The National Education Policy 2020 and National Curricular Framework 2023 acknowledge how useful educational technology (edtech) can be in supporting student engagement and learning in the classroom. However, not all edtech interventions or tools are equal. In my personal experience as an educational leader for over almost two decades, I can tell you that about 95% of the edtech products I have been presented with are useless. Most products are developed by non-educators, through minimal consultation with users, and with little or no actual classroom testing to inform product design and iteration.
To begin with, schools should adopt a culture and policies that support evidence-based practice. This means that any edtech product - whether it is an online math program, or a tablet loaded with content for science, or whatever, must necessarily prove itself to be better or more effective in supporting teaching and learning processes than whatever is being used as present (textbooks, etc.). Ideally, the company marketing its product should present such evidence in the form of third-party research published in credible scholarly journals. However, this is rare. In cases where such research is not available, a pilot study can be conducted by the school itself. This is similar to a small-scale experiment. Pilot studies can help the school determine if the edtech product brings any benefits, presents any potential issues, and is feasible to implement, before committing to purchasing and using the tech innovation across the entire school. A simple pilot study might entail choosing two groups of children from the same grade and subject to participate in. One group uses the edtech product while the other group carries on using the existing materials. At the end of 3 months or 12 months or whatever is deemed appropriate, a comparison is made between the two groups in terms of student learning outcomes. If it is difficult to find a valid and reliable standardized assessment to use for such an experiment, then the comparison between groups can even be made just at the level of how technology integration affected student engagement and teaching practices. If the edtech group performs significantly better than the non-edtech group on these outcomes, then the technology has proven its efficacy, and this might be a good case for scaling up its use across the school. On the other hand, if technology does not improve any outcomes, then it should not replace earlier practices. In this way, pilot studies ensure that only evidence-based programs or tools are institutionalized.
One useful framework to use while evaluating technology integration in the classroom is that of PICRAT. PIC stands for passive, interactive, creative, and relates to the nature of engagement between the student and technology. Passive engagement includes watching and listening to PPT presentations or videos without actively engaging with content. Interactive engagements involve students in collaborative work with one another or interactions with the software. Finally, creative engagements imply that students receive opportunities to apply their knowledge and skills towards generating artifacts of learning in the form of original artwork, writing, coding, videos, etc. RAT stands for replacement, amplification, transformation, and describes the influence of technology integration on a teacher’s earlier classroom practice.
Replacement implies that the use of technology is merely substituting an earlier analog approach without adding any value per se. For example, reading text or PPT from the laptop instead of a textbook. Amplification means that the use of technology augments or enhances the teaching and learning engagement from what was possible using the earlier methods. For example, using a tool like Grammarly while writing an essay which helps students with spelling, phrasing, grammar, vocabulary, etc. Finally, transformation suggests that teaching and learning processes are completely redefined due to the integration of technology. In other words, such an engagement would be impossible without the use of that technology. For example, using an adaptive learning math program that adjusts the pace and difficulty of content and assignments based on current levels of understanding of each student in a classroom. Such personalization of learning pathways would be impossible without the use of technology, especially in the typical Indian classroom with 40 students. Edtech products of any kind are usually expensive in terms of funds invested and time and effort required to learn how to use and effectively integrate the technology in the classroom. So, schools must take the responsibility of ensuring that the investments made are worthwhile. PICRAT can be a useful decision-making framework for this purpose. The higher that an edtech product or approach scores in PICRAT the higher the justification for the investment, and vice versa.
Finally, a word of caution. Regardless of how purposeful your technological integration is, or how much it is improving your child’s or student’s learning, it is imperative that we as educators, parents, and even students, use technology in a responsible way. Concerns about eyesight, posture, etc. can all be mitigated through the incorporation of simple strategies and routines. For example, parents can help limit total daily screen time by minimizing non-educational screen time during the day. Building routines at school and home like looking at something 20 feet away for 20 seconds every 20 minutes, allow the eyes a break from the screen. Consciously building habits like adjusting the screen brightness so that it is not too high, adjusting your position so that there is minimal glare, and adjusting text size on the screen to be appropriately large, will reduce eye strain. Similarly, adjusting the monitor height and using tools like document holders can help with posture. There are many such simple strategies available online that can be taught to children as good hygiene when using technology.