APA expert report says educational technology engagement is not the same as learning
The American Psychological Association’s expert report on educational technology for ages 5 to 18 gives 10 recommendations: engagement is not learning.
Photo by Julia M Cameron on Pexels
The American Psychological Association published the “APA Expert Report on Children’s and Adolescents’ Learning with Educational Technology” on Thursday 3 September 2026. The report covers children and young people aged 5 to 18 and sets out 10 recommendations for families, educators, policymakers and developers. Its central finding is that a child clicking, responding to animations or collecting rewards inside an educational technology product is not evidence that the child is learning. APA states that the responsibility for proving a product works lies with the companies that build it and the schools that buy it, and it does not endorse blanket screen bans.
The report was compiled by what APA describes as a multidisciplinary panel of cognitive and educational psychologists, learning scientists and ed-tech experts. It synthesises evidence across educational apps, games, intelligent tutoring systems, generative AI tools and digital learning platforms. APA did not publish figures on the number of studies reviewed or the share of products backed by evidence, and it has not released the names of the panel members alongside the announcement.
What the educational technology report found
The report separates three things that schools and parents often treat as one: engagement, performance and learning. Engagement is time on task and visible activity. Performance is the quality of the output a student produces. Learning is durable knowledge and skill that a student can carry to a new context. APA’s press release states that a student’s ability to apply new knowledge outside the app is a much stronger indication of learning than how much time the child spends on a screen.
Chalkbeat, which interviewed APA’s executive lead psychologist for education, Nicole Barnes, summarised the key findings as follows: time on learning apps, student enjoyment and completion rates are often mistaken for learning; features designed to hold attention can distract from it; time on a platform matters less than what it replaces, such as interaction with teachers or classmates; platforms can be useful for practising specific skills, but claims about improved critical thinking are rarely supported by evidence; and AI can improve student performance while reducing learning.
| Signal | What it shows | What APA says it does not show |
|---|---|---|
| Time on app, clicks, responses to animations | Engagement | That the student is learning |
| Badges, tokens, rewards, character dressing | Attention held by design features | Educational value of the activity |
| Completion rate, enjoyment | Participation | Durable knowledge or skill |
| A better essay produced with AI help | Improved immediate performance | That the student became a better writer |
| Applying the skill in a new setting without the app | Learning | n/a (this is the test APA recommends) |
Source: APA press release of 3 September 2026 and Chalkbeat’s summary of the report’s findings.
Generative AI: better output, less learning
The report singles out generative AI as a distinct risk because it can raise the quality of a student’s immediate work without building the underlying knowledge or skill. Barnes stated: “AI can help a student produce a better essay, but the improved final product does not necessarily mean the student has become a better writer.” She added that “just as we need to separate engagement from learning, we will increasingly need to separate performance from learning.”
APA does not recommend preventing students from using AI. Instead it advises teaching them to evaluate AI-generated responses, question a chatbot’s assumptions, identify gaps in its reasoning, compare answers against other sources and consider how an answer might change under different circumstances. The framing is that students should treat AI less as an answer machine and more as something they continuously test and challenge. That position lines up with the OECD’s earlier finding, covered in OECD warns AI may raise grades while weakening real learning, and with the evidence graded in Stanford brief grades AI tutoring by how much human contact it keeps.
Evidence from vendors is not enough
The report places the burden of proof on two parties. Developers should be prepared to demonstrate that their products improve learning. Schools and districts should expect credible, independent evidence before investing, rather than studies commissioned by the vendor. APA also asks schools to look at which students benefit and which continue to struggle, rather than judging a tool by broad averages.
For parents, the report proposes a “look and ask” routine. Watch the app for a minute: if much of the experience involves dressing a character, selecting accessories, collecting rewards or responding to flashing images, it is reasonable to question the app’s educational value. Then ask a teacher, principal, early childhood leader or school board whether there is credible, independent evidence that the app leads to learning. APA’s chief executive, Arthur C. Evans Jr., stated that “parents, teachers and school districts need tools that are safe, supported by evidence and can genuinely help students learn.”
Standards rather than bans
The report lands in a week when the two largest US school districts have moved in the opposite direction. New York City is preparing to bar student-facing AI in the early grades, as covered in New York City is set to ban student-facing AI from 2-K through eighth grade, and Los Angeles Unified has blocked AI tools on district devices for the 2026-27 school year, according to Chalkbeat. APA’s report states that outright bans on screens or arbitrary time limits are not the answer.
Barnes told Chalkbeat: “It is much easier for a school district to say we’re putting an all-out ban on something than do the harder work of actually vetting.” She noted that some tools do have a proven track record, including tools that have made learning more accessible for students with disabilities and English learners. Her summary of the report’s position: “All we’re really saying is, if you’re going to claim learning, you should prove it.”
The recommendation echoes the federal position set out two weeks earlier, when the US Department of Education told schools to judge software by learning outcomes rather than time on screen, covered in US Department of Education tells schools to judge ed tech by learning, not screen time. The scale of student AI use that both documents respond to is documented in Seven in ten US teens use AI for schoolwork, survey finds.
The remaining recommendations, as listed in the press release, are to prioritise tools that build durable knowledge students can carry into other contexts instead of evaluating apps on flashy features, to make adult involvement a substantial part of ed-tech implementation, and to invest in research that can keep pace with technological change. Chalkbeat reports that the project’s origins predate the current debate and go back to pandemic-era online learning, when Barnes watched her son in 2020 play a game that had been set as homework.
About the American Psychological Association
The American Psychological Association was founded in July 1892 at Clark University in Massachusetts and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. It describes itself as the leading scientific and professional organisation representing psychology in the United States, with more than 190,000 members according to its current About page; an older APA page gives a figure of more than 172,000. Arthur C. Evans Jr. is its chief executive.
Since 2023 APA has issued a series of youth-focused advisories drawing on its research base. On 9 May 2023 it released a health advisory on adolescent social media use with 10 recommendations, co-chaired by Mary Ann McCabe and Mitch Prinstein, and followed it in April 2024 with a report calling on social media companies to protect young users. On 20 November 2024 it published “APA Recommendations for Healthy Teen Video Viewing”, its first set of recommendations on that subject. On 3 June 2025 it released “Artificial Intelligence and Adolescent Well-being: An APA Health Advisory”. The educational technology report published on 3 September 2026 extends that sequence from wellbeing into learning, and is the first of those four documents whose title addresses learning rather than adolescent health.
Sources: American Psychological Association; Phys.org (APA press release); Chalkbeat; American Psychological Association; American Psychological Association; American Psychological Association
Featured image: photo by Julia M Cameron on Pexels (free Pexels license).
Become a Sponsor
Our website is the heart of the mission of WINSS – it’s where we share updates, publish research, highlight community impact, and connect with supporters around the world. To keep this essential platform running, updated, and accessible, we rely on the generosity of you, who believe in our work.
We offer the option to sponsor monthly, or just once choosing the amount of your choice. If you run a company, please contact us via info@winssolutions.org.
I specialize in sustainability education, curriculum co-creation, and early-stage project strategy. At WINSS, I craft articles on sustainability, transformative AI, and related topics. When I’m not writing, you’ll find me chasing the perfect sushi roll, exploring cities around the globe, or unwinding with my dog Puffy — the world’s most loyal sidekick.
