The Myth of Progress: Questioning Innovation in Education

Is there an assumption that tech innovation itself is inherently good?

The Technology Acceptance Model suggests that people are more likely to adopt technology if they perceive it as useful and easy to use. (Davis, 1989) While this seems straightforward, it also raises deeper questions about what educators actually value. In practice, teachers rarely adopt technology simply because it exists. They adopt tools that are forced on them by their school board or government, tools that are supposed to assist students, educators, and administrators while providing deeper insights into student learning. These tools are most often selected by those who have been out of classroom teaching for some time or worse, have never stepped into today’s complex classroom. Where relationships, foundational to learning, are impacted by trauma, lack of support and too little time spent in real human interaction vs staring at a screen in an isolating way. My current experience is that technology often creates more cognitive load than meaningful learning.

Meaningful integration is relational and contextual rather than purely technical. (Mishra & Koehler, 2006)

Certain technologies gain momentum not necessarily because they improve learning, but because they are visible, marketable, or simply because that is where last year's budget was invested. This conflict feels increasingly relevant in the context of AI literacy, where educators are simultaneously navigating excitement, uncertainty, ethical concerns, and institutional pressure to adapt.

Educational technology research often focuses on what technology could do, rather than how it is actually being used in classrooms and institutions. This distinction feels increasingly important in a time where schools and educators are under pressure to constantly adapt to new digital systems, platforms, and AI tools, often without the time, support, or critical reflection needed to meaningfully integrate them.

Technology can’t be rejected outright, or accepted uncritically. Instead, educational technology requires thoughtful reflection, inquiry, and playfulness grounded in human needs. The question is not simply whether technology works, but what kinds of thinking, relationships, and experiences it encourages.

Meaningful innovation in education is less about adoption and more about remaining deeply attentive to the needs of the humans who use it.

References:

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008

Google. (2026). Google AI Mode (Gemini 3.5 Flash) [Large language model]. https://www.google.com

Google. (2026). Google Docs [Computer software]. https://www.google.com

Google. (2026). Google Scholar [Computer software]. https://scholar.google.com

Grammarly Inc. (2026). Grammarly (Version 1.0) [Computer software]. https://www.grammarly.com

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x

Ontario Council of University Libraries. (2026). Omni [Academic search tool]. Ontario Tech University Library. ontariotechu.ca

Selwyn, N. (2011). Editorial: In praise of pessimism—the need for negativity in educational technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 713–718. doi.org

Wikipedia contributors. (2026, May 22). An experiment on a bird in the air pump. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Experiment_on_a_Bird_in_the_Air_Pump