Written by VSTE Professional Services member Barbara Valenzuela 

A recent study of an AI lesson-planning tool offers educators an important reminder: saving time and improving learning are both valuable goals, but they are not the same measure of success.

Educational technology is often introduced with two promises: it will make teachers’ work more efficient, and it will improve students’ learning experiences. Sometimes it may accomplish both. But when evaluating a digital tool, it is important to be clear about which outcome the evidence actually supports.

A tool that reduces planning time can provide meaningful relief for educators. It may create more space for feedback, collaboration, reflection, and connection with students. However, increased efficiency does not automatically demonstrate improved student learning. That requires different evidence—and a different question.

A Recent Trial Offers a Useful Example

In October 2026, the Education Endowment Foundation published the results of a randomized controlled trial examining Aila, an AI-powered lesson-planning assistant developed by Oak National Academy.

The trial involved 464 teachers across 108 primary schools. Teachers encouraged to use Aila spent approximately 24% less time planning lessons and preparing resources than those in the comparison group—an average savings of about 49 minutes per week. The quality of the lesson plans was not found to be lower.

However, the findings also tell a more complex story. Use of the tool declined during the ten-week trial, and fewer than one in five teachers reported that it meaningfully influenced their teaching and planning. The study evaluated planning time and lesson-plan quality, but it did not measure whether students learned more.

Read the EEF summary of the Aila evaluation.

Two Different Measures of Value

The Aila findings highlight an important distinction. When technology saves teachers time, we are measuring efficiency. When technology helps students understand more deeply, practice more effectively, receive better feedback, or access learning in new ways, we are measuring instructional impact.

Both outcomes matter, but they answer different questions:

Saving time can support better teaching, especially when educators intentionally reinvest that time in feedback, instructional decisions, and relationships with students. But the time saved is an opportunity—not evidence by itself that learning has improved.

Looking Beyond Speed

EEF’s broader guidance, Using Digital Technology to Improve Learning, recommends identifying how technology will improve teaching and learning before introducing it. A new platform should respond to a clearly defined educational need rather than become a solution in search of a problem.

This does not mean that every technology must directly teach students. A tool may still have significant value when it improves assessment, reduces administrative demands, or gives educators more time to provide feedback and support. The important step is to identify the intended benefit and then look for evidence that the tool is actually producing it.

Explore EEF’s guidance on using digital technology to improve learning.

A Question Worth Asking

As schools explore AI and other emerging technologies, success should not be defined only by how quickly a task can be completed. Educators and school leaders also need to consider what the saved time makes possible—and whether students experience a meaningful benefit.

Before adopting or evaluating a digital tool, it may be useful to ask:

Technology that saves time can be valuable. Technology that improves learning can be transformative. The strongest choices are made when educators know which goal they are pursuing and evaluate the results accordingly.

How is technology helping you save time or improve learning? Share your experiences with the VSTE community using #VSTEinAction.