Month: February 2025

The idea of giving every student a device sounds fantastic—until you realize half the class is playing games or watching cat videos instead of paying attention. But does that mean one-to-one programs should be scrapped? Not necessarily. When implemented well, these programs can be game changers, especially for students who wouldn’t otherwise have access to technology.

Research shows that one-to-one programs can enhance student engagement and boost academic performance. A meta-analysis by Islam and Grönlund (2016) found that when properly integrated, personal devices improved learning outcomes in English, writing, math, and science. That’s great—except when students start treating their laptops like a high-tech doodle pad during class.

One major concern, though, is that without clear structure and guidance, these devices can quickly become distractions. Teachers who envisioned lively, tech-enhanced discussions often find themselves competing with YouTube, social media, and whatever new viral game is trending. Studies suggest that excessive screen time can reduce attention spans (Bennett, 2020), and let’s be honest—when given the choice between an algebra lesson and a quick round of Fortnite, most kids aren’t picking algebra.

The Swedish government is taking a different approach to student technology use, proposing legislation to ban personal digital devices in schools up to the 9th grade due to concerns about excessive screen time leading to decreased physical activity, sleep deprivation, and increased anxiety (DW, 2024). This move aligns with Sweden’s National Digitalisation Strategy for the School System 2023-2027, which emphasizes ensuring digital tools are used effectively without compromising student well-being. While Sweden aims to rebalance students’ real-life interactions and digital engagement, it also recognizes that digital literacy remains essential for future success (Digital-Skills-Jobs.europa.eu, 2024).

Grade level matters, too. Younger students, for example, might need more structured use, as their impulse control isn’t quite there yet (anyone who’s tried to keep a first grader focused on Zoom can relate). On the other hand, high school students can benefit from the autonomy that comes with personal devices—assuming they don’t turn every assignment into an AI-generated essay. Subject area also plays a role; history and science classes may thrive with tech, while a hands-on art class might find screens more limiting.

From a constructivist perspective, Vygotsky would probably argue that these devices, when used collaboratively, can enhance social learning. However, without proper teacher training and structured guidelines, technology can easily become a double-edged sword—full of potential but just as capable of leading students down a rabbit hole of endless TikTok scrolling.

Ultimately, one-to-one programs aren’t a magic bullet for education, but they’re also not the enemy. When paired with strong instructional strategies, digital literacy training, and maybe a few well-placed firewalls, they can make learning more accessible and engaging. The key is balance—because let’s face it, even the best technology can’t replace a great teacher (or keep students from pretending their Wi-Fi is down when they don’t feel like participating).

 

References:

Bebell, D., & Kay, R. (2010). One-to-one computing: A summary of the quantitative results from the Berkshire Wireless Learning Initiative. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 9(2).

Bennett, P. W. (2020, July 20). The educational experience has been substandard for students during COVID-19. Policy Options.(2024).

Back to basics: Sweden aims to de-digitalize youth. Retrieved from
https://www.dw.com/en/back-to-basics-sweden-aims-to-de-digitalize-youth/a-70228600

Islam, M. S., & Grönlund, Å. (2016). An international literature review of 1:1 computing in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 17(2), 191–222.

 

 

 

 

If there’s one thing the COVID-19 pandemic made crystal clear, it’s that education and global health are deeply connected. When the world went into lockdown, schools and universities had to pivot overnight, shifting from traditional classrooms to online platforms. It was a wild ride—some students thrived, some struggled, and everyone had to adapt to a new normal. This experience didn’t just highlight challenges; it also set the stage for how education will evolve in the future, with technology at the forefront.

The Pandemic’s Wake-Up Call for Education

COVID-19 threw education into chaos. Schools shut down, and students across the globe found themselves staring at screens instead of sitting in classrooms. The biggest issue? Not everyone had the same access to technology. Many students in low-income communities lacked reliable internet or devices, making learning incredibly difficult (Bennette, 2020). At the same time, teachers had to become tech experts overnight, learning to navigate platforms like Zoom, Google Classroom, and Microsoft Teams.

Education systems worldwide faced unprecedented disruptions. The immediate response varied from country to country—some nations quickly implemented national online learning programs, while others struggled to get students connected. In places with existing infrastructure for e-learning, students had a smoother transition, but in rural or underdeveloped areas, the lack of digital resources deepened educational inequality (Kuhfeld et al., 2020).

One major takeaway? Online learning isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. While some students enjoyed the flexibility, others found it isolating and unengaging. The digital divide became more obvious than ever, pushing governments and schools to rethink how they can make education more inclusive (Burgess & Sievertsen, 2020). For example, many countries took steps to distribute devices, provide internet subsidies, and even broadcast educational content on television to reach students who had no internet access.

My Experience Leading the Digital Shift

I’d like to explore the rapid shift to online education during the COVID-19 lockdown, specifically focusing on my experience leading this transition at an institute where I was the Academic Head. The sudden move to platforms like Zoom and Microsoft Teams posed major challenges, especially in a city where students, parents, and teachers had little prior exposure to digital learning tools.

Navigating this shift required structured training and clear communication. I led the development of step-by-step training manuals, conducted sessions for teachers, students, and parents, and addressed technical challenges in real time. Initially, many struggled with basic aspects like logging in, using digital whiteboards, and submitting assignments online. Over time, through repeated guidance and hands-on support, we saw a significant improvement in digital literacy.

This experience highlighted the importance of usability and adaptation. It wasn’t just about having access to technology—it was about ensuring users could effectively engage with it. This transition also revealed broader trends in digital education: the necessity of digital readiness, the importance of clear instructional design, and the role of structured training in easing the adoption of new learning technologies.

EdTech: The New Foundation of Learning?

The pandemic accelerated the use of educational technology. Schools turned to digital tools to keep lessons going, and suddenly, AI-driven learning, adaptive platforms, and virtual classrooms became mainstream. Platforms like Coursera, Khan Academy, and Duolingo saw massive growth as people sought out ways to learn online (Burgess & Sievertsen, 2020). This shift highlighted the potential of online education but also exposed gaps in accessibility, effectiveness, and engagement.

EdTech has reshaped how we view learning. Many schools now see the benefits of blended learning models, where students engage with digital resources alongside traditional classroom instruction. AI-driven platforms, such as personalized learning assistants, became more widely used, allowing students to learn at their own pace. However, the pandemic also demonstrated that while technology can support learning, it cannot fully replace in-person instruction, particularly for young children or students with special learning needs.

Another challenge was the digital literacy of educators. While some teachers were already comfortable using technology, many had to rapidly learn new skills to create engaging online lessons. This highlighted the need for ongoing teacher training in digital pedagogy. Institutions that provided professional development for their staff saw better learning outcomes compared to those that left teachers to figure things out on their own (Canadian Commission for UNESCO, 2020).

Lessons We Shouldn’t Ignore

So, what are the biggest takeaways from this whole experience? Here are a few lessons that should stick with us:

1. Make Tech Accessible to Everyone
   The digital divide was glaring during the pandemic. Schools need to invest in infrastructure that ensures every student, regardless of background, has access to devices and reliable internet (Kuhfeld et al., 2020). Governments and private organizations must work together to create sustainable solutions for equitable access to education technology.
2. Train Teachers, Not Just Students
   Many educators struggled with the tech transition. Schools should prioritize teacher training so they can confidently use digital tools and create engaging online experiences (Bennette, 2020). Even post-pandemic, ongoing professional development in digital literacy is crucial.
3. Blended Learning is the Future
   The pandemic showed us that a mix of online and in-person learning can be beneficial. Schools should explore models that offer flexibility while maintaining engagement (Burgess & Sievertsen, 2020). Hybrid learning can allow students to access high-quality resources while still benefiting from in-person interactions.
4. Mental Health Matters
   The emotional impact of the pandemic was massive. Schools need to prioritize mental health resources for students and teachers, ensuring well-being is just as important as academics (Canadian Commission for UNESCO, 2020). Support systems such as school counselors, mental health days, and social-emotional learning programs should be integrated into curricula.
5. Be Ready for the Next Crisis
   If there’s one thing we’ve learned, it’s that the unexpected can happen anytime. Schools need crisis plans in place to ensure learning doesn’t come to a halt the next time a major disruption occurs (COVID Education Alliance, 2020). Institutions should develop emergency remote learning strategies that can be activated quickly.

What’s Next?

Looking ahead, education will likely continue evolving in response to what we learned during the pandemic. Policymakers and educators are now discussing how to create resilient education systems that can withstand future global health crises. Some schools are incorporating hybrid learning models permanently, while others are working on improving student support systems.

The key takeaway? Education must be flexible, inclusive, and technology-driven—but without forgetting the human element that makes learning meaningful. The lessons of COVID-19 should push us toward a future where education is not just reactive but proactive in meeting the challenges ahead.

 

REFERENCES:

Bennette, P. W. (2020, July 20). The educational experience has been substandard for students during COVID-19. Policy Options.

Burgess, S., & Sievertsen, H. H. (2020, April 1). Schools, skills, and learning: The impact of COVID-19 on education. Vox.

Canadian Commission for UNESCO. (2020, April 20). COVID-19 is creating a world crisis in education.

COVID Education Alliance. (2020). Primer.

Kuhfeld, M., Soland, J., Tarasawa, B., Johnson, A., Ruzek, E., & Lewis, K. (2020, December 3). How is COVID-19 affecting student learning? Brookings.

 

Criticisms of Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development

Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development has been highly influential but has also faced various criticisms. Lourenço and Machado (1996) address ten common critiques, including:

1. Underestimating Children’s Abilities – Critics argue that Piaget underestimated the cognitive abilities of young children. Research using modified experimental methods has shown that children can achieve certain cognitive milestones earlier than Piaget suggested. This is evident in experiments where infants show object permanence much earlier than Piaget theorized. (Turns out toddlers are sharper than we thought!)
2. Stage-Like Development vs. Continuity – Piaget’s theory proposes that cognitive development occurs in distinct stages, but some researchers suggest that development is more continuous and influenced by experience and education. The concept of scaffolding, emphasized by Vygotsky, suggests that children learn better when supported by more knowledgeable individuals, indicating that development isn’t always a rigid, stage-by-stage process.
3. Cultural and Social Factors – Piaget focused on biological maturation and individual discovery, often underemphasizing the role of social and cultural influences. However, as the “Still Face Experiment” in developmental psychology demonstrates, even infants are highly responsive to social interactions, reinforcing Vygotsky’s idea that learning happens within social contexts.
4. Mechanisms of Development – Critics argue that Piaget did not clearly explain how children transition from one stage to another beyond the process of equilibration. The role of external guidance, as seen in studies of parent-child interaction, challenges the idea that children are purely self-directed learners.
5. Lack of Emphasis on Language – Piaget considered language as a reflection of cognitive development rather than a fundamental driver, whereas Vygotsky emphasized its central role in shaping thought. The second video highlights how children use private speech to regulate behavior, supporting Vygotsky’s claim that language is an active tool in cognitive development.

While these criticisms challenge Piaget’s framework, they do not necessarily render it obsolete. Instead, they highlight the need for a more integrated approach that combines Piaget’s insights on cognitive structures with external influences such as culture and social interaction, as emphasized by Vygotsky.

Language Acquisition (Vygotsky) and Equilibration (Piaget) in Cognitive Development

Vygotsky and Piaget both acknowledged the importance of language in cognitive development but viewed its role differently:

• Vygotsky’s Perspective: Vygotsky believed that language is the primary tool for cognitive development. Through social interaction, children internalize knowledge, and language facilitates higher mental functions. The video on Vygotsky explains how children use self-talk (private speech) as a way to process thoughts and guide themselves through tasks—something Piaget viewed as egocentric speech but Vygotsky saw as essential for development.
• Piaget’s Perspective: Piaget saw language as a byproduct of cognitive development rather than a primary driver. He emphasized the process of equilibration, where children balance assimilation (incorporating new experiences into existing schemas) and accommodation (modifying schemas to incorporate new information).

A child learning to classify animals might initially believe that all four-legged animals are “dogs” (assimilation). Through social interactions, such as conversations with parents or teachers, they learn to differentiate between cats, dogs, and other animals (accommodation). This linguistic interaction helps them achieve cognitive equilibrium as they refine their understanding of categories. (No more calling every furry creature “doggo”—progress!)

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and Piaget’s Stages of Development

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and Piaget’s stages of cognitive development provide different but complementary perspectives:

• Complementary Aspects:
  • ZPD highlights the role of guidance and social interaction in advancing a child’s cognitive abilities. This aligns with Piaget’s idea that children are active learners but expands on the notion by emphasizing the support of knowledgeable others.
  • The video on Vygotsky explains how a child learning to ride a bike benefits from parental encouragement, step-by-step guidance, and practice before fully mastering the skill—demonstrating ZPD in action.
  • Vygotsky’s theory suggests that with scaffolding, children can reach cognitive abilities beyond what they would achieve alone, while Piaget focused on self-initiated discovery within biological constraints.
• Challenges to Piaget’s Stages:
  • Piaget’s rigid stage-based theory assumes that children progress through cognitive stages in a linear manner. However, Vygotsky’s ZPD suggests that cognitive development can be nonlinear, as learning is influenced by external factors such as teaching strategies and social interactions.

A child struggling with math concepts might be unable to solve problems independently (Piaget’s preoperational stage). However, with a teacher’s guidance using verbal instructions and problem-solving strategies (ZPD), the child can grasp the concept and eventually internalize it.

In summary, integrating Vygotsky’s social emphasis with Piaget’s developmental structure provides a more holistic understanding of cognitive development. While Piaget’s framework offers valuable insights into the stages of thinking, Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach explains the mechanisms that drive children through these stages more dynamically.

Piaget gave us the roadmap, and Vygotsky added the GPS.

 

References

Lourenço, O., & Machado, A. (1996). In defence of Piaget’s theory: A reply to 10 common criticisms. Psychological Review, 103(1), 143–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.143

John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A Vygotskian framework. Educational Psychologist, 31, 191–206.

Glassman, M. (1994). All things being equal: The two roads of Piaget and Vygotsky. Developmental Review, 14, 186–214.

DeVries, R. (2000). Vygotsky, Piaget, and education: A reciprocal assimilation of theories and educational practices. New Ideas in Psychology, 18(2–3), 187–213.

“Still Face Experiment” video. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhcgYgx7aAA

Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development video. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I2hrSRbmHE

 

 

 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Virtual Reality (VR) are being hyped as the superheroes of education—ready to swoop in and save students from the dreaded boredom of traditional learning. And you know what? I think they might just have what it takes, but only if we use them wisely.

AI can be that ever-patient tutor who doesn’t roll its eyes when you ask the same question five times. Personalized learning? Check. Immediate feedback? Check. But let’s be real—AI can’t replace the warmth of a teacher who genuinely cares whether you pass or just barely survive. Sure, AI can tailor learning experiences like a digital Marie Kondo, but without human interaction, education could start feeling a little… robotic (pun intended).

Now, VR—oh, what a dream! Imagine history class as an actual journey through ancient Rome or science class where you’re dissecting a virtual frog instead of traumatizing yourself with a real one. VR taps into experiential learning, making lessons more immersive and, dare I say, fun. But let’s not kid ourselves—headsets aren’t cheap, and let’s not even start on motion sickness. Plus, if we put too much faith in VR, we might just end up with students who can navigate a digital medieval castle but can’t find their way to the school library.

At the end of the day, educators are still the captains of this ship. AI and VR should be their trusty sidekicks, not replacements. The real magic happens when technology enhances human teaching, not when it tries to replace it. So yes, AI and VR are game-changers—but only if we play the game right.

Reference:
EDUCAUSE. (2017). Horizon report: K-12 edition (2009-2017).