Summary
A recent analysis by Instructure found that **40% of purpose-built edtech** has ESSA-aligned evidence, whereas only **2% of consumer tools** have such evidence. This disparity has significant implications for the use of technology in classrooms, particularly in light of growing concerns about **AI** and **screen time**. The report highlights the need for more rigorous evaluation of educational technology to ensure that it is effective and safe for students. [[instructure|Instructure]]'s report is a wake-up call for educators and policymakers to re-examine their approach to integrating technology into the classroom. [[artificial-intelligence|AI]] and [[screen-time|screen time]] are increasingly important considerations in this context. The report's findings also underscore the importance of **evidence-based education** and the need for more research on the impact of technology on student learning outcomes. [[education-technology|Edtech]] companies must prioritize transparency and accountability in their products and services.
Key Takeaways
- Instructure's 2026 Evidence Report found that 40% of purpose-built edtech has ESSA-aligned evidence, whereas only 2% of consumer tools have such evidence
- The report's findings highlight the need for more rigorous evaluation of educational technology and the potential risks of using consumer tools in the classroom
- The edtech industry must prioritize transparency and accountability in their products and services
- Education policymakers must prioritize evidence-based decision making and ensure that technology is used in ways that support student learning and well-being
- More research is needed to understand the impact of AI and screen time on student learning outcomes
Balanced Perspective
The report's findings highlight the complexity of evaluating the impact of technology on student learning outcomes. While **40% of purpose-built edtech** has ESSA-aligned evidence, the lack of evidence for **consumer tools** raises important questions about the role of technology in the classroom. [[education-research|Education research]] is needed to better understand the impact of technology on student learning and to identify effective strategies for integrating technology into the classroom. The report's findings also underscore the need for **education policymakers** to prioritize **evidence-based decision making** and to ensure that technology is used in ways that support student learning and well-being.
Optimistic View
The report's findings highlight the opportunity for **edtech companies** to prioritize transparency and accountability in their products and services. By investing in rigorous evaluation and research, companies can demonstrate the effectiveness of their products and build trust with educators and policymakers. [[instructure|Instructure]]'s report is a call to action for the **edtech industry** to prioritize **evidence-based education** and ensure that technology is used in ways that support student learning outcomes. The report's findings also underscore the potential for **AI** and **machine learning** to improve education, but only if these technologies are developed and implemented in ways that prioritize transparency and accountability.
Critical View
The report's findings are alarming, highlighting the lack of verified evidence for **consumer tools** used in classrooms. The **edtech industry** has a responsibility to prioritize transparency and accountability in their products and services, but the report's findings suggest that this is not currently the case. [[screen-time|Screen time]] and **AI** are increasingly important considerations in this context, and the report's findings raise important questions about the potential risks and consequences of using technology in the classroom. The report's findings also underscore the need for **education policymakers** to take a more critical approach to evaluating the impact of technology on student learning outcomes and to prioritize **evidence-based decision making**.
Source
Originally reported by prnewswire.com