As we reflect on the advancement of technology in education, it’s clear that transformations have been swift and significant. Two and a half decades ago, the introduction of laptop keyboards revolutionized learning for students in the U.S. Now, with the advent of artificial intelligence, experts are raising alarms about potential drawbacks, warning that unmoderated usage may undermine critical thinking skills among students.
Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, the presence of AI in education has intensified. A recent report from the Pew Research Center highlights that over 50% of teenagers are utilizing AI for school assignments. According to the survey of nearly 1,500 parents and teens, 57% of students engage AI for information search, while 54% incorporate it into their homework tasks.
While AI chatbots simplify homework by allowing students to pose questions to their devices, educators are voicing concerns. Instead of enhancing learning, there are fears that AI might impede the educational process.
A study by the Brookings Institute, published earlier this year, highlights anxieties regarding the potential negative impacts of AI in classrooms. Researchers, who analyzed interviews and focus group data involving over 500 educators, parents, and students from 50 countries, alongside more than 400 studies, concluded that “the risks associated with employing generative AI in education currently outweigh its advantages.”
This report aligns with earlier findings from a February 2025 Microsoft study, which observed a correlation between AI usage and poorer judgment and critical thinking capabilities.
“The phenomenon of cognitive offloading and its subsequent impact on cognitive decline, critical thinking, reading, writing, and basic knowledge— I firmly believe this is the case,” stated Mary Burns, an education consultant and co-author of the Brookings Institute study, in remarks to Fortune.
Scrutiny of Educational Technology
Educational technology has recently come under the microscope, particularly following a January Congressional hearing featuring neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath. He referenced Program for International Student Assessment data, indicating that Generation Z is the first generation in contemporary history to exhibit lower cognitive capabilities than their parents. He attributed this trend to unrestricted access to technology in classrooms, drawing a striking parallel between increased screen time and diminished standardized test scores. A 2014 study of 3,000 university students revealed that two-thirds of their screen time was dedicated to non-academic activities.
“This is not a discussion about discarding technology,” Horvath emphasized in his written testimony. “The real concern lies in ensuring that educational tools align with how humans learn effectively. Evidence suggests that indiscriminate digital integration has compromised the learning environment instead of enhancing it.”
Horvath, who authored the 2025 book The Digital Delusion: How Classroom Technology Harms Our Kids’ Learning—and How to Help Them Thrive Again, asserted that the rise of EdTech is a narrative created by technology firms to promote screen use in classrooms as beneficial for learning. The push for classroom computers began in 2002 when Maine became the first state to implement a statewide laptop initiative. After a gradual introduction, Google started collaborating with educators to roll out its budget-friendly Chromebook along with complimentary Google apps, encouraging teachers and administrators to advocate for its use. This partnership led to Chromebooks becoming ubiquitous in educational settings, accounting for over half of the digital devices distributed to schools by 2017.
Horvath contended that there exists over a century of evidence underscoring the shortcomings of automated learning, tracing back to the 1924 invention of the “teaching machine” by Sidney Pressey, a psychology professor at Ohio State University. This device taught students to respond to specific queries but left them unable to extrapolate that knowledge beyond the machine’s confines.
“Students performed well when using the teaching tool, but as soon as they operated outside of it, they couldn’t replicate their success,” Horvath explained.
Burns noted that AI represents a natural continuation of the arguments tech companies have historically made about the necessity of technology in education, emphasizing personalized learning at one’s own pace and encouraging students to explore subjects that pique their interest.
“Tech companies assert that AI is enhancing personalized learning,” she expressed. “In reality, it’s individualizing learning, which is a crucial distinction and reflects a longstanding narrative in educational technology.”
Implementing AI in Education
Horvath argues that the application of AI among students does not facilitate learning because it echoes the failures of the 20th-century “teaching machines.” While students might work at their own pace and independently from their peers, they often struggle to integrate knowledge gained outside the device. According to Horvath, providing AI tools without structured guidance leads students to rely on technology rather than nurturing their critical thinking capabilities.
“The tools professionals use to simplify their lives are not suitable for students who are still learning their craft,” he emphasized. “When novices employ these expert tools without the foundational skills, they merely become reliant on them.”
Despite the critiques, Burns—an advocate for educational technology—contended that entirely rejecting technology is unproductive. The Brookings Institute study revealed that although educators fear students may misappropriate AI to engage in academic dishonesty, teachers are finding innovative uses for AI, such as in lesson planning. While data on its efficacy in primary education remains limited, Burns pointed out certain advantages, particularly for English language learners where AI can assist in adjusting reading materials to appropriate levels.
“To claim that technology initiatives are entirely flawed is inaccurate,” Burns concluded. “The reality is that technology brings a mixed array of outcomes.”
