Camille Faivre is a seasoned education management expert who has spent years helping institutions navigate the complex shift toward digital learning. In the wake of the pandemic, her focus has sharpened on the practical implementation of e-learning programs and the critical evaluation of their impact on student achievement. As schools increasingly rely on digital devices, Camille provides a necessary bridge between the promise of innovation and the reality of the classroom, offering a balanced perspective on whether these tools are truly enhancing the educational experience or merely complicating it.
This conversation explores the controversial link between falling test scores and classroom technology, the neurological differences between digital and manual learning, and the social disruptions caused by constant screen access. We also examine the reliability of educational research and how school leaders can make more informed decisions about device rollouts.
Test scores in many regions began a downward trend around the same time laptops became standard in classrooms. How can educators distinguish between the impact of these devices and external variables like the pandemic, and what specific metrics should they track to measure the actual academic return on tech investments?
It is incredibly difficult to isolate a single cause when we see international and domestic test scores stagnating or declining over the last decade. We must acknowledge that the growth of screens in schools coincided with massive external shifts, most notably the pandemic and the explosion of personal smartphone use outside of school hours. To distinguish between these factors, educators should look beyond high-stakes testing and track “time-on-task” metrics alongside engagement levels. If students are spending more time on school computers but their mastery of core concepts isn’t shifting, we have to ask if the tech is a bridge or a barrier. While some critics point to a clear correlation between increased device use and lower achievement, we must be careful not to mistake correlation for causation without looking at the specific quality of the software being used.
Some data suggests that general-use educational technologies may actually underperform compared to traditional classroom instruction. Why might tech-driven lessons fail to match the effectiveness of a teacher-led environment, and what specific steps can schools take to ensure digital tools aren’t lowering the quality of the learning experience?
The primary reason tech-driven lessons often fall short is that they frequently lack the nuance and adaptive feedback of a live teacher. In many studies, the measured effect of educational technology is found to be quite small, often lower than the gains seen in a “typical” teacher-led classroom. This leads to the argument that if a tool isn’t outperforming traditional methods, it might actually be a net negative when you factor in the cost and distraction. To prevent a decline in quality, schools need to move away from “general-use” tools and toward targeted applications that solve specific learning gaps. We must ensure that technology is used as a supplement to human instruction rather than a replacement, maintaining the high-touch environment that we know works.
Digital tools often aim to make learning “frictionless,” yet the manual process of handwriting notes is frequently linked to better memory retention than typing. What are the neurological trade-offs when we remove this friction, and how should teachers balance the efficiency of typing with the cognitive benefits of physical writing?
There is a vital neurological distinction between the “frictionless” experience of typing and the deliberate act of handwriting. When a student types, they often record information verbatim without much cognitive processing, whereas handwriting requires them to synthesize and summarize information in real-time, which aids memory retention. By removing the physical effort of writing, we may be inadvertently making it harder for students to commit new knowledge to their long-term memory. I advise teachers to implement a hybrid approach where laptops are used for research or drafting, but “deep thinking” tasks—like brainstorming or initial note-taking—remain analog. It’s about recognizing that the ease of a tool doesn’t always translate to the effectiveness of the learning process.
Human relationships are foundational to learning, but screens can create a barrier between students and teachers while offering constant distractions. How do digital devices fundamentally alter the social dynamics of a classroom, and what protocols can schools implement to minimize “off-task” behavior without abandoning technology altogether?
Screens inherently change the “eye-contact” economy of a classroom, creating a physical wall between the educator and the learner. When a child has a Chromebook in front of them, the temptation to find a more “fun” path—be it a game or a chat—is a constant pull away from the lesson. This social fragmentation makes it harder for teachers to gauge student engagement and build the rapport necessary for deep learning. To combat this, schools should implement “lid-down” protocols during direct instruction to restore the social connection. By designating specific “tech-free zones” or times within a lesson, we can minimize off-task behavior and remind students that the most important resource in the room is still the human connection.
Many educational studies on technology are criticized for being low-quality or quickly becoming obsolete as tools evolve. Given these challenges, how should school boards evaluate the research presented to them, and what process should they follow to “weed out” flawed data before committing to expensive device rollouts?
Evaluating ed-tech research is a minefield because the pace of software evolution far outstrips the pace of peer-reviewed academic studies. Many school boards are presented with summaries of thousands of studies, but as some statisticians warn, if you don’t “weed out” the low-quality papers, you end up with a “garbage in, garbage out” problem. School boards should prioritize studies that are recent—ideally within the last three to five years—and look for independent evaluations rather than data provided by the tech vendors themselves. They should also ask for pilot programs that involve small-scale testing within their own district to see how a tool performs in their specific cultural and economic context before committing millions of dollars to a full rollout.
What is your forecast for screens in schools?
My forecast is that we are entering a period of significant “digital correction” where the initial novelty of one-to-one device programs will give way to a more skeptical, evidence-based approach. We will likely see more states and districts following the lead of those already considering restrictions on school-issued devices as the weight of cognitive and social evidence continues to grow. Technology will not disappear, but it will become much more specialized; we will move away from the idea that every student needs a screen for every subject. The future classroom will likely be a more intentional “blended” environment where the most critical, foundational learning returns to paper, pen, and face-to-face dialogue, leaving digital tools for specific tasks that they truly do better than a human.
