Educational Technology: Neither Sinner nor Saviour
Defining the Variable: Ed-Tech
When I think of educational technology, my (active) imagination transports me to AI classrooms and interactive hologram projections. Part of me views ed-tech as the saviour of classroom to world relevancy; another part of me suffers ominous flashes of Judgement Day and Matrix-laden doom! Of course, that’s not the reality…at least, not yet.
It’s all the Matrix Photo by 0fjd125gk87 on Pixabay
In class, I defined educational technology as classroom-based innovations, in either hardware or software context, meant to enhance learning. In my breakout room, we further settled on one word to divide technology from educational technology: Purpose. Any human advancements in applied scientific knowledge can be interpreted as technology, but educational technology serves to analyze, evaluate, develop, manage, create, and collaborate in an academic setting. Laughing in our small chatroom about the purpose of a fridge was unexpected but served to demonstrate that the refrigerator – our cold-food cornucopia – can be defined as technology. However, when considered in a Home Economics setting, it could be categorized as ed-tech. Purpose then, and intentional purpose preferred – is everything when determining what ed-tech best serves innovative classrooms.
Help! My fridge is sentient! Photo: Adobe Stockpack
A Shady Past and Meaningful Future
Without realizing it (admittedly, I hadn’t completed all the readings before class) my philosophy of purposeful ed-tech aligns with Robert B. Kozma. In 1994, Kozma restructured the media debate by asking:
“‘In what ways can we use the capabilities of media to influence learning for particular students, tasks, and situations?'”
This mindful shift in considering and implementing media in the classroom fulfills the highest purposes of ed-tech: Effective teaching and enhanced learning.
Unfortunately, as history and personal experience have shown, a philosophy of mindful ed-tech usage has not always been the case. Reading through Audrey Watter’s article “The 100 Worst Ed-Tech Debacles of the Decade” (2019) was a shame-filled Delorean blast to past. I giggled, I shook my head, I remembered. When I started teaching 13 years ago, any “good” innovative teacher salivated over getting a classroom Smartboard. It was the saviour (fallacy) brought to life in my classroom! Now many sit as $8000 whiteboards with poor lighting and abysmal screen alignment. As Watters and Katia indicate, Smartboards turned into a hard technology due to lacking soft applications. Despite receiving hours of Smartboard training, my Smartboard has become a glorified (problematic) projector. Now I salivate over classroom chrome-cast TV’s. It’s always something! And I say that tongue-in-cheek as I stare at my coveted classroom 3D printer… gathering dust in the corner. Whoops!
Picture courtesy of OfftheMark.com
My ed-tech philosophy has been largely unconsciously written by hours of ed-tech training and lived experience. My childhood education was filled with chalk-board dust and projector reels. I hardly considered these ed-tech advancements, and yet, that is exactly what they were…in their time. My high school typewriters gave way to computers. My Moodle and Blackboard training was replaced with Google classroom, then Edsby. My ed-tech philosophy evolved to understand two key principles:
- Ed-tech is synonymous with change.
- It is neither sinner nor saviour.
Neil Postman elaborates on my evolving understanding of ed-tech, providing 5 key things we must understand about technological change:
- Advancements carry a price.
- The digital divide allots winners and losers (something I am now cognizant of after 2. 5 years teaching online)…
- That give way to prejudice and bias.
- Its reach touches everything and everyone.
- It creates its own omnipotent mythos. As my current students struggle to imagine a classroom without 1-1 Chromebooks – supposing it has always been this way – I can certainly attest to this last (potentially dangerous) concept.
Ed-Tech: Neither Sinner nor Saint Photo by benevolente on Adobe Stock
Conclusion: Defining the Constant
After considering the historical and philosophical aspects of ed-tech, I can only surmise that my viewpoint will continue to evolve with the technology in my classroom. If ed-tech innovations are the variable, then meaningful/intentional/equitable implementation must be the constant.
Ponderings
- Based on usage, technology can often be categorized as ed-tech, but how often do we use ed-tech as technology in our day-to-day lives? For example, Kahoot is largely construed as ed-tech software, but do we ever use it ourselves for fun? I know I don’t! If I never hear the theme music again, it will be too soon!
- Do you feel a sense of jadedness when the “next big thing” in ed-tech/training comes out? Or a heady rush of excitement for something new to offer students?
- It’s been over 13 years since I was an education undergrad, but I wonder how much emphasis is now placed on meaningful classroom ed-tech selection and implemenation. Insights are most welcome!
5 Comments
Comments are closed.
You’ve never done a Kahoot on a Friday night?! Me neither… I aligned closely with your thoughts on Postman, especially the digital divide. I am always cognizant of how new tech favors the elite, and doesn’t always benefit everyone. I agree that ed-tech is neither good nor bad, it just is. We’d certainly survive without it, but it has also made many avenues of our teaching much more streamlined.
I do feel some jadedness at times when the next big thing comes about. I remember being incredibly jealous when two of my colleagues had Smart boards installed in their rooms. I was wondering how it was decided that those two were the ones to get them? Even now, as a specialist, I am one of the last ones to have a new projector installed in my room… And overall, when any new software or program comes along, I always wonder if it will help or hurt in the long run, or even how long we will have access to this tech before it gets swept away for the soup du jour.
I have been out of the undergrad game even longer than you, and would also love some follow up as to what ed tech looks like now in an undergrad setting!
Thanks for the great response Gilbert. Yup, definitely didn’t play Kahoot this Friday! If you check out Gilles post below, it offers some great insights into current undergrad programming.
Great read Kim! I loved this line – “If ed-tech innovations are the variable, then meaningful/intentional/equitable implementation must be the constant.” In our school division, we have about 100 teachers called connected educators. These teachers have 1/1 computers in their classrooms. Your words meaningful/intentional/equitable hold true with this model. It was no coincidence that our connected educators transitioned quite easily to online learning during the pandemic. At our school, we are fortunate to have five connected educators. These teachers do a fabulous job of juggling using tech and traditional pen/paper style. The best connected educators are not ‘totally’ connected.
Recent teacher graduates are much more open to change and they adapt quickly to ‘new’ flavours of the day. Presently, I have a seasoned teacher on my staff that is resisting the switch to Edsby. The teacher was sending the daily attendance to the office on a paper. After a week or so of this, I aligned this teacher with a second year teacher who mentored this individual on using Edsby. I discovered that the problem was that the teacher was embarrassed to ask for help. Sometimes when technology is implemented – it can be overwhelming for some. Despite all the “how to videos” – the solution for some is having a trusted and patient colleague to work through the transition.
Thanks so much for all the great insights, Gilles. Where to start?! You are so right, connected educators are not wholly connected (online)….as total tech dependency in the classroom would actually be limiting. A holistic approach – student/teacher relationships, paper/pen, ed-tech usage – shows a more accurate depiction of being “connected.”
I understand all too well about the Edsby resistance. My division implemented its usage (100%) at the start of the pandemic. As the OLST (online learning support teacher) it was my responsibility to guide students and staff through Edsby learning. Similar to your experience, any resistance was largely due to embarrassment and uncertainty. It can definitely be overwhelming, which is why mindful ed-tech (usage and training) is so key and must be our constant. Thanks again so much – especially for the undergrad info!
Excellent post Kimberly. It was very well thought-out and I appreciate how you connected to the readings.
I especially enjoyed the point you made when you said that “Unfortunately, as history and personal experience have shown, a philosophy of mindful ed-tech usage has not always been the case.” I agree, there are many times where ed-tech is not used mindfully or purposefully. I often question why am I using something. Is it just for students to have fun? It is to give me a break? Or is it something that allows them to learn in a more engaging way? I think the answer can definitely be yes to all, depending on the circumstances.
As for your question, I don’t really think I feel jarred by the “next big thing.” I feel that we are often behind in actually bringing new tech advances into the classroom at many schools. Often, by time we get something that was “new” there is already something else available. It reminds me about how excited I was last year to finally get my projector mounted haha.