Examining the concept of balance with instructional technology

Balance is often invoked in education as a comforting response to fears around innovation and the changes needed to see it flourish. It sounds sensible — like balancing diets or schedules — but in practice, it can signal hesitation about making meaningful change.

As a former district leader, I purchased, evaluated, and implemented numerous technologies. Reactions from teachers varied widely, often aligning with Everett Rogers’ (2003) Diffusion of Innovations model: Innovators and early adopters embraced the tools, while more skeptical educators — sometimes labeled “laggards” — hesitated. In many cases, their skepticism was warranted. Using new tech doesn’t guarantee improved outcomes, nor does using a new device or app qualify as a classroom innovation.

Does technology improve outcomes?

In Kendall Naceanceno’s (2025) recent Kappan article, he correctly advocates focusing on “good teaching” when determining how to incorporate technology into our next lesson for students. But I question whether balancing new tools with old methods is always best for students. When technology merely replaces traditional tools — like a word processor substituting for pencil and paper — there’s often little gain in achievement, but a high cost for the digital solution. John Hattie’s controversial, but still somewhat helpful Influences and Effect Sizes chart plays to this beautifully.

Take word processing. It might not harm writing outcomes, but it doesn’t inherently improve them either. And if instructional time allocated for writing is consumed with teaching software basics, as Naceanceno also notes, we may actually lose ground.

Instructional methods can improve outcomes

My view is that technology matters only insofar as it enhances learning. Early in my career, I learned that the tool itself — whether an interactive whiteboard or online calculator — does not move the learning outcome. Ruben Puentedura’s SAMR (substitution, augmentation, modification, redefinition) model helped clarify this for me (see Hamilton, Rosenberg, & Akcaoglu, 2016). Many early one-to-one programs merely substituted laptops for past practices, with no instructional redesign. Understandably, policy makers balked at the high costs and limited impact.

However, when teachers began using word processors for grammar feedback or collaborative writing, their use moved into augmentation — and potentially further. True gains emerged only when instruction changed in tandem with new affordances offered by the tool.

Introducing AI by itself will not improve learning

Naceanceno (2025) describes an English teacher who initially embraced AI but now advocates banning it due to misuse by students. This is predictable. Students, like the rest of us, will choose ease over effort. This debate already had a cycle with the introduction of calculators in schools. Doing mental math in your head takes effort. Punching it out on the little solar-powered device? Trivial. Unfortunately, easy wins. Nearly every time.

But what if we reimagined AI through SAMR’s “redefinition” lens? When blogs and wikis emerged, they didn’t just digitize journaling — they transformed it by giving students real audiences (Hendron, 2008). I recall students who were thrilled to receive comments from strangers across the globe when they could write for a real audience, rather than just for a grade from their teacher. The tech facilitated the reimagining of the assignment. It motivated students to write more — and better.

Similarly, generative AI could act as a tireless writing coach. Used creatively, it could encourage more revision, deeper thinking, and broader sharing — not just better grades. But this requires rethinking the assignment, not just supplying a tool.

Teachers need allies

While the pressure is on teachers to use newly purchased software and hardware in their districts, I’d not advocate for them to gently integrate these new tools in the pursuit of some kind of analog and digital balance. The burden is on instructional technology coaches and leaders to investigate how technology can help us redesign our instructional models and support teachers in not just how these new tools operate, but how to modify and redesign lessons to improve outcomes (see McLeod & Graber, 2018). Strategic, outcomes-focused implementation beats mere integration.

This leads us then to consider how we design professional learning opportunities for teachers. Gone are the days where the professional development simply covers how to turn a machine on, summon help, and restart it if all else fails. Support should begin with how to design learning experiences that foster deeper ways of knowing for students, where technologies can expand possibilities for each student. And teachers likewise should not be forced to implement digital technologies that do not provide functional learning benefits unless they can see the benefits in efficiency, transparency with parents, or opportunities for deeper collaboration.

For example, after launching a one-to-one program, my former district introduced a digital reading platform alongside our existing curriculum. It didn’t just replicate paper books — it assessed fluency in real-time, leveled reading options, and provided teachers with data they’d never had before. We offered professional learning that helped teachers use this data to guide small-group instruction and build vocabulary. The tech amplified an already-effective method while also building student motivation and buy-in toward improving their reading goals.

In math, we implemented a supplemental program that visualized concepts in ways our traditional curriculum did not. Instead of just providing banks of problems that teachers had requested to supplement instruction, it used well-designed puzzles to build conceptual understanding in addition to the practice students could benefit from. Within a year, our elementary math scores rose significantly.

The common thread? The tools supported meaningful instructional shifts — not just digital substitutions. But the gains were born through thinking about how we could redesign our instructional practices.

Redesigning instruction is difficult

Schools and districts should consider their investment in technology as a whole-organization process, one that emphasizes not how you will use a new set of devices, but how you can improve the potential for students to have quality, impactful instructional experiences. While teachers can save some time by substituting digital devices for the analog ones (such as using self-grading quizzes), the real payoff is when we use these tools for improving students’ capacity to learn.

Previous technologies were all pretty basic. Today, the complexity of hardware and software requires discovering not only how to use the apps, but how to create impactful learning experiences. Instead of expecting our teachers to become experts at both instructing and geeking out, we need all hands on deck.

Not every improvement requires a screen or a charger. But when tech is the right fit, the excitement comes from imagining what’s newly possible. Dream big — then build the strategy and provide the tech to make it real.

References

Hamilton, E.R., Rosenberg, J.M. & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: a A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60, 433-441.

Hattie, J. (2018). Hattie ranking: 252 influences and effect sizes related to student achievement. Visible Learning.

Hendron, J.G. (2008). RSS for educators: Blogs, newsfeeds, podcasts, and wikis in the classroom. ISTE Press.

McLeod, S. & Graber, J. (2018). Harnessing technology for deeper learning. Solution Tree Press.

Naceanceno, K. (2025, May 5). Balancing new technologies with proven instructional strategies. Phi Delta Kappan.

Rogers. E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.

---

This article appears in the Fall 2025 issue of Kappan, Vol. 107, No. 1-2, pp. 75–76.