From Screens to Sense making: What are We Missing?

How Digital Learning Shapes and Limits Understanding.

Introduction:

Over the last decade, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic, digital learning has become increasingly integrated into elementary education. Adaptive software, online games, and video-based lessons now occupy a substantial part of children’s learning time. These tools promise personalized pacing and instant feedback, yet an essential question persists: Can elementary children truly learn deeply by sitting in front of a screen?

While children can gain information, practice skills, and pass digital assessments, the more important question is what kind of learning is occurring and what might be lost in the process. Learning in early and middle childhood (ages 5–11) is shaped through movement, conversation, and shared attention experiences that are hard to replicate digitally. Screens can support learning, but when they dominate, they can displace the cognitive, social, and emotional experiences foundational to development.

Theoretic Foundations

How do children actually learn?

Cognitive development theories from Piaget and Vygotsky emphasize that children construct understanding through physical and social engagement with their world. Piaget described learning as active construction assimilation and accommodation through interaction. Vygotsky emphasized the social mediation of knowledge within the zone of proximal development.

Neuroscience supports these foundations: learning merges perception, movement, and language. When children manipulate objects, gesture during reasoning, or collaborate with peers, the brain integrates sensory, motor, and symbolic systems (Barsalou, 2008; Glenberg, 2010). Spatial reasoning and fine motor activity, for instance, are strongly predictive of later mathematical achievement (Verdine et al., 2017).

Screen-based tasks often simulate engagement clicking or dragging but these actions lack the physical and sensory feedback and negotiative qualities of real interaction. A child stacking five wooden blocks experiences texture, weight, and balance sensations that build neural pathways connecting perception to number and shape. Screens, though efficient, flatten this multidimensional learning experience and risk replacing embodied construction with symbolic mimicry. The result is often knowledge that is performative rather than deeply understood.

What Screens Do Well and Where Do They Fall Short

When is technology a tool, and when does it become a crutch?

Digital platforms offer several benefits, including adaptive feedback, visual representation of abstract concepts, and flexible practice. Virtual manipulatives and interactive animations can meaningfully supplement instruction (Sarama & Clements, 2009; Uttal et al., 2013).

However, research cautions that technology’s promise depends on how it is used. Clark and Feldon (2014) remind educators that media are not methods it is pedagogy, not platform, that determines impact. Many comparative studies have shown modest or mixed effects of technology on teacher-led instruction (Cheung & Slavin, 2013).

Most digital environments privilege individualized interaction over shared meaning-making. The learner’s “partner” becomes the algorithm, not another human. Without collaborative dialogue, reasoning is reduced to a pattern of input and response rather than a process of conceptual refinement. When children learn alone on screens, they often master procedures without the conceptual coherence that comes from conversation and collaboration. They may learn what to think, but not how to think.

The Missing Elements.

What happens when screens replace human interaction?

Embodied Cognition: Thought grows from movement. When children count steps, fold paper, or act out problems, they bind physical and conceptual meaning (Goldin-Meadow, 2014). Virtual manipulatives approximate but do not replicate the full sensory experience of building, turning, and feeling objects. Without kinesthetic grounding, children tend to memorize symbols rather than internalize structure.

Dialogue and Social Reasoning: Learning thrives in dialogue. In lively classrooms, children articulate their ideas, question one another, and refine their meanings (Chapin, O’Connor, & Anderson, 2009). Through this process, they develop metacognition and cognitive flexibility. Most screen-based programs, optimized for efficiency, remove these conversations. They offer correctness feedback, not conceptual negotiation. As a result, fluency may increase while understanding remains shallow and fragile.

Emotion and Motivation: From a self-determination perspective (Ryan & Deci, 2000), motivation depends on autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Teachers provide emotional attunement adjusting pace, offering encouragement, and celebrating effort. Screens can mimic reward structures but typically foster extrinsic motivation through the use of points and badges. Extended solo screen time may also disrupt attention regulation (Christakis, 2019). Children need relational co-regulation found in play, dialogue, and shared discovery to sustain motivation. A teacher’s nod, smile, or tone of voice communicates safety and belonging in a way no program can.

Deep vs. Shallow Learning

Are students learning to compute or to think?

Mathematics education highlights the divide between digital automation and conceptual growth. Many digital systems promote instrumental understanding knowing how to obtain answers rather than relational understanding, which involves grasping why procedures work and how ideas connect (Hiebert & Carpenter, 1992).

On-screen fraction tasks might ask children to match shaded regions to symbols; hands-on explorations such as folding paper or slicing fruit let them act out equivalence. Likewise, spatial reasoning the strongest predictor of later math success strengthens when children rotate solids, build with blocks, or navigate real environments, not just tap polygons on a flat screen.

Equally critical is the feedback loop. In classrooms, errors become teachable moments. Teachers invite students to analyze misconceptions, cultivating resilience and curiosity (Boaler, 2016). Screens often reward speed and accuracy, implicitly discouraging productive struggle and mistake analysis key ingredients of a growth mindset. Without these discussions, learning becomes transactional right or wrong rather than transformational.

Feedback matters. In classrooms, teachers turn mistakes into moments of insight (Boaler, 2016). Screens reward speed and accuracy, not productive struggle. Without dialogue, learning becomes transactional right or wrong rather than transformational.

Reframing Technology: Human-Centered Integration

How Can We Reclaim Technology as a Tool for Thinking?

Technology should amplify, not replace, human pedagogy. The goal is a balanced ecosystem where screens serve, not lead, the learning process. Practical principles include: EIS progression (Enactive → Iconic → Symbolic), Designed Interactivity, Collaborative Digital Spaces, Educator Mediation, and Blended Learning. These principles realign digital education with developmental science, ensuring that technology supports curiosity, communication, and cognitive growth.

Implications for Educators and Policymakers

How Should We Redefine Quality in a Digital Age?

Limit passive screen time following pediatric guidelines—prioritizing quality, context, and social interaction over minutes logged. Embed discourse and gesture prompts within digital lessons. Provide professional learning for teachers to evaluate when and how technology supports conceptual depth. Design curricula that nurture the whole child mind, body, and emotion. Assess depth of reasoning and interpersonal engagement, not just digital accuracy metrics. Ultimately, technology should serve the human agenda of education: helping children think critically, connect relationally, and act creatively.

Conclusion

Elementary children can learn through screens but not because of them. Learning is physical, social, and emotional before it becomes digital or abstract. Overreliance on screens risks narrowing education to information transfer rather than meaning-making. The challenge is not technological rejection but intentional reintegration. When digital tools complement hands-on exploration, conversation, and play, they extend human intelligence rather than replace it. The future of learning will depend less on brighter screens and more on brighter, connected minds those that grow through doing, talking, feeling, and imagining together.

References

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2019). Media and young minds. Pediatrics, 138(5), e20162591.

Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.

Boaler, J. (2016). Mathematical mindsets. Jossey-Bass.

Chapin, S., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. (2009). Classroom discussions in math. Math Solutions.

Cheung, A., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). Educational technology and mathematics achievement. Educational Research Review, 9, 88–113.

Christakis, D. A. (2019). Digital addiction in children. JAMA, 321(23), 2277–2278.

Clark, R. E., & Feldon, D. F. (2014). Questionable principles about multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.

Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a Unifying Perspective for Psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4), 586–596.

Goldin-Meadow, S. (2014). Gesture as a window onto thought. Oxford University Press.

Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Macmillan.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press.

Reich, J., et al. (2021). Digital learning in the time of COVID-19. Educational Researcher, 50(1), 27–37.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research. Routledge.

Verdine, B. N., et al. (2017). Links between spatial and mathematical thinking. Developmental Psychology, 53(2), 260–276.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Harvard University Press.

Social Media

From Screens to Sensemaking: What Are We Missing?

Screens can capture students’ attention, but can they capture their thinking?Today’s classrooms are filled with adaptive programs, games, and digital lessons. While these tools make learning look efficient, we must ask: What kind of learning is actually happening?

Our new DMT Insight explores what research in cognitive science and math education tells us about screen time and deep understanding.

Here is what you will discover:
• Why hands-on movement, conversation, and shared attention form the foundation for long-term learning.
• How digital tools can support but not replace embodied, social, and emotional experiences.
• What happens to curiosity and motivation when screens become substitutes for human interaction?
• Practical ways to rebalance technology, using it as a tool for sense making rather than simple repetition.

If we want students who can think not just click we must design classrooms that connect body, mind, and meaning.

What’s one way you’ve seen technology enhance or limit real mathematical thinking in your classroom? Share your experiences below!