Will technology replace teachers? No, but ...


This page in:

In the future, will a machine replace me and smash other machines on my behalf?
In the future, will a machine replace me
and smash other machines on my behalf?

I've worked on, advised and evaluated educational technology projects in dozens of countries over the past fifteen years, mainly in middle and low income countries. As anyone who works intimately with information and communication technologies (ICTs) on a daily basis knows, change is a constant when working in the technology sector. (In contrast, while rhetoric about change is a constant in the education sector, change itself is much slower in coming ....) While the technologies themselves may change quite often, though, many of the most common questions related to their introduction and use remain largely the same.


I remember working with teachers in Ghana in the late 1990s as part of a pilot initiative to introduce computers and the Internet into a select number of schools in a few of the major cities. Towards the end of the third day of a five day workshop, we had a teacher show up at the door to our classroom, apologizing for his tardiness and asking if he could join the course. He explained that he had traveled for a few days to reach the small school outside Accra where out training activity was taking place, hitching rides on trucks and then transferring between long haul buses, because he had heard about this thing called the Internet that was going to "change education forever" and just had to see it for himself. Given how many people had wanted to take the course, we had a strict policy not to allow latecomers into the workshop, but we waived it for this gentlemen, because we were so taken by his story and by the hardship he had endured to join us.

We waived the policy for another reason as well. It is decidedly not politically correct to say so, but we also allowed this teacher into the class because he was ... old. He claimed to be over 70, but said he wasn't exactly sure of his exact birthdate, other than that it had occurred on a Friday. While my Ghanaian colleagues expressed some skepticism that this fellow was actually as old as he claimed, there was no doubt that he was decades older than any of us in the room. He was an English teacher, he said, noting that he had heard that it was possible to get access to all of Shakespeare's plays on the Internet, for free, and wanted to see how this was possible. A computer became available (the teachers using it had been frustrated that poor bandwidth kept interrupting their CU-SeeMe session and so decided to return to the dormitory before dinner), so we sat down, fired up Alta Vista, and typed in >.

After scanning the search results, one of the young teachers grabbed a mouse and pointed, clicked and scrolled her way through play after play after play. The older teacher was simply flabbergasted. He said something to the effect of, "Now I have seen everything. It has been my dream as an English teacher to be able to read all of Shakespeare's plays. Now all teachers will be able to do this. Education will change forever." We kept the computer lab open for a while so that he could be assured that all of them were indeed there ("There's Hamlet! The Tempest. Coriolanus!"); he promised that he would be the first one at the lab door once we opened the following morning. As we were shutting things down, he articulated a concern that I would hear voiced hundreds of times in the coming years, in many variations:

It would be very exciting for me to be a young teacher today now that the Internet is coming. But I am glad that I am not a young teacher, because I fear that these computers will eventually replace us teachers.

Will technology replace teachers?


Here's a short answer to that short question:

Introducing new technologies will not replace teachers.

Experience from around the world shows us that, over time, teachers' roles become more central -- and not peripheral -- as a result of the introduction of new technologies.

Introducing new technologies will, however, replace some of the things that teachers do -- and require that teachers take on new, often times more sophisticated, duties and responsibilities.

That said, teachers who don't use technology will be replaced by teachers who do.

And: In places where there are currently *no* teachers, technology can help in some very useful ways to, in part, overcome this absence.


In my experience, introducing computers and the Internet into education systems for the first time almost always meets with resistance -- sometimes quite significant resistance -- from certain portions of the teacher population (and often from teachers' unions as well).

Such resistance is understandable, and perhaps to some extent even inevitable. Change can be scary -- or at least rather inconvenient.

Note that the type of resistance I am talking about here is of a very basic, initial, almost instinctive nature. It is not the resistance of teachers who, for example, have worked in a system where computers have already been introduced, with negligible or even negative effect, and who thus look on educational technology initiatives with a very skeptical, jaundiced eye. It is not the resistance of teachers who see the introduction of yet more technology as the lamentable enabler of more (and more! and more!) standardized testing. Nor am I talking about worries about wages (Will we be paid more if we are expected to learn these new 'computer skills'?) or changes in related expectations and job responsibilities (Will we be expected to do or accomplish more, or something for which we have not been trained, now that we have these new gadgets?).

No, I am talking about a more basic fear here, one that (potentially) challenges the primacy and traditional role of the teacher in the classroom and vis-a-vis her students:

My students will know much more about computers than I do.
How can I not look stupid in front of them when I try to use them in my teaching?

And, more ominously:

Will I (eventually) be replaced by a machine?

Greetings, pupils. Please find an available power outlet, class will begin shortly.
Greetings, pupils.
Please find an available power outlet, class will begin shortly.

For those who dismiss such worries out of hand as those of people who simply fear change or 'don't get it', here's a dirty little secret: There are many folks who secretly hope for this to happen. Indeed, I have spoken to more than a few policymakers over the years (and many more businessmen) who have expressed the hope that computers will provide a way for them to replace teachers. Computers don't have unions, a policymaker once told me. The private sector is often less secretive about their hopes for the introduction of new technologies. We are very excited about MOOCs, an entrepreneur once told me, because you only have to pay one teacher to teach thousands of students, rather than a few dozen students like is the case today. Just think of the inefficiencies we can wring out of the system!

All by way of saying: When it comes to teachers and technology the intentions of some of the folks behind efforts to introduce lots of new technologies into schools aren't always honorable.

It is important also to note that, while technology will not replace teachers, in places where there are currently no teachers, or where there are not sufficient numbers of capable teachers, technology can play a vital role in providing access to educational resources and opportunities for learners that are otherwise unattainable. This is not to contend that students will, if simply 'left to their own devices', be able to educate themselves to the same extent than if they had a capable teacher to help guide and support them. Certainly not! That said, UNESCO currently estimates that "93 countries have an acute shortage of teachers", and projects that "28 (or 30%) of these countries will still not have enough teachers in classrooms by 2030". Using technologies in an attempt to help address *some* of the educational challenges in such places while education systems work on narrowing the teacher gap seems a prudent thing to explore.

That said:

In no education system around the world where I have worked has the introduction of new technologies made teachers less vital or central to the teaching and learning process. On the contrary: As dust settles after new equipment arrives in schools (and eventually begins to work, more or less), and the initial hype around the potential for quick 'transformational change' subsides, the role of the teacher is almost always more central, indeed fundamental, than it was before the introduction of technology.

While many policymakers, education officials and parents (and even many teachers themselves) may profess a belief in the 'digital native hypothesis' -- that young people somehow instinctively understand technology and know how to use it in ways that their elders don't -- there is a big difference between being able e.g. to quickly figure out and manipulate an on-screen menu system, or to blast a bunch of aliens, or to record a short video and post it to YouTube, and being able to successfully utilize whatever new technologies are at hand in service of a student's learning needs and objectives. For that, students need the help and guidance of their teachers.

This isn't to say that introducing new technologies will not change the roles that teachers are expected to perform, however.

While, generally speaking, introducing new technologies makes the jobs of teachers more important, more central to the learning process in many ways, it also makes teachers less central or integral (or even needed) to many of the activities currently associated with being a teacher in many parts of the world.

Books -- a technological innovation that helped transform educational practices in previous centuries -- didn't replace teachers, but they did help enable new forms of autonomous learning, and replaced and changed the nature of some of the things that teachers traditionally did.

B.F. Skinner's teaching machineNew technologies can, and no doubt eventually will, replace many of the routine administrative tasks typically handled by teachers, like taking attendance, entering marks into a grading book, etc. (That said, in the short run, administrative burdens on teachers often increase in practice in the short term as a result of increased technology use. I once visited a school in Russia where, in a scenario that seemed to me a pointed example of pointless bureaucratic inefficiency enabled by the introduction of new technologies, frustrated teachers had been required to enter student test scores both manually on paper forms and electronically for many months, 'until the kinks are worked out of this new system".) Standing at the blackboard in front of the class and methodically writing out dates to memorize and new vocabulary to learn -- such manual activities can often be done much more expeditiously (if perhaps not always more effectively) through using projectors and basic presentation software. Machines (perhaps even "teaching machines") may also handle some of the routine, low-end cognitive tasks (e.g. posing multiple-choice questions and grading tests) that teachers currently perform.

That said, while routine administrative burdens on teachers may (eventually) lessen, and some routine low-end cognitive tasks may gradually be taken over by software, the introduction of new technologies over time typically means that *more* is asked of teachers, not less.

The development of the types of so-called '21st century skills' -- problem-solving, critical thinking, cross-cultural communication, etc. -- as well as a variety of non-cognitive skills (such as grit and mindset) are increasingly considered to be important to success in academics, and in life. Toa great extent, these are the sorts of skills that teachers, and not machines, are uniquely able to help students develop. But doing so is not easy, and often requires more highly capable teachers than many education systems currently have. Being able to utilize new technologies in support of their teaching, and to keep up with technological changes, challenges teachers to continue to learn themselves. The increased availability of data on student performance as a result of utilizing new technologies, with their ability to track student activities in ways simply not possible when 'assessment' meant an occasional test using pencil and paper challenges teachers to absorb these data and modify their teaching in ways that are most useful to their students, both collectively and individually.

Eventually, while technology will not replace teachers, teachers who use technology will replace those who do not.


While the proliferation of new technologies helps to enable many of the efforts to introduce more testing in many education systems around the world, it is perhaps worth considering that the sorts of things that are most easily testable using technology are, almost by their very definition, those things that are most easily taken over by machines. If you can automatically assess something (a fact, an activity) using a machine, someone will eventually write an algorithm to help a machine regurgitate that fact, or perform that activity, automatically (and most likely flawlessly).

In his recent Jefferson Lecture to the National Endowment for the Humanities in the United States, the journalist Walter Isaacson speaks about the potential for "a partnership between humans and machines, a symbiosis where each side does what it does best. Machines augment rather than replicate and replace human intelligence. We humanists should root for the triumph of this human-machine partnership strategy, because it preserves the importance of the connection between the humanities and the sciences."

And, it might be added, the importance of the human connection between teacher and student.

Note: The image used at the top of this blog post of so-called Luddites smashing a loom ("In the future, will a machine replace me and smash other machines on my behalf?") comes via Wikimedia Commons and is in the public domain. The second image of two robots ("Greetings, pupils. Please find an available power outlet, class will begin shortly") comes courtesy of the Wikipedian JosepPAL via Wikimedia Commons and is used according to the terms of its Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. The final image, of B.F. Skinner's "teaching machine", comes courtesy of the Wikipedian Silly rabbit via Wikimedia Commons. It is also used according to the terms of its Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license; its inclusion here was inspired by this upcoming book.


Michael Trucano

Global Lead for Innovation in Education, Sr. Education & Technology Policy Specialist

John Daly
February 24, 2015

At one point I tried to explain to a very smart guy in charge of introducing computers into schools in his country that the teachers could be a very important source of innovations, and that therefore it would be important to set up a means for them to share their successes with other teachers. That was not an immediately intuitive idea. Perhaps it came to me from my own experience trying to see how I could use technology to teach better -- going beyond Power Point.

Mike Will
February 24, 2015

Isaac Asimov once said,
"Self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is"
Paradoxically perhaps, I think that both he and the article are right.

Jo Besford
February 25, 2015

Technology can actually free teachers from many of the mundane, repetitive and often time consuming tasks which allows them then to concentrate on the aspects of teaching that no computer can replace a teacher in e.g. the guiding, interpreting, encouraging. This change in role can also be threatening! Continuing Professional Development is an essential part of any implementation process to facilitate this change.

Rudyne Whyte
July 08, 2015

I, too, share the frustration of the teachers in Russia you mentioned because I am required to enter students test scores and attendance electronically plus keep a manual record, because the manual record is a legal document.
That said, I welcome the technological revolution in education. It forces me to keep up to date with my practices and make new ideas and theories relating to my subject area more accessible. Technology cannot replace the human element in teaching. Teachers must now be willing to relinquish absolute control in the classroom and embrace new ways of learning. I have found that access to technology does not mean that students know how to use it to benefit them in class or for study. They still need teachers to show them that.

Reid Moule
May 04, 2016

No computer can smile at a student, ask them how their day has been so far, compliment them on a clever reply or admire the way they kicked a ball across a field. No computer is going to kneel down and commiserate with a student who feels sad, is going to ring their mum when they had a great day at school and share that or even just give them a wink. It is the relationships that teachers build that gets results, not technology. Does that mean I am against technology? On the contrary I think that engaging students with technology is not about regarding them as digital natives because they consume. Rather it is about computational thinking and developing their capacity for logical and design thinking by using technology like Arduino and Raspberry Pi to engage them and that understanding is critical for their future employment. Can we utilise technology more effectively? Yes. Do we need to rethink the notion of school? Yes. Do we need to rethink how we educate? Yes. But we need government and academia to rethink they way they both train teachers and fund education before real change can occur.

Ainomugisha Johnbosco
May 23, 2016

To my deepest understanding, no technology will ever stand in the shoes or place of teachers. This is so because every technological equipment needs man's knowledge in order to operate and function successfully. Nevertheless,I Concur with the saying of reduction of employment opportunities as a result of technology invention.

June 20, 2016

This article is very interesting in stating both sides: robots will take over the classrooms or teachers will remain in the classrooms. I want to state that I believe both will happen, if not now, eventually then. As the article states, "Eventually, while technology will not replace teachers, teachers who use technology will replace those who do not." In quoting that, I believe this is to be true. As we all know technology is being used around the world, and is very relevant and present in pretty much everything we do in our personal lives, businesses, etc. The best way I can say this is, Technology is rising, on the rise, has been on the rise, so if you're not with it in the classroom then you will be replaced. Even youtube could replace a teacher for anyone wanting to anything from integers to how to replace your light bulb in the car. I also believe that robots definitely could and possibly will in some parts of the world replace teachers in the classroom. Especially in places where schools aren't present, or where education is difficult to obtain.

November 22, 2016

Technology absolutely should replace teachers in much of their current teaching roles, and we should be investing heavily in this right now. Machine learning is highly applicable here and can allow us to apply individualized instruction that maximizes each student's opportunity for success. There's no reason for us not to create software that puts each student on an individualized and adaptable path through all of English, math and science education. This is critical to our future now, as an educated population becomes the chief way to attract businesses in a technologically advancing economy that replaces many jobs with artificial intelligence. We can no longer afford to have unequal education, and the huge gap in the quality of education between our various schools is now a deadly threat to our future. Turning teaching over to computers can allow us to equalize and continually improve education beyond where it stands today even in the best classrooms. While we may think of this as replacing people, the reality is that we're simply changing how people go about teaching people. We're using ingenuity to find better ways to let people do it, and we're allowing ourselves to continually improve upon our best efforts.

April 10, 2017

I hear this all the time.
Hotels will work only with robots in the future ( I believe there are some in Japan that already do)...ok, but who is going to go to those hotels if people can make money for a living because a robot is doing their job.
What is all this education for if the businesses we want to attract in the future do not need humans to function...etc, etc...
My big question:
If we are taken out of the equation, how are we going to make money?
and if in the future we do not need money or need to work for it, what are we going to do? We are already fundamentally depressed and have lost our identity and social environment. We are more isolated than ever.
And, if we will not need money or need to make a living, how is society going to function? will everything suddenly be free? will life be just a continuous holiday?
I suspect not. I suspect by learning from our previous history, that there will be a few that will benefit and the rest of us will suffer. I suspect the economy you talk about Alex will operate without us benefiting the few.
I really need someone to explain to me how all this is going to work.

January 31, 2020

We will move to another field just like in the past.

How did we continue to make money when the production line came in and took all the manufacturing jobs? How did we continue to make money when large tractor trailers started farming the land that use to take hundreds of people? How did we continue to make money when online streaming closed down all our record stores? How do we continue to make money if some cloud service is causing those Blockbuster employees to lose their jobs?

We shifted to new services. We will do so in the future when technologies start to take over what we do now. When human labor can no longer keep up, we'll start to work less to enjoy the same benefits until we don't work at all. That's not a bad thing, its just a different thing.

We are depressed now because we're in the middle of a long transition from self worth being attached to how much you produce to what you can create. 8 billion people can produce something seen as valuable to other people. 8 billion people can't create something that is value to other people. We need to untie our self worth from what we produce in a world where people are no longer required to produce things to survive.

When people do not need to work so hard to make money and survive, they tend to create more. They tend to do other things better. There's a common argument from the last few decades that women shouldn't work because they should be raising the family. Well now we're shifting back to the point where one or both parents can focus on family. One or both people can focus on starting a business, cleaning their neighborhood, volunteering their time, exercising, participating in local government, painting a mural, or whatever else 95% of people tend not to do but probably should.

We'll work with less laborers and we'll work better at that.

Nathalie Argueles
November 14, 2019

This entire post absolutely ROCKS! Thank you for all the hard work you put into it. It really shows.