COVID-19 was a big moment for edtech, but digital tools continued learning Many families and schools also faced challenges.Massive edtech purchases have been made unusedcapital gap spreadand the teachers and students burn out.combination with solemn report Given the continued lack of strong evidence against edtech, it’s no wonder that the concept of using technology to “fix broken schools” has disappeared from most startup pitch materials and education TED talks. However, that calculation appears to have been discontinued.
With the advent of generative AI, The word “destruction” return to heading Along with this comes the idea that education is stuck in the past and that technology is needed to drag it into the future. For those who have been in edtech for a while, it feels like being stuck in a loop. The tools, marketing strategies, and messaging may change, but the fundamental philosophy behind the idea of disruptive innovation remains the same.
So what is this philosophy?I think so technocentrism, a concept introduced by noted mathematician, learning theorist, and edtech pioneer Seymour Papert. Scholars George Veletsianos and Lorin Moe believe that this is a fusion of technological determinism, the view that technology shapes emerging societies, and technological solutionism, the view that technology solves social problems. It is defined as I would argue that this way of thinking about technology is at the core of many of the pitches that ed-tech providers make to schools, and it has a huge impact on how most of us think about ed-tech. Masu.
We need to stop treating education like a disease and edtech like medicine.
To explain, let’s use an analogy. Within this technocentric framework, education is a disease and edtech is like medicine. Entrepreneurs and developers strive to create the best medicines to treat students, while administrators and researchers (including myself) stand guard, testing and validating treatments. When students take the medication, their bodies respond and we hope that positive changes occur. It is a very widely shared perspective and has become common knowledge. Even our pedagogy is modeled on this idea. For example, consider the concept of technology-enhanced learning. Digital tools are considered key to enhancing learning. By simply integrating certain technologies, you can take advantage of Bloom’s Taxonomy on the go.
Papert Diagnosed this problem Back in 1987. In response to research showing that Logo, a programming language for children, is not useful for learning, Papert wrote:
It doesn’t have to be this way. There are other ways of thinking about learning that involve technology but do not see it as a key element of change or a source of learning. Mr Papert said: “The content of human development is always culture, never an isolated technology.” Some people may call this “.” systemic A view of technology in which learning is an emergent and somewhat unpredictable property of the interactions between humans and tools in the environment. I like to think of the system as an ecology. In opposition to technocentrism, an ecological perspective views technology not as medicine, but as soil, air, and water. This is a shift from thinking about technology as an independent element that influences the learning experience to seeing it as a more dynamic force. This means considering how technology impacts students and teachers, and how students and teachers shape the learning possibilities that technology offers.
Why should edtech research break away from a technology-centered view of learning?
This ecological dimension to learning is why it is difficult to demonstrate small-scale or more than moderate positive effects of edtech products and interventions.For the past 10 years, this documented by Several meta-analysis It covers the more modern era of edtech, dating back to the 1960s. As professor and author Larry Cuban notes in his book, The Teacher and the Machine: Using Technology in the Classroom Since 1920, he goes even further back to the early 20th century, when the same problems persisted. Masu.
There’s so much going on when learning happens that you can link that to tools and build evidence of effectiveness, but context is key. So many forces influence the learning experience and its outcome. Things like the time of day, whether the student has eaten or not eaten, how they are feeling physically and emotionally, whether they have a device in their pocket, and what kind of training they are doing. The teachers had. The possibilities of technology are greatly affected By the humans using it and their contexts.
Drawing on a green mindset, Papert observed how learning is situational and situational. He viewed the learning environment as “a web of mutually supporting and interacting processes.” This complex interaction makes it difficult to isolate and demonstrate the direct impact of technology on learning, as in effectiveness studies.
That doesn’t mean we should stop doing this kind of research. Instead, we need to broaden our research horizons and be more careful about thinking critically about our own assumptions and methods. We must continue to pursue rigorous clinical trials, but at the same time evidence-based designlike logical model, as well as formative research such as usability and feasibility studies. Most importantly, we need to develop new research methods that align with a less tech-centric and greener way of thinking about learning and technology. Given that each classroom has its own ecosystem, and that edtech is akin to soil and water, we need a model that more closely resembles the environmental impact study of learning with technology.
What edtech developers and schools can do
Efforts have been made for years to move us in this direction. For example, climate research. Initiatives to promote digital well-being, human experience and digital prosperity; study of influencing contextual factors; Effectiveness of edtech; and from technology enhancement Learning with technology. Still, especially foreground theory (i.e. woefully underutilized in educational research).
We need to go beyond research and rethink how we encourage and support the development of educational technology and the creation of tools that foster positive, prosocial classroom cultures, regardless of content. Educational technology developers can start by involving teachers in the design process and incorporating radical ideas such as: cheerful design, Or creating tools that give people agency and build social bonds; digital degrowthThat means looking for ways to scale down technology and its purpose and steer it towards sustainability. Culturally responsive learning and universal design for learning can only aid in these pursuits. We can also expand our evidence portfolio to honor the goals and outcomes of these approaches, which influence the atmosphere, tenor, and rhythm of the classroom as much as the academic work. But if they really want to get out of the quagmire, venture capitalists and other funders need to: Reconsider investment expectations and impact measures.
Importantly, we need to provide schools with resources they can use to ensure that technology supports their goals, not just for academic outcomes, but for the culture of the classroom. This requires new frameworks for vetting, selecting, and evaluating technologies. This is more attuned to how technology changes the classroom atmosphere and how specific classrooms change the possibilities of tools. Fundamentally, we need to help schools think about creating a balanced classroom ecology where technology meets teacher and student goals and supports independence and creativity.
These are all approaches that I believe will help clear the fog of technocentrism. Technocentrism distracts us from the real source of learning and innovation: thriving classroom culture, not technology. It’s not about abandoning technology completely or pursuing the perfect tool. It’s about gaining a deeper understanding of the alchemy of meaningful learning through technology.