Last week, I saw a post on Bluesky from an educator venting about their day. Their carefully crafted lesson had completely fallen apart—not because of poor planning or student engagement issues, but because of technology. A single failed connection between three different apps brought down an entire learning experience that had taken hours to design.

This scenario plays out in classrooms across the Great Plains and beyond every single day. While many EdTech enthusiasts celebrate our growing sophistication at combining educational technologies, I’ve become increasingly convinced that we’re creating systems so complex that they’re more likely to fail our learners when they need them most.

The scope of this problem is more significant than many of us realize. Research shows that in the information technology industry, failure rates are approaching 70 percent, with increased complexity being a primary contributor to system and management failures. When we apply this lens to educational technology, the implications become clear: our well-intentioned efforts to enhance learning through multiple integrated tools may actually be creating environments where failure is not just possible, but probable.

The App Smashing Trap

I know this perspective challenges popular EdTech wisdom. The concept of “app smashing” (combining multiple applications to create enhanced learning experiences) is widely celebrated in our field, and I understand the appeal. When it works, combining tools can produce powerful educational outcomes. But I’ve become convinced that the risks far outweigh the benefits.

Here’s what we often overlook: every additional tool in your stack creates another potential point of failure.

Consider a seemingly simple lesson design:

• Students access content through the LMS
• They collaborate using a shared document platform
• They record reflections in a video app
• They submit through a third-party portfolio system
• Analytics flow back through an integration widget

That’s five different systems that must work seamlessly together. If any one fails—network connectivity, authentication issues, API changes, or simple server downtime—the entire learning experience can collapse.

The Multiplication of Failure Points

When we design learning experiences, we need to think like systems engineers. Research on complex systems reveals a sobering truth: complex systems possess potential for catastrophic failure, with practitioners nearly always in close proximity to potential failures that can occur at any time and in nearly any place. Each component we add doesn’t just add functionality; it multiplies complexity exponentially. Here’s why:

Authentication Chains: Every additional tool requires learners to authenticate, often multiple times. Password resets, expired sessions, and single sign-on failures become daily friction points.

Data Dependencies: When tools share data, any disruption in that flow creates cascading problems. Students lose work, progress disappears, or duplicate entries create confusion. Systems research shows that highly intricate systems can obscure single points of failure, making them harder to identify and remedy quickly.

Version Incompatibilities: Educational institutions rarely have control over when third-party tools update their systems. An overnight change to one app can break integrations with others. Studies demonstrate that dependency managers can easily create situations where the failure of a component you didn’t even know existed can render your entire learning experience unusable.

Support Multiplication: Every tool in your stack requires its own support protocol. When something breaks, troubleshooting becomes a detective process across multiple vendors.

The research is clear: there is no isolated ’cause’ when complex educational technology systems fail. Multiple contributors are necessary, with each insufficient by itself to create failure. Only when these causes link together do we get the circumstances required for system breakdown—exactly what happened in that educator’s classroom last week.

Real-World Impact on Learning

The hidden cost of complexity isn’t just technical—it’s pedagogical. Cognitive Load Theory helps us understand exactly why complex systems undermine learning. Our working memory has limited capacity, and when learners spend mental energy navigating technology workflows instead of focusing on content, we’ve fundamentally compromised the learning process.

Complex systems create three critical barriers to effective learning:

Cognitive Overhead: Research shows that extraneous cognitive load—the mental effort imposed by poor interface design and confusing navigation—directly competes with the intrinsic load needed for actual learning. When cognitive overload occurs from too much new information or poorly designed instruction, learning suffers. Students in complex LMS environments report that systems appeal more to those with computer skills than those without, creating an immediate equity barrier.

This aligns with fundamental UX design principles I learned during my certification studies: every additional interface element, every extra step in a workflow, every unnecessary decision point increases the mental burden on users. In educational contexts, this cognitive taxation is particularly damaging because it directly steals mental resources from learning itself. Good UX design seeks to minimize this friction—app smashing maximizes it.

Equity Barriers: Studies reveal that access to electricity and internet, cost of internet and hardware, and knowledge of computer and system use are key factors that significantly impact learners’ ability to engage with complex educational technology. Complex systems disadvantage learners with limited technology access, slower internet connections, or less technical fluency—exactly the populations we should be working hardest to support.

Teacher Sustainability: Educators already juggle incredible complexity in their daily work. Research on Learning Management Systems shows that course maintenance, constant upgrades, acquisition of new skills, and managing multiple system integrations contribute to increased workload and potential burnout. When technology adds stress instead of reducing it, we’re setting up unsustainable systems that lead to tool abandonment.

The Power of Intentional Simplicity

Effective educational technology should disappear into the background, enabling learning rather than requiring management. This principle isn’t just good practice—it’s backed by decades of research and real-world application, and it’s central to what we call “calm design” in the UX field.

Calm design, a concept I’ve embraced throughout my work, prioritizes user well-being over technological complexity. It asks us to create systems that don’t demand constant attention or cognitive maintenance from users. In educational settings, this philosophy becomes even more critical because learners need their mental resources focused on content, not interface navigation.

The KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid), first developed by aircraft engineer Kelly Johnson, established that most systems work best when kept simple rather than made unnecessarily complex. Johnson’s team was challenged to design jet aircraft that could be repaired by an average mechanic in the field under combat conditions with only basic tools. The principle has since been validated across industries: research shows that applying KISS reduces system complexity by 20% and bugs by 15% while improving user satisfaction and system reliability.

This doesn’t mean choosing inferior tools—it means making strategic choices about where complexity serves learning and where it merely adds burden. Studies consistently demonstrate that simple designs are easier to understand, maintain, and use, leading to better user experiences and higher adoption rates.

Start with Learning Outcomes: Before adding any technology component, ask yourself: “Does this directly support the learning goal, or am I adding it because it seems cool?” Every tool should have a clear pedagogical purpose. Research shows that when interfaces remove distractions and simplify user pathways, overall task efficiency and satisfaction improve. This mirrors the human-centered design process I use in all my learning experience work: start with user needs, not technology features.

Design for Your Context: A rural school with limited bandwidth has different constraints than an urban district with dedicated IT support. Choose solutions that work reliably within your actual operational context, not your ideal one. This contextual awareness is fundamental to UX research—understanding your users’ real environment, not the environment you wish they had.

Plan for Failure: Build redundancy into your design. If your lesson depends on a specific app working perfectly, create backup approaches that achieve the same learning outcomes. In UX design, we call this graceful degradation—ensuring the core experience remains intact even when supporting systems fail.

Embrace Modular Design: Instead of creating monolithic experiences that depend on multiple integrations, design modular lessons where each component can stand alone if needed. This atomic design approach reduces interdependencies and creates more resilient learning experiences.

Practical Strategies for Reducing Complexity

From a UX design perspective, every interface and interaction should serve a clear purpose in the user’s workflow. App smashing violates this principle by forcing learners to context-switch between different interaction patterns, visual languages, and mental models—often multiple times within a single lesson.

The One-Tool Rule: For any given learning activity, challenge yourself to accomplish the goal with a single, well-chosen tool. While the EdTech community often celebrates combining multiple applications, my experience shows that this approach creates more problems than it solves. From a user experience standpoint, each additional tool introduces new interaction patterns that learners must learn and remember.

Native Integration Priority: When you absolutely must use multiple tools, prioritize those with native integrations over third-party connections. Built-in features are almost always more reliable than bolt-on solutions—but remember that even native integrations add complexity. In UX terms, native integrations maintain consistent interaction patterns and reduce cognitive load from learning multiple interfaces.

Progressive Enhancement: Start with the simplest version of your learning experience that achieves your goals. Resist the app smashing temptation entirely until you’ve exhausted the possibilities of simpler approaches. This reflects the calm design principle of doing one thing well rather than many things poorly.

Regular Audits: Periodically review your technology stack and eliminate tools that aren’t earning their complexity cost. Sometimes the 80% solution that works reliably beats the 100% solution that fails unpredictably. Ask yourself: does each tool in my stack pass the user experience test of making learners’ lives easier, not harder?

Building Sustainable Systems

The most effective educational technology implementations I’ve supported share a common characteristic: they prioritize reliability over features. These systems work consistently for learners across different devices, connection speeds, and technical skill levels. In human-centered design terms, they meet users where they are, not where we wish they could be.

Research on system sustainability reveals that successful management of cognitive load leads to smoother and more enjoyable user experiences. Interfaces that balance task complexity with perceptual simplicity allow users to focus on their goals without unnecessary distractions, translating into higher conversion rates, increased retention, and positive user perception. This is exactly what calm design principles seek to achieve: technology that supports human flourishing rather than demanding constant attention.

This approach requires us to resist the temptation to implement every innovative tool that crosses our path. Studies show that rising complexity makes it impossible to know all functional interactions beforehand, making it difficult to predict exactly how failure in one part of the system will affect other parts. Instead, we focus on creating robust learning ecosystems built on proven, interoperable foundations.

The key insight from dependency research is particularly relevant here: when applications depend on multiple external libraries and frameworks, compatibility issues become inevitable. Changes or updates to one dependency can cause conflicts with others, leading to system errors and downtime. Educational technology environments are essentially dependency networks—and like all such networks, they inherit the vulnerabilities of their weakest links.

Remember, our goal isn’t to showcase technical sophistication—it’s to create learning experiences that empower real people in real contexts. Sometimes the most innovative thing we can do is choose the simpler path.

The Bottom Line

Every piece of technology we add to a learning experience should pass a simple test: Does this make learning more accessible and effective for our learners, or does it primarily make us feel more sophisticated as designers?

The research is unambiguous: complex systems aren’t inherently bad, but complexity should be a conscious choice that serves clear learning purposes. When we default to adding rather than subtracting, we often create systems that serve our own technical interests more than our learners’ educational needs.

Studies on cognitive load consistently show that the easier something is to understand and use, the more likely it is to be adopted and engaged with. This principle applies whether we’re designing fighter jets or learning management systems—simplicity as a design goal leads to better outcomes for end users.

The evidence from complex systems research provides a sobering reminder: in technology-driven environments where failure rates approach 70%, our responsibility as learning experience designers extends beyond pedagogical effectiveness to system reliability. We must consider not just whether our designs can work beautifully, but whether they will work dependably for learners who depend on them.

I’ve seen too many educators burn out from managing complex technology stacks that promise innovation but deliver frustration. The app smashing approach, despite its popularity in EdTech circles, consistently creates more problems than it solves when we honestly assess the total cost of complexity.

The next time you’re tempted to integrate another tool or create an elaborate app-smashing workflow, pause and ask: What would happen if I accomplished this same learning goal with 50% fewer moving parts? Research suggests the answer might surprise you—and your learners will thank you for it.

Additional Resources