A classroom reality we rarely talk about
A few months ago, I visited a classroom in Bulgaria. Nothing unusual at first glance. Students had devices. The teacher was experienced, committed, trying to engage everyone. But within ten minutes, the pattern became clear. One student was following the task. Another was switching between tabs. Two were waiting not because they didn’t want to work, but because they were unsure where to start. And one student simply closed the laptop and said quietly: “I’m tired.”
That moment stayed with me. Because it captures something we don’t talk about enough. The problem is not whether technology is present in the classroom. The problem is that we still don’t know how to use it well.
A debate driven by fear and false simplicity
Across Europe right now, we are witnessing a growing divide. Some countries are investing heavily in AI skills and digital education. Denmark is working to upskill one million citizens in AI. Latvia is building national teacher capacity for AI in education. At the same time, other systems are moving in the opposite direction limiting screen use, reintroducing traditional models, even questioning whether digital tools belong in schools at all.
This is not just a policy contradiction. It is a symptom of something deeper: We are confusing bad implementation with bad technology.
The global narrative is increasingly shaped by headlines such as:
• “Screens harm learning” often derived from interpretations of OECD and PISA data on student performance
• “Technology causes decline in results” widely discussed in policy debates in countries such as Norway and Sweden
• “Go back to books” amplified through international media coverage such as the BBC article on Sweden’s shift in education policy For example, BBC’s widely shared article “Sweden’s schools give up digital learning” framed the debate as a move away from screens toward traditional textbooks.
At the same time, OECD findings on digital device use in education are frequently cited to argue that more screen time correlates with lower student performance.
These messages are powerful. They are easy to understand. And they travel fast. But they often simplify a much more complex reality. But this is not what the evidence actually shows.
Correlation is not causation but it is persuasive
One of the most widely shared arguments today is that increased device use correlates with lower student performance. That is true. But it is also incomplete. Student outcomes have been affected by:
- the COVID-19 pandemic
- increased social media use outside school
- growing inequality
- mental health challenges
And yes by poor use of technology. But the key word here is poor.
I remember a teacher telling me, almost apologetically, “It’s not the laptops… it’s what happens around them.”
In her classroom, the difference was visible. When students were simply clicking through tasks, jumping between tabs, half-listening and half-scrolling, the atmosphere changed. Attention drifted. Energy dropped. Learning felt shallow.
But in another lesson, with the same students and the same devices, something else happened. They were creating. Discussing. Solving problems together. The screens were still there but this time they were tools, not distractions.
This contrast is not accidental. What research has been showing for years is something much more nuanced than the public debate suggests. It is not “screen time” itself that determines outcomes it is the quality and purpose of use.
When digital tools are used passively, without structure or intention, the effects are often negative. Students disengage. They become overwhelmed. Learning becomes fragmented. But when technology is used with purpose guided by a teacher, connected to a clear goal, and embedded in meaningful activity the picture changes. The impact is not harmful. In many cases, it is quietly positive.
Even large-scale studies of educational technology reflect this reality. The overall effect is not dramatic, but it is there modest, steady, and importantly, not negative. For example, a comprehensive meta-analysis of over 20,000 studies reviewed by Education Next found an average effect size of +0.29, indicating a small but positive impact of EdTech on learning outcomes.
Similarly, the OECD has repeatedly emphasized that the impact of digital tools depends not on their presence, but on how they are used, noting that technology alone does not improve outcomes without clear pedagogical purpose. Which brings us to an uncomfortable truth. The problem is not that technology does not work. The problem is that we have too often introduced it into classrooms without asking the most important question: What is it actually for? And that is exactly what we continue to see in practice.
The Bulgarian reality: between ambition and fragmentation
In Bulgaria, we are not behind in digitalisation. We have: national platforms, digital content, investments in infrastructure, motivated teachers. And yet, from our work in the TechWell project, one pattern is consistent: Digital wellbeing is not addressed as a system. It is addressed as a reaction. Schools deal with: distraction, cyberbullying, overuse, stress. But mostly after problems appear.
There is no shared model for: how digital tools should be used, how communication should work and how to balance learning and wellbeing.
As highlighted in the TechWell mapping and analysis, this is not only a Bulgarian issue, it is a European one. Across countries, digital wellbeing remains fragmented, inconsistently defined and rarely integrated into school systems.
We keep repeating the same mistake
What concerns me most is not the problem itself but it is how we respond to it.
I have worked in 30 different countries with Ministries of Education for the last few years and especially during the pandemic and we have seen this cycle before: Introduce technology quickly, Without enough teacher support, Without clear rules, Without involving students or parents. Then problems appear.
And the response? To remove the technology? But this does not solve anything. It simply replaces one form of poor design with another.
What students are actually experiencing
When we talk about “screen time”, we reduce a complex reality to a number. But students’ digital lives are not about hours. They are about experiences.
From research and from what we see in schools. Students face constant communication pressure (“Why didn’t you reply?”), social comparison and anxiety, fragmented attention and difficulty switching off. At the same time, digital tools are also how they learn, how they connect and how they express themselves. This duality is critical. Technology is not only a risk. It is also a necessity.
What we learned from TechWell: schools don’t need more tools
Through the TechWell project, working with schools across Europe, one insight stands out:
Schools do not need more technology. Schools need a model for using it well.
We are currently designing the The Digital Wellbeing Suite exactly for this reason to move from isolated practices to a whole-school approach.
What does that mean in practice?
- Purpose before platform
Before any device is used, there must be a clear answer: What learning goal does this serve?
If the answer is unclear, the tool becomes noise.
- Structure reduces stress
Many student challenges are not caused by technology itself, but by lack of clarity: too many platforms, nconsistent expectations, unclear communication. Simple rules can have a huge impact for ex. one place for tasks, clear communication channels, predictable routines. We are welcoming your opinion here.
- Teachers are the key but they are not supported enough
Teachers are expected to manage digital classrooms, support wellbeing, integrate new tools, adapt to AI along all other tasks. But many have not received structured training, practical guidance and most importantly time to experiment. This is one of the biggest gaps identified in European research and in TechWell preparation phase. This is the reason why we at EdTech Bulgaria are creating a network of schools to test and implement technology and new methods in the right way with a supporting the teacher in theit learning journey. Please apply here if you would like to learn more about this opportunity.
- Students must be part of the solution
One of the most powerful approaches we tested is student co-design.When students analyse their own digital challenges, create rules together, test solutions then something changes.They move from being controlled…to being responsible.
- Parents are not the problem they are the missing link
In many conversations, parents are seen as either too permissive or too restrictive, but in reality, they are often confused and unsupported and inconsistent with school practices. Without alignment between school and home, no strategy will work.
Digital wellbeing is not about less it is about better
We need to move away from the idea that digital wellbeing means: less screen time
And towards: better use of technology
Digital wellbeing is balance, awareness, structure and elationships. It is about how technology fits into life not how much of it there is. If we get this wrong, we risk more than learning outcomes.
This is not just an education issue. It is aboutv mental health and social development and equity .If we remove technology without a plan students from disadvantaged backgrounds lose access, digital skills gaps increase and informal learning shifts outside school without guidance. Also if we do nothing and If we continue as we are stress increases also teachers burn out that nobody talks about it and this leads to fragmented learning.
The real question we should be asking
The debate should not be: “Should we use technology in schools?”
It should be: “How do we design learning environments where technology supports both learning and wellbeing?”
The student who said “I’m tired” was not rejecting technology. They were reacting to a system that is not yet designed for them. We owe them better. Not more tools. Not fewer tools. But smarter, more human use of technology.
That is the work ahead for all of us.
