1　Introduction

Introduces the policy background of the national education digitalization strategy, noting that a rational understanding of the role of education digitalization requires the movement of major educational contradictions as an analytical framework; critiques views that exaggerate the role of digital tools such as "disruption theory" and "school extinction theory," emphasizing that education is characterized by gradualness, inheritance, and the principle of "establishing the new before abolishing the old"; clarifies that education digitalization is merely a means rather than the core driving force of educational transformation, and cannot change the essence of education or learning.

2　The Core Driving Force of Educational Transformation

Discusses the core driving force of educational transformation, pointing out that digital technology is only an auxiliary tool rather than a decisive factor, and cannot fundamentally change the essence of education. Based on a dialectical view of development, the author emphasizes that the transformation of things originates from the movement of internal contradictions rather than the injection of external new content, and the emergence of new things depends on whether decisive changes have occurred in internal relationships. Regarding the field of education, this chapter analyzes external and internal contradictions of education, as well as contradictions among various internal elements of education, clarifying that the relationship between educators and the educated is the principal contradiction in the educational process, whose essence is the relationship between education and development. From this, it is proposed that educational concepts and institutions, as internal and external expressions of human relationships, constitute the core driving force of educational transformation. Finally, it demonstrates that current digital means only reinforce existing teaching methods without changing the basic relationship of teacher-led, student-centered instruction, and that the value creation of technologies such as artificial intelligence still depends on humans, serving merely as "helpers" in education.

3　Determinants of Education Quality

Explores the core determinants of education quality, pointing out that the progress of educators and the educated is the key, and education digitalization cannot replace human subjectivity and dominance. First, it critiques the "total transformation theory" tendency toward technological determinism, arguing that proposals to digitize all elements of education carry risks, and that changes in educational concepts and institutions originate from theoretical enlightenment and social practice rather than adaptation to immature technological tools; technological determinism substitutes "thing" progress for "human" progress, negating the open future of education, and the reliability of digital technology remains to be verified. Second, it distinguishes between the essence of education and digital means, emphasizing that the essence of education as an activity of cultivating people has objectivity, while digitalization is merely form and means; confusing essence with phenomenon leads to reducing educational problems to technical problems, reducing teachers to executors of data assembly lines. Finally, it notes that forced implementation of digital tools will lead to rigidification of teaching forms; any means has strengths and weaknesses and should be selected according to time and circumstances; the emergence of digital technology does not constitute a disruptive substitution of educational means, and pinning educational development entirely on technological iteration is putting the cart before the horse.

4　Guarding Against Tendencies to Exaggerate the Role of Educational Tools

Critiques three tendencies to exaggerate the role of education digitalization tools. At the level of education and teaching, it points out that "technological revolution theory" neglects real frontline needs, that the essence of teaching is conservative practice, that digital tools and chalk-blackboards both belong to material conditions whose effects depend on use by teachers and students rather than the tools themselves, and that tradition is indispensable to reform. Regarding education management and evaluation, it warns of "data-only theory" risks, emphasizing that data collection lacking conceptual frameworks easily leads to erroneous conclusions, that data has unreliability and easily neglects the spiritual dimension of people, and that management and evaluation should be problem-needs driven while maintaining beliefs in comprehensive balanced assessment. At the level of education research, it notes that digital technology has applicable boundaries, that its "intelligence" is merely an algorithmic metaphor, and that research should focus on human educational reality, history, and future rather than technology itself; it calls for objective assessment of technological risks, clear division of labor and cooperation between humans and machines, and ensuring that teachers and students use digital tools well without abusing them. The core proposition is that educational transformation should follow "empowerment theory" rather than "disruption theory," adhering to people-centered, gradual optimization, and being led by ideology and concepts rather than tools.

5　Conclusion

Points out that the core driving force of educational transformation is changes in human relationships rather than technology, critiquing the error of digital disruption theory in viewing digital technology as a decisive force; emphasizes that although artificial intelligence will not eliminate existing education, teachers should actively embrace and improve digital teaching capabilities, while needing to break through technological worship and maintain rational understanding.