Blab Tech
Digital Classrooms May Be Undermining Learning, Study Finds
When a classroom becomes a screen, what do children lose? That question was at the heart of neuroscientist Dr. Jared Cooney Horvath’s testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in early 2025. Horvath presented a body of evidence suggesting that the widespread use of digital devices in schools is linked to a measurable decline in children’s cognitive performance.
In a sweeping analysis that spanned 80 countries, Horvath matched the rollout of one‑to‑one device programs—begun in 2010—with a consistent drop in standardized test scores. He noted that Generation Z is the first cohort in modern history to score lower on attention, memory, literacy, numeracy and general IQ than the generation that preceded them, even as they spend more years in formal schooling. The pattern he uncovered is stark: once a device becomes a standard classroom tool, outcomes tend to deteriorate, and students who use screens daily in school score markedly lower than peers with little or no device exposure.
The study’s conclusions are not universally accepted. Independent researchers point out that the data are correlational, not causal, and that other variables—such as the COVID‑19 pandemic, changes in home screen use, and socioeconomic shifts—could also influence results. Nevertheless, the pattern identified by Horvath has attracted legislative attention.
Horvath explains the potential mechanism behind the numbers: human cognition evolved for sustained, focused engagement and for learning through direct social interaction. Digital environments, by contrast, are engineered for novelty, rapid switching and constant attention capture. Routing learning through screens may therefore condition children to rely on the same neural pathways that underlie social media use, rather than those that support deep, sustained learning.
Adding a socio‑economic lens, historian Dr. Eliza Filby observes that in the West, wealthy families are increasingly withdrawing their children from device‑heavy education. Elite private schools are returning to teacher‑led instruction and prioritising skills that screens are said to weaken, such as concentration and creative thinking. In contrast, children in under‑resourced schools are becoming more dependent on device‑led learning because alternative resources are scarce. Filby argues that the digital revolution is entrenching inequality rather than alleviating it.
India’s National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 positions digital technology at the core of the country’s educational future. The policy calls for a National Educational Technology Forum, widespread investment in digital infrastructure, AI‑integrated pedagogy and blended learning across all levels. The ed‑tech sector has grown rapidly, offering online courses, coaching apps and AI tutors to millions of families. The policy’s emphasis on technology has allowed governments to sidestep the more costly work of building teacher capacity, improving school infrastructure and ensuring accountability.
China provides a contrasting example. The country has restricted unsupervised generative AI use by primary students, limited gaming and social media screen time, and mandated AI literacy education from primary school onward. China’s approach is described as “managed acceleration,” aiming to capture technology’s benefits while containing its costs.
The 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data support a selective use of technology. The study found that modest device use in structured learning produced small gains, whereas heavy screen use correlated with significantly lower scores. These findings align with Horvath’s observation that wholesale digital transformation of the classroom lacks comparable evidence.
The evidence suggests that the decision to deploy digital devices in schools must be context‑specific. In India, where the NEP’s digital commitments are being implemented rapidly, the data from other countries call for a cautious re‑examination of policy. As Horvath notes, putting a screen in front of a child is not the same as educating one.
The article was written by an assistant professor in the Department of Professional Studies at Christ University, Bengaluru, and published on 06/06/2026 at 12:40 pm IST.
In a sweeping analysis that spanned 80 countries, Horvath matched the rollout of one‑to‑one device programs—begun in 2010—with a consistent drop in standardized test scores. He noted that Generation Z is the first cohort in modern history to score lower on attention, memory, literacy, numeracy and general IQ than the generation that preceded them, even as they spend more years in formal schooling. The pattern he uncovered is stark: once a device becomes a standard classroom tool, outcomes tend to deteriorate, and students who use screens daily in school score markedly lower than peers with little or no device exposure.
The study’s conclusions are not universally accepted. Independent researchers point out that the data are correlational, not causal, and that other variables—such as the COVID‑19 pandemic, changes in home screen use, and socioeconomic shifts—could also influence results. Nevertheless, the pattern identified by Horvath has attracted legislative attention.
Horvath explains the potential mechanism behind the numbers: human cognition evolved for sustained, focused engagement and for learning through direct social interaction. Digital environments, by contrast, are engineered for novelty, rapid switching and constant attention capture. Routing learning through screens may therefore condition children to rely on the same neural pathways that underlie social media use, rather than those that support deep, sustained learning.
Adding a socio‑economic lens, historian Dr. Eliza Filby observes that in the West, wealthy families are increasingly withdrawing their children from device‑heavy education. Elite private schools are returning to teacher‑led instruction and prioritising skills that screens are said to weaken, such as concentration and creative thinking. In contrast, children in under‑resourced schools are becoming more dependent on device‑led learning because alternative resources are scarce. Filby argues that the digital revolution is entrenching inequality rather than alleviating it.
India’s National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 positions digital technology at the core of the country’s educational future. The policy calls for a National Educational Technology Forum, widespread investment in digital infrastructure, AI‑integrated pedagogy and blended learning across all levels. The ed‑tech sector has grown rapidly, offering online courses, coaching apps and AI tutors to millions of families. The policy’s emphasis on technology has allowed governments to sidestep the more costly work of building teacher capacity, improving school infrastructure and ensuring accountability.
China provides a contrasting example. The country has restricted unsupervised generative AI use by primary students, limited gaming and social media screen time, and mandated AI literacy education from primary school onward. China’s approach is described as “managed acceleration,” aiming to capture technology’s benefits while containing its costs.
The 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data support a selective use of technology. The study found that modest device use in structured learning produced small gains, whereas heavy screen use correlated with significantly lower scores. These findings align with Horvath’s observation that wholesale digital transformation of the classroom lacks comparable evidence.
The evidence suggests that the decision to deploy digital devices in schools must be context‑specific. In India, where the NEP’s digital commitments are being implemented rapidly, the data from other countries call for a cautious re‑examination of policy. As Horvath notes, putting a screen in front of a child is not the same as educating one.
The article was written by an assistant professor in the Department of Professional Studies at Christ University, Bengaluru, and published on 06/06/2026 at 12:40 pm IST.
