Shorter Learning, Deeper Questions: Inside the OEB Annual Debate 2025

Inside the OEB Annual Debate 2025

One of OEB’s defining moments each year, the Annual Plenary Debate returned in 2025 with a provocation that cut to the core of contemporary education:

“This House believes that catering to shorter attention spans is dumbing down education.”

Held on Thursday evening and moderated by Hon. Michael Onyango, the debate reflected a tension many educators recognise. As digital environments reshape how people consume information, should education adapt to these realities or resist them in defence of depth, judgement and intellectual discipline?

By the end of the evening, the audience voted clearly against the motion. Yet the debate itself revealed a deeper, more nuanced concern: not whether learning should be shorter or longer, but how education retains its human purpose in an attention-driven, algorithmically shaped world.

The Case for the Motion: Defending Depth in the Attention Economy

Arguing for the motion, Max Bankole Jarrett and Philipp Lorenz-Spreen warned against allowing education to mirror the logic of the attention economy.

Jarrett framed the issue as ethical as much as pedagogical. Drawing on research into child development, he argued that constant stimulation and fragmented focus undermine the cognitive foundations of learning: sustained attention, impulse control and judgement. When education caters too readily to shrinking attention spans, skimming replaces reading and responsiveness replaces reflection.

Education, he suggested, is not only about transmitting knowledge but about shaping character and emotional regulation. Experiences that demand patience, uncertainty and resilience are increasingly displaced by digital scaffolding that removes friction rather than teaching learners how to navigate it.

Lorenz-Spreen extended this argument with empirical evidence from his research on collective attention. Digital platforms, he explained, optimise for speed, emotional arousal and rapid switching. These dynamics reward outrage and immediacy rather than deliberation.

Importing this logic into education is not neutral. It risks institutionalising shallow engagement and training learners to operate at the lowest levels of attention. In this sense, “dumbing down” is not about simplicity, but about aligning learning with systems designed for distraction rather than understanding.

The Case Against: Adaptation Without Abdication

Opposing the motion, Adam Salkeld and Aruj Khaliq challenged the assumption that shorter learning formats are inherently inferior.

Salkeld began by questioning the language of “dumbing down” itself. Brevity, he argued, has never been synonymous with intellectual weakness. From music and rhetoric to science and storytelling, complexity has often been expressed through concise forms. Fear of cognitive decline, he noted, has accompanied every major technological shift, often reflecting anxiety rather than evidence.

More importantly, he reframed adaptation as an ethical responsibility. Meeting learners where they are, and acknowledging the realities of their media environments, is not capitulation but empathy. Education, he argued, must communicate effectively before it can challenge.

Khaliq grounded this argument in classroom practice. As a teacher, she framed learning not in terms of duration but impact. Learning can be modular, scaffolded and cumulative. Shorter engagements can build towards depth if they are designed with intention.

She also emphasised inclusivity. Learners differ across cultures, generations and neurodiversity. A single model of sustained attention, she argued, risks excluding rather than educating. Clarity and accessibility are not signs of dilution, but of mastery.

What the Debate Revealed

Audience contributions reinforced the complexity of the issue. Several participants noted that producing concise, meaningful learning often demands more rigour, not less, from educators. Others questioned whether the problem lies in shorter content, or in unreflective design driven by engagement metrics rather than learning goals.

Rather than dividing the room, the debate exposed a shared concern: how education can remain demanding, inclusive and human in environments shaped by speed and distraction.

Conclusion: Humanity in the Intelligent Age

The OEB Annual Debate 2025 made clear that the real fault line is not between short and long, but between intentional design and uncritical adaptation. Shorter learning formats can either open pathways to deeper understanding or become endpoints that replace it.

This tension speaks directly to this year’s conference theme. In an intelligent age, education’s responsibility is not simply to keep pace with technology, but to cultivate attention, judgement and empathy within it. Humanity and empathy are not abstract values; they are expressed in how learning is designed, paced and experienced.

The debate revealed a shared sense of purpose across opposing positions. Education must help learners move beyond reaction towards reflection, and beyond immediacy towards meaning. The question is not how long learning lasts, but whether it strengthens our capacity to think, decide and relate responsibly in a world that constantly competes for our attention.


Written for OEB 2025.