How I understand Educational Technology

The above clip (from The Simpsons episode “Bart Carny”) is illustrative of my conflicted understanding of educational technology.  I have always thought of technology in terms of utility.  Tools are employed to complete tasks or objectives.  By this definition literally anything can be thought of as technology (if we imbue an object with purpose).  Some technologies are relatively simple, like levers, while others are complex (like the computer I am typing this blog post on).  However, it is not the complexity of the technology that makes it useful, but instead how it aids in the completion of one’s goals.

Therefore by my own definition educational technology is any object, device, or tool that is employed for the expressed purpose of teaching and learning.

Sounds simple.

Not really.

If the goal is to teach, then what is it I want students to learn?  Do I want my students to have technical skills?  Am I preparing students for the workforce?  Is the curriculum what is most important? What about citizenship? Without clearly stated teaching goals, how can I can select the correct educational technology for the job?  I think back to The Simpsons clip from earlier in which Bart Simpson wants to use the virtual reality gardening simulator despite his complete lack of interest in gardening.  Have I been employing educational technologies in my classroom for the sake of novelty?

In order to articulate my personal definition of educational technology it is necessary to nail down exactly what it is I want my students to learn. My philosophy is that education should prepare students to fully participate in our democracy.  To this end educational technology would be anything that aids in this task.  This has practical and philosophical implications.  To participate in a democracy students need to understand power structures, think critically, and create change.  Does the way I use technology aid in this task?  If it doesn’t is it still educational technology?

Educational Technology – I Believe it is a Good Thing, Right?

Of course it is.  Sort of.

As Tony Bates argued the vast majority of educational technologies are mere extensions of oratory.  Radio, film, television, and streaming video still place students in the passive role of receiving knowledge.  On one hand these technologies have enabled more access to experts from around the world.  This has democratized aspects of education.  On the other hand Bates has noted that a lack of equitable access to technology (coupled with cultural factors) has limited access to society’s most affluent members.  Free technologies (particularly educational software), in the opinion of Audrey Watters, often have hidden strings attached.  She observed that companies offering free applications often harvest the personal data of our students while simultaneously grooming them to be future customers. So in terms of improving universal access to education (as part of a thriving democracy) technology has a mixed record.

But why is this important anyway?  Richard Clark argued that it doesn’t matter how information is delivered to students as long is it arrives efficiently.  As long as educational technology gets our grades in faster, helps deliver instruction, and streamlines education it is doing its job.

My personal experiences say otherwise.

The Educational Manchurian Candidate – What I have been overlooking

Story time.  My school division recently switched to a new learning management system called EDSBY.  This arrived unceremoniously a few years ago with a resounding thud, followed by 30 minutes of training videos.  This software essentially serves as a hub for assessment, attendance, online resources, and home communication.  Centralizing all of these functions was seen as a good thing.  The interface is heavily influenced by social media feeds.  Like most employees I accepted this program as a background nuisance, something new to learn and then move on.  But as Neil Postman warned the consequences of technology are always far reaching, and often unforeseeable.

The first thing I noticed after adopting EDSBY was that an email arrived advising us to adopt a marking scheme based on running totals.  Up to this point I had weighted curricular objectives by percentages.  Apparently the software didn’t play nice with this style of grading and I was advised to revamp my assessment procedures.  I will say this again: I was told to change the way I assess my students to conform to the limitations of a software package.  I don’t remember have a reasoned debate about the relative merits of this assessment scheme.  Educational technology, by my own definition, is supposed to support the teaching of students so they can be responsible citizens.  How does conforming my assessment strategies to a corporate software package accomplish this?

Before EDSBY there was Google Classroom.  We loved it.  We used it for everything.  It was the parmesan cheese of high school education, every class was improved by adding some Google to it.  But once again we weren’t thinking it through.  Audrey Watters warned us that the tracking of teacher and student activities was creating an ocean of meta-data to sell to advertisers.  We didn’t own the servers in which our intellectual property was being placed.  How was this affecting our students?  Googling is a verb.  I have literally told my students to Google the answer to difficult questions.  Is handing the reigns of knowledge to a massive corporation advisable?  Was this educational technology helping create the better citizens as per my goal?

I want to love educational technology.  I believe in its promise.  It has so much potential, but every time I try to define it at as source of good it seems that another pitfall presents itself.  This leaves me with a problem.  Educational technology should support learning, it should help create better citizens, but often it doesn’t.