An hour analysing historical sources on a laptop and an hour scrolling TikTok both involve looking at a luminous electronic rectangle. Beyond that, the resemblance starts to thin out.
Yet “screen time” bundles these experiences together, as though counting minutes tells us what is happening inside a learner’s head. Learning is inconsiderate enough to be complicated.
The contemporary debate is principally about recreational, attention-capturing—and holding—digital media, especially smartphones. Extending those concerns into classrooms without distinguishing different uses risks prescribing the wrong treatment.
For education, the more useful conversation concerns pedagogy and screen value: what technology contributes to learning, participation and access.
What is actually happening in classrooms?
Writing in The Conversation, Matt Bower, Joanne Orlando and Karen Woo describe NSW research surveying 1,057 students, 914 teachers and 1,686 parents and carers across public, Catholic and independent schools. Researchers also observed 68 classes across 20 public schools.
The parent findings complicate the impression of families united against classroom technology. Some 55% of primary school parents and 71% of secondary school parents agreed digital devices were important for learning. Around 37% favoured no limits on educational screen time. Among those recommending limits, average allowances equalled or exceeded students’ reported educational use.
Parents were less comfortable with recreation: 84% wanted limits. Their responses suggest a distinction the public debate could usefully borrow. Concerns about games and social media do not necessarily translate into opposition to learning with technology.
Teachers reported students researching, watching explanatory videos, writing reports, practising skills and organising information, alongside communication and digital creation. In observed lessons, screens occupied approximately half the time—even though those lessons were selected because they involved technology. Discussion, handwriting and worksheets filled the remainder.
Students were observed to be on task about 90% of the time. Teachers managed attention through classroom positioning, time constraints and asking students to close devices when listening. This hardly sounds like handing out laptops and hoping the Wi-Fi raises the children.
There was, however, a concern about recreation. Secondary students reported averages of 72 minutes of recreational screen use at school in Years 7–8, rising to 85 minutes in Years 11–12. Whether this occurred during lessons or breaks was unclear.
The evidence needs qualification: survey respondents were self-selected, usage was self-reported, and classroom participants knew they were being observed. Being on task does not establish learning quality. Looking industrious has never been an entirely reliable indicator of thinking.
Pedagogy gives the screen its value
As Dr Nick Jackson has pointed out, “screen time” is an inadequate construct for examining classroom technology. More useful questions concern what students are doing, who exercises agency, the cognitive effort involved and what the activity displaces.
In History, I want students evaluating evidence, examining its origin and perspectives, comparing accounts and developing interpretations. Technology might help them access sources or annotate evidence. Closing the device might then enable a better discussion. Both decisions need a learning purpose.
Calling something “educational” does not grant it diplomatic immunity, either. Copying a webpage can involve little thought. So can completing a worksheet. Busy fingers are no guarantee of a busy mind.
Screen value demands scrutiny of the task—including whether AI supports students’ thinking or conveniently does it for them.
We deserve better decisions
My concern is that enthusiasm for a “digital detox”, including Jason Clare’s framing, risks turning a complicated educational question into a populist moral panic. A neat slogan travels faster than a careful qualification.
Real students live with the consequences. Blunt restrictions can remove access to text-to-speech, digital annotation or adjustable displays that help students participate. Accessibility should shape decisions from the beginning.
We deserve better from educational leaders and our political masters. The productive focus is high-quality blended pedagogies, supported through teacher capability, accessible resources, online safety, digital self-regulation and human-centred approaches to AI.
Reflect carefully on how students use screens and what those experiences contribute. Prioritise pedagogy, learning and accessibility. Decisions this significant deserve a discussion of screen value, rather than another simplistic calculation of screen time.
