Where can EdTech actually evolve?

(a continuation of the EdTech taxonomy — thinking out loud)

In my previous post, I did not approach EdTech as a “market” or a “toolbox,” but as a layered landscape. A landscape made up of layers, each with its own logic: didactics, structures, organics, registers, commons.

In my thinking, that perspective quickly started to combine with what I am exploring here.

Because even when you are clear about what you are looking at (and in which layer it sits), another question remains open:

where can it actually land — and continue to exist?

And that is where, for me, the term innovation begins to feel uncomfortable.

Maybe “innovation” is the wrong word

“Innovation” sounds as if change is a kind of property — or even a goal in itself.
As if something is innovative, regardless of where it ends up.

I find myself increasingly unable to work with that idea.
Especially because the term itself is becoming more and more hollow.

What I observe in EdTech looks much more like evolution:
forms that emerge, are tested, adapt, sometimes disappear — and sometimes remain, because they fit the conditions.

That shifts the question away from is this innovative?
towards:

• what is trying to emerge here?
• in which layer of the ecosystem does it want to land?
• and is there enough absorptive capacity to actually carry that emergence?

Absorptive capacity as evolutionary opportunity

I increasingly see absorptive capacity not as “a factor,” but as a kind of multiplier.

Not: how good is the technology?
But: can the system absorb this without getting in its own way?

For me, absorptive capacity includes:

• time — space to practice, get used to things, repeat
• energy — mental and organisational bandwidth
• ownership — who carries it, who decides, who maintains it
• coherence — does it fit existing routines and goals
• safety — what does failure cost, for whom, and who absorbs that cost
• letting go — what is no longer needed, what costs more than it delivers

Without absorptive capacity, much that has potential simply dies.
With absorptive capacity, even something small can grow into something that lasts.

So: absorptive capacity increases the evolutionary chance of what wants to emerge — and what wants to remain.

Two lines I use to look at this

To make this more tangible, I started naming two simple “lines of sight” alongside the taxonomy. Not as a model, more as a compass.

Proximity to the learning practice
From directly in the classroom to far removed from learning itself.
How close is something to real learning, in the moment?

Degree of impact propagation
From local effects to consequences at organisational or system level.
How far do the effects ripple when something changes?

When I combine these two lines, I see six places where EdTech behaves differently — and where evolution follows different dynamics.

Importantly, these places are also recognisable within the layers of my earlier taxonomy (didactics / structures / organics / registers / commons). For me, this is simply an additional lens on top of that landscape.

Six places where EdTech can evolve differently

1) Close & local: the learning moment
This directly affects the learning experience — what happens between learner, teacher and task.
A lot can emerge here because change is relatively reversible.
Absorptive capacity is often high: teachers can try, tweak, undo.

Link to taxonomy: Didactics
Pitfall: assuming that what works locally will automatically become policy.

2) Close & repeatable: learning routines
This is not about a single lesson, but about sequence, structure and repetition.
Impact emerges when it becomes part of routine.

Link: Didactics → Structures
Pitfall: treating this as “just trying something out,” while it actually requires rhythm and anchoring.

3) The middle ground: collaboration, roles, work processes
Here, change affects multiple professionals and their coordination.
Absorptive capacity is often the bottleneck — not because people are unwilling, but because decision-making, time and ownership are lacking.

Link: Structures ↔ Organics
Pitfall: framing adoption as a training issue when it is primarily an organisational mechanism.

4) Formal layers: legitimacy and accountability
This is about continuity, testability, liability, privacy, inspection-like logics.
Evolution here is slow — not out of laziness, but due to laws and regulations.

Link: Registers
Pitfall: expecting experimental freedom here as if we were still in the classroom.

5) Between systems: friction, standards, interoperability
The gains here are not “better learning tomorrow,” but less friction, better data flow, less lock-in, more compatibility.
Absorptive capacity does not sit with individuals, but with collective agreements.

Link: Organics ↔ Registers ↔ Commons
Pitfall: framing this as product innovation instead of a connection and governance challenge.

6) Foundational: the conditions everything rests on
Infrastructure, public–private arrangements, data architecture, identity, core principles.
Often invisible until they fail.
Effects are delayed, but they determine resilience.

Link: Commons
Pitfall: seeing this as “technical,” when it is strategic.

What this perspective does to the conversation

When I let go of “innovation,” my reflex changes.

Not:

“Why isn’t this going faster?”

But:

“Where are we trying to let this land — and is there absorptive capacity there?”

Not:

“This isn’t innovative.”

But:

“Maybe we’re trying to let something emerge in a layer that can’t (yet) carry it.”

I find that more honest. More human, too.
Because it doesn’t moralise (“resistance!”), but explains (“capacity”).

In closing

I prefer to call this evolution, not innovation.
Because it is about what can emerge, fit, propagate — and remain.

And I believe absorptive capacity is key in that process:
not as a checklist item, but as a chance amplifier for what wants to emerge.

I’m curious:
which layer in my taxonomy do you currently see the most evolution in?
And where is absorptive capacity missing — causing potential to stall?

In a next post, I will go deeper into the distinction between innovation and evolution, and why that difference truly matters to me. I will also introduce my Evolutionary (Futures) Perspective (EFP): a way of seeing and acting from what wants to emerge, what can remain, and what that requires in terms of context, absorptive capacity and time.

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).