled students, which could allow them to follow along with their peers without assistance or requiring the purchase of specialized materials. By optimizing effectiveness over accessibility, schools could lose out on potential learners.
The tangible feel of a book or letter is preferable to some readers. This may not seem to be a measurable statistic, or a meaningful argument on the face of it. However, Roger Dooley of Forbes argues that neuroscience studies prove that the brain responds to physical mediums more than its digital counterparts. An fMRI study conducted by Millward Brown of Bangor University in 2009 concluded that some emotional processing pathways associated with reading were not stimulated by digital text. It also found that spatial memory was only engaged in print. It is inferred from this conclusion that memory of tangible text is multimodal, and thus more accessible. Dooley refers to this study to argue that physical advertising is still valuable in an increasingly digital world. In my eyes, this evidence applies to much more than marketing.
The National Center of Education Statistics reports that “About 9 in 10 public schools (88 percent) have a one-to-one computing program that provides every student a school-issued device, such as a laptop or tablet for the 2024–25 school year.” Despite the rights of each state to administer education as they see fit in the United States of America, largescale adoption of technology has been a common trend.
The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on childhood development have puzzled both parents and researchers. While so far studies are few, teachers have witnessed these changes firsthand. Professor Thomas Dee of Stanford University has said, “What we’re coming to understand about the long-lived effects of the pandemic on learning, it underscores for me that there’s a social dimension to learning that we ignore at our peril. And I think technology can often strip that away.” Though he sees advancement through technology, Professor Dee is adamant that the social dynamic of education is a necessary part of development. Technology must be in service of both the student and the lesson.
As these resources become the baseline for education, we must not forget the rest of the tools in the toolkit of the teacher. Not every lesson will be served best on a website or application. It is up to administrators and school boards to provide a budget with a balance of materials, old and new, for a teacher to teach.