Why Are Some Countries Reducing Screen Time in Lessons?

A Critical Analysis of the Post-Pandemic Reassessment of Educational Technology

Introduction

Over the past two decades, educational technology (EdTech) has become integral to educational reform initiatives globally. Governments have invested substantially in digital infrastructure, one-to-one device programs, online learning platforms, and, more recently, artificial intelligence-driven educational tools. Proponents have asserted that technology can personalize learning, enhance student engagement, and equip young people for participation in increasingly digital economies (Selwyn, 2016). The COVID-19 pandemic significantly accelerated these developments, compelling schools worldwide to implement online and blended learning approaches at an unprecedented scale (UNESCO, 2023).

As schools resumed face-to-face learning, policymakers and researchers began to question whether extensive technology adoption had achieved the anticipated educational benefits. Countries such as Sweden, Finland, France, and the Netherlands have increasingly reduced screen exposure in lessons and reintroduced greater use of printed materials, handwriting, and direct instruction (UNESCO, 2023). This policy shift reflects mounting concerns about academic achievement, attention, literacy development, student well-being, and teacher workload.

This movement does not represent a rejection of technology but rather a broader reassessment of the appropriate role of digital tools in contemporary education.

The OECD Challenge to Technology Optimism

One of the most influential critiques of technology-centered educational reform has emerged from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In its landmark report, Students, Computers and Learning, the OECD analysed international data and found that substantial investment in educational technology did not necessarily result in improved student performance (OECD, 2015).

The report demonstrated that students who used computers at moderate levels achieved better academic outcomes than those who used computers very frequently (OECD, 2015). Additionally, countries that invested heavily in classroom technology frequently showed minimal improvement in reading, mathematics, or science achievement compared to countries that adopted more balanced approaches (OECD, 2015).

These findings challenge the widespread assumption that increased access to technology automatically improves learning outcomes. The OECD concluded that educational success depends primarily on the quality of teaching and pedagogy, rather than the quantity of technological resources available to students (OECD, 2015).

The OECD did not argue against the use of technology itself. Instead, the report recommended that technology should complement effective teaching practices rather than replace them (OECD, 2015).

Cognitive Science and the Importance of Deep Reading

A substantial body of cognitive science research has contributed to concerns about excessive classroom screen use. Reading comprehension is a strong predictor of academic success across disciplines, and researchers increasingly differentiate between digital reading and traditional print-based reading.

A large-scale meta-analysis involving over 170,000 participants found that students generally achieved higher comprehension levels when reading printed texts compared to digital materials (Delgado et al., 2018). This effect was especially pronounced when students engaged in deeper analytical reading tasks rather than simple information retrieval (Delgado et al., 2018).

Researchers have proposed several explanations for these differences. Printed texts offer physical and spatial cues that support memory formation and information recall. Readers often remember the location of information on a page or in a book, which facilitates navigation and comprehension (Delgado et al., 2018).

Digital reading environments often include hyperlinks, multimedia content, and interactive features that can increase cognitive load. Cognitive load theory posits that excessive information processing demands may reduce the cognitive resources available for comprehension and learning (Sweller et al., 2019).

Wolf (2018) argued that sustained engagement with digital media may encourage skimming behaviours that undermine the development of what she calls the "deep reading brain." Deep reading requires concentration, reflection, inference-making, and critical analysis, all of which are essential for academic success (Wolf, 2018).

Attention is a fundamental prerequisite for learning. Without focused attention, information cannot be effectively processed in working memory or transferred to long-term memory (Kirschner & Hendrick, 2020).

Digital devices present unique challenges because they provide simultaneous access to multiple streams of information. Even when used for educational purposes, students may switch between applications, browse unrelated content, or engage in multitasking behaviours.

Experimental research by Sana et al. (2013) demonstrated that students who multitasked on laptops during lectures performed significantly worse on subsequent assessments than those who remained focused on instructional content. Notably, the negative effects extended beyond the multitasking students. Students seated nearby also performed worse academically due to visual distractions created by their peers' device use (Sana et al., 2013).

These findings suggest that excessive device use can affect not only individual learners but also the broader classroom environment. Consequently, reducing screen exposure may be viewed as an intervention to strengthen attention control and support deeper engagement in learning activities.

Mental Health and Student Wellbeing

Concerns about student well-being have contributed to the movement toward reducing classroom screen time. Although the relationship between technology use and mental health is complex, numerous studies have identified associations between excessive screen exposure and lower psychological well-being. Twenge and Campbell (2018) analysed large-scale population data and found that adolescents reporting high levels of screen use were more likely to experience symptoms associated with anxiety, depression, and reduced psychological well-being. While correlation does not imply causation, these findings have raised concerns among educators and policymakers.

Sleep disruption is one of the most consistently documented mechanisms linking screen exposure and well-being. Research indicates that extensive screen use, particularly in the evening, can interfere with sleep quality and duration, both of which are strongly associated with academic performance and emotional regulation (Twenge & Campbell, 2018).

Many policymakers argue that schools should consider students' total daily screen exposure rather than viewing classroom technology in isolation. Because many young people already spend substantial time using digital devices outside school, reducing screen use during lessons may contribute to a healthier overall balance (UNESCO, 2023).

Sweden: A Case Study in Educational Reassessment

Sweden is a prominent example of national reconsideration of educational technology policy. During the 2010s, Sweden became internationally recognised for its extensive adoption of digital devices and online learning resources in schools (UNESCO, 2023).

Concerns emerged regarding declining literacy outcomes and reduced reading performance among younger learners. Policymakers increasingly questioned whether extensive digitalization had unintentionally weakened foundational literacy practices (UNESCO, 2023).

In response, the Swedish government announced significant investments in printed textbooks and renewed emphasis on reading physical books, particularly in primary education (UNESCO, 2023). This policy shift reflected concerns that younger learners require strong foundations in reading, writing, and numeracy before engaging extensively with digital technologies.

Sweden did not abandon educational technology. Instead, policymakers sought to achieve a more balanced relationship between digital and traditional instructional approaches (UNESCO, 2023).

Teacher Workload and Burnout

Teacher workload is another significant factor influencing educational technology debates. Technology is often promoted as a means of increasing efficiency and reducing administrative burdens. However, evidence suggests that digital systems frequently generate new forms of work rather than eliminating existing responsibilities (Selwyn, 2016).

Teachers increasingly report spending substantial time managing digital platforms, updating assessment systems, responding to online communications, and analyzing student performance data (Selwyn, 2016).

These responsibilities may contribute to occupational stress and burnout, particularly when multiple digital systems operate simultaneously. International schools are especially susceptible to this issue because they frequently adopt numerous overlapping educational platforms in pursuit of innovation and accountability.

As a result, some educational leaders have begun to question whether the workload costs associated with extensive digitalization are justified by the corresponding educational benefits.

Conclusion

The movement toward reducing screen time in lessons reflects a broader reassessment of educational technology rather than a rejection of digital learning. Research from cognitive science, literacy studies, international assessment programs, and wellbeing research suggests that excessive screen exposure may undermine certain aspects of learning and development (Delgado et al., 2018; OECD, 2015; Wolf, 2018).

Countries such as Sweden, Finland, and France have responded by seeking a more balanced approach that combines the advantages of technology with the established benefits of printed materials, direct instruction, handwriting, and face-to-face interaction (UNESCO, 2023).

The emerging consensus is that educational technology is most effective when it serves clearly defined pedagogical purposes rather than functioning as an end in itself. Ultimately, educational quality depends not on the quantity of available technology but on how effectively teachers integrate technological tools into evidence-based teaching practices (OECD, 2015; Selwyn, 2016).

References

Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmerón, L. (2018). Don't throw away your printed books: A meta-analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003

Kirschner, P. A., & Hendrick, C. (2020). How learning happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice. Routledge.

OECD. (2015). Students, computers and learning: Making the connection. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en

Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003

Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.

Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 261–292.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being among children and adolescents. Preventive Medicine Reports, 12, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.10.003

UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education—A tool on whose terms? UNESCO.

Wolf, M. (2018). Reader, come home: The reading brain in a digital world. HarperCollins.