What Research Tells Us (and Doesn’t Tell Us) About Technology, Student Wellbeing, and Learning

In one of the previous post, we explored a question many school leaders are currently navigating: Should technology be allowed in the classroom?

This follow-up shifts the lens slightly. Rather than debating positions, it asks a different question:

What does research actually tell us and what does it not tell us about the relationship between technology, student wellbeing, and learning?

For leaders seeking to ground decisions in evidence, this can be challenging terrain. The research is growing, but it is rarely simple. Findings often depend on the type of technology, how it is used, the age of students, and the learning context. Headlines can oversimplify conclusions that are far more nuanced.

This post offers a research-informed reality check to support thoughtful leadership conversations.

What research tells us with some confidence

Attention is a limited instructional resource

A consistent finding across studies is that sustained attention is critical for learning and that digital devices can compete for it.

Research has shown that even the presence of a smartphone can reduce available cognitive capacity during complex tasks (Ward et al., 2017). At the same time, more recent replication studies and meta-analyses suggest these effects vary widely by context and task and may be smaller than initially reported (Parry et al., 2021).

Leadership implication: Protecting instructional attention is a reasonable goal. It is also important not to overgeneralize individual studies as universal truths.

Learning outcomes depend on how technology is used

Technology itself is neither inherently beneficial nor harmful for learning. Research consistently points to use as the determining factor. Some studies indicate that certain forms of device use such as verbatim note-taking on laptops may reduce conceptual understanding compared to more generative strategies like handwritten notes (Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2014).

At the same time, guidance from organizations such as UNESCO emphasizes that technology can support learning when it clearly serves an instructional purpose, such as accessibility, feedback, creation, or structured collaboration (UNESCO, 2023).

Leadership implication: Instructional clarity matters more than the presence of devices. Strong expectations for purposeful use often have greater impact than blanket policies alone.

Wellbeing concerns are real, but causality is complex

Research and professional guidance point to links between heavy technology use and concerns such as sleep disruption, stress, and social comparison particularly related to social media use. The American Psychological Association’s advisory on adolescent social media use highlights these associations while also emphasizing variability across individuals and contexts (APA, 2023). Not all students experience technology in the same way, even with similar levels of use.

Leadership implication: It is appropriate to acknowledge wellbeing risks while recognizing that student experiences differ and require flexible, supportive responses.

Restrictive phone policies may improve classroom conditions but not necessarily wellbeing

A large-scale study published in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe found that restrictive school phone policies were not associated with improved mental wellbeing outcomes such as anxiety, depression, or sleep (Orben et al., 2024). While higher overall phone and social media use was linked to poorer outcomes, simply restricting phones during the school day did not appear to change those measures.

Leadership implication: Restrictive policies may reduce in-class disruptions, but research suggests they should be viewed as one component of a broader approach to student wellbeing, not a standalone solution.

What research does not yet tell us

It rarely isolates school-based technology use

Many studies combine technology use at school and at home, social media and instructional platforms, and structured and unstructured use. This makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions about “technology in the classroom” as a single variable.

Correlation is often mistaken for causation

Much of the wellbeing research is correlational. Higher technology use may be associated with poorer outcomes without directly causing them. Other factors such as existing mental health challenges, peer dynamics, or family context may influence both technology use and wellbeing. Effective leadership conversations allow space for this nuance without dismissing legitimate concerns.

Research often lags behind practice

Technology and policies evolve faster than research cycles. As a result, leaders frequently need to integrate research findings with local data, professional judgment, and community values.

Research-informed moves leaders can consider

• Clarify the underlying goal before selecting a policy approach (attention, instruction, wellbeing, relationships).

• Distinguish between instructional technology and personal device access; these are separate issues.

• Pair restrictions with explicit instruction in digital citizenship and self-regulation.

• Pilot approaches on a small scale and monitor multiple indicators, including teacher workload, student engagement, behavior data, and student voice.

Questions for leadership teams to consider

• Where are we experiencing the greatest strain: instructional focus, behavior, stress, or student connection?

• Are our concerns about technology masking deeper needs related to engagement, belonging, or regulation?

• What skills do we want students to graduate with in relation to technology use?

• If policy changes, what adult systems must also change to support implementation?

Ultimately, research does not hand school leaders a simple yes-or-no answer about technology in the classroom. What it offers instead is a framework for disciplined reflection. Attention matters. Purposeful use matters. Wellbeing is multifaceted and influenced by far more than a device policy alone. As leaders, the work is less about choosing sides and more about clarifying values, aligning practice with purpose, and staying responsive to emerging evidence. The most effective approach may not be defined by how permissive or restrictive it is, but by how clearly it communicates expectations, supports educators, and keeps student learning and wellbeing at the center of every decision.