About what we see (and what we miss) when everything is called EdTech

A human being is a creature.
So is a cow.
An ant. A whale.

Biologically, that is correct. But as soon as we need to organise things such as care, responsibility, and living together, we start to make distinctions. We speak of people, animals, livestock, pets. Not because reality changes, but because acting meaningfully requires distinction.

In conversations about education and technology, I increasingly wonder why we seem to do the exact opposite.
There, we call everything EdTech.

One word, many different realities

An AI tool that supports a teacher.
A smartboard in the classroom.
A digital method for the curriculum.
A school-wide scheduling tool.
A student tracking system.
A foundation-wide student administration.
A national network access solution.

In practice, we call all of this EdTech.
And I find myself asking more and more often: why? What are we actually trying to describe?

Do these things really resemble each other so closely that one word is sufficient?
Or does that single word hide the differences that matter most in practice?

When language blurs the conversation

What I see happening is less a technological problem than a linguistic one. As soon as everything falls under a single label, conversations become imprecise.

Innovation may then be overestimated (“this should be quick”), or, at other times, unnecessarily restrained (“this is too risky”). Discussions about implementation, adoption, policy, procurement, or collaboration can pass each other by. Not because people have different intentions, but because they are — often unconsciously — talking about different kinds of technology.

That leads me to a simple but persistent question:
do we actually have words for the differences we intuitively already feel?

Another way of looking

Instead of organising technology based on what it can do or what it offers, I started asking myself a different question:

Where does the primary responsibility for this technology lie within the educational ecosystem?

Not: who uses it most.
Not: how innovative it is.
But: who bears the consequences when it does not work?

That question shifts the perspective. It moves the conversation from product to context, from features to relationships. And it helps me see technology as layers within an ecosystem, rather than as one amorphous category.

What follows is not a model and not a truth, but a way of looking that I would like to put forward.

Five layers to think with

1. Didactics

Direct action in and around the lesson

Didactics concerns EdTech solutions that directly affect the moment of learning itself. Everything a teacher or student uses to explain, practise, respond, or differentiate belongs to this layer. These tools are close to practice and move with what happens in the classroom.

They make education more adaptable. They create room to experiment, adjust, and respond to what emerges. That room, however, is not self-evident. It only exists where there is time, trust, and mandate. Without those conditions, Didactics remains superficial or incidental.

Didactics is shaped by Structures, can be influenced by Organics, and may provide input to Registers.

2. Structures

What organises didactic action

Structures are EdTech solutions that bring coherence to learning. They organise didactic action not only in time, but also in sequence and logical progression: what comes first, what follows, what builds on previous steps — and why?

At this level, learning gains rhythm and predictability. Individual actions become part of a larger whole. Not because that is inherently better, but because it becomes transferable: across lessons, teachers, year groups, and study pathways.

Structures influence Organics, as planning, guidance, and monitoring build on this organisation. They also provide input to Registers, where progress and results are formally recorded. At times, Structures themselves make use of Registers to support consistent organisation.

3. Organics

What enables education to function day to day

Organics includes EdTech solutions that keep education accessible and workable. They support guidance, care, monitoring, and planning. This is the layer where technology touches the daily functioning of people: teachers, mentors, care professionals, and support staff.

Organics largely determines how smoothly people within an educational organisation are able to operate. When this layer is well designed, overview and coherence emerge.

Organics forms a bridge between pedagogy and organisation. It is shaped by choices made in Structures and feeds Registers with what is formally recorded.

4. Registers

What formally counts

Registers are EdTech solutions in which what officially counts is recorded. This is where education becomes institutional: attendance, results, schedules, student and staff data, financial flows.

At this layer, the focus shifts from learning to legitimacy and accountability. Not because learning becomes less important, but because other interests come into play: funding, reporting, and legal position.

Registers are fed by Structures and Organics, and they are strongly dependent on Commons.

5. Commons

What connects everything and brings it together

Commons refers to the shared provisions and agreements that enable systems to work together. Identity, access, data exchange, and standards are central here.

Commons determines whether systems understand each other, whether data can flow, and whether choices remain reversible. It creates space to exchange and connect.

Commons influences all layers simultaneously. Not by directing them, but by enabling — or constraining — what is possible.

On hybrid applications

Reality rarely fits neatly into categories. Many EdTech solutions do not remain within a single layer, but touch multiple realities at once.

This is not a problem to be solved, but a dynamic to be understood. Especially where solutions influence multiple layers, new questions arise about responsibility, decision-making, and coherence.

Why I share this taxonomy

I am curious how you see this.
Does this way of looking help you think more sharply about EdTech — or not?
Do you see other layers, other words, other boundaries?

Finally

Perhaps EdTech is primarily a collective term.
Useful while we are searching.
Unhelpful once we want to understand.

I do not know exactly what happens when we use different words.
But I notice that different questions start to emerge.

I am curious to hear which ones arise for you.

Maarten Meijer — working from an Evolutionary Perspective.
A conceptual thinker who helps make sense of what is already unfolding, working at the intersection of systems, education, and technology.
I explore and articulate possible directions without fixing outcomes too early.
I shape space for reflection, orientation, and choice — so what wants to remain can develop further.

In daily life, I work as Program Manager EdTech Ecosystem at NOLAI (the National Education Lab for AI).