Letter of the Day | Technology is not a threat, hesitation is

THE EDITOR, Madam:

I am writing in response to the article ‘Malabver urges nation to rethink use of technology in classrooms’, published in The Gleaner on January 3. Jamaica Teachers’ Association President Mark Malabver’s concerns about distraction, declining critical thinking, and overreliance on digital tools are not without merit. The more urgent issue is if we are still not using technology well enough or strategically enough.

In China, technology is engineered into the teaching-learning process to enhance critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and problem-solving. The emphasis is on design — how technology is aligned with curriculum goals, teacher capacity, and national development priorities.

Chinese educators are not retreating from technology because of its risks. They are investing heavily in teacher training, artificial intelligence – supported learning systems, data-informed instruction, and adaptive platforms that personalise learning while demanding higher-order thinking from students.

Framing technology as the problem risks missing the deeper issue: insufficient pedagogical integration. Tablets and smart boards, when poorly used, can indeed become distractions. But the same can be said of textbooks, worksheets, or rote note-taking when instruction lacks intentionality. Pen and paper does not automatically produce thinkers; good teaching does.

Moreover, the global economy our students are entering will be unforgiving to those who are technologically underprepared. China’s education system is coupled with its innovation agenda, industrial policy, and future workforce needs. To pull back now, under the banner of caution, would risk widening the very skills gap we claim to be concerned about.

This is not to dismiss Malabver’s call for evidence-based dialogue, which is necessary — but it must be forward-looking rather than defensive. Instead of asking how far we should retreat from technology, we should be asking how aggressively we can advance its effective use. How do we better train teachers to use technology to provoke inquiry rather than passive consumption? How do we redesign assessments so that devices support analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, rather than shortcuts? How do we ensure equity so that technology reduces, rather than deepens, educational inequality?

Technology is not eroding critical thinking there; it is being harnessed to demand more of it. Jamaica cannot afford a narrative that positions innovation and cognition as opposing forces.

The question before us, therefore, is not whether technology belongs in the classroom. That question has already been answered by history and by the future. The real question is whether we have the courage, vision, and investment mindset to use it properly.

LEROY FEARON JR