EDU 807 - Intro to Selwyn - Summer 2020 - Group 1
As we begin our semester, we jump into the ideas of Neil Selwyn, a professor in the Faculty of Education, Monash University. The following resources are imported from:
- Selwyn, N. (2017). What We Talk About When We Talk About EdTech. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhG7tsYTW2c
- Selwyn, N. (2019, January). Teachers and technology: Time to get serious. Retrieved from Impact.chartered.college website: https://impact.chartered.college/article/editorial-education-technology/
Discussion Activity
As you listen to his talk and read his article, consider the following questions built from the 4A's protocol:
-
What Assumptions does Selwyn hold about educational technology?
- What does he believe about educators? Students? Corporations? Government?
- What does he believe about ideas of power, inequality, democracy, the common good and other ways that ed tech is talked about?
-
What do you Agree with in Selwyn's speech/writing?
- As you consider the principles from the video and the article, which ones resonate most for you? How does he describe educational technology in ways that make sense to you and the ways that you want to be critical of ed tech?
-
What do you want to Argue with in Selwyn's speech/writing?
- As you consider the principles from the video and the article, which ones do you disagree with? Are there points that you disagree with?
-
What parts of Selwyn's speech/writing do you want to Aspire to (or Act upon)?
- Based on what Selwyn describes here, what key themes resonate with you and may encourage you to take action in your EDU 807 work?
Please offer at least one comment on the video and one comment on the text to begin the conversation. Then, reply to each of your classmates' initial comments by asking questions, making connections, or sharing follow-up ideas that may push their thinking.
Teachers and technology: Time to get serious
Although classroom computers have been with us since the 1970s, schools have only recently become truly ‘digital’. Now, every school seems full of digital devices and display screens. Anything that can be digitised is stored online. Lessons are live-streamed, resources are downloadable and communication takes place through apps and email. Behind the scenes, schools maintain their own servers, host school-wide WiFi and run complex management systems. In contrast to even a few years ago, today’s schools depend upon substantial amounts of digital technology.
This is not to say that technology use in education is now straightforward. If anything, digital technology is more of a headache for teachers than ever. On the one hand, schools are bombarded with claims from software vendors and technology enthusiasts about the power of various new technologies to transform what goes on in the classroom. On the other hand, the impacts of technology use on teaching and learning remain uncertain. Andreas Schleicher – the OECD’s director of education – caused some upset in 2015 when suggesting that ICT has negligible impact on classrooms. Yet he was simply voicing what many teachers have long known: good technology use in education is very tricky to pin down.
At the same time, it could be argued that the technologies featuring most prominently in teachers’ professional lives have little to do with teaching and learning at all. Instead, it often feels that digital technology is primarily a managerial tool for keeping tight control over what goes on in the classroom. Digital technology is certainly a key part of school data-gathering and teacher monitoring, as well as a means of extending schoolwork long into evenings, weekends and holiday time. While IT firms continue to make millions of pounds from selling their products to schools, teachers could be forgiven for never wanting to switch on a laptop again. We have come a long way from optimistic endorsements of classroom computers as ‘the teacher’s friend’.
This issue of Impact therefore coincides with the growing realisation that everyone in education needs to get serious about how technology is used in schools. We are no longer in the ‘booster’ decades of the 1990s and 2000s, when it was fashionable to enthuse about anything ‘cyber’ or ‘virtual’. Instead, as we enter the 2020s, people are becoming decidedly wary of digital technology. Incidents such as Cambridge Analytica and the Edward Snowden NSA revelations have prompted notable pushbacks against the use of technology in schools. Parents are increasingly unhappy with purchasing £1,000 laptops for their children. Politicians are calling for bans on smartphones in classrooms. Teaching unions are challenging the influence that ‘big tech’ companies such as Google have over public schooling. Civil rights organisations are raising legal and ethical objections to the increased use of data and analytics. While no one is arguing that we should get rid of computers completely from schools, there is growing suspicion of the technological ‘opportunities’ that are being pushed onto education.
Against this background, teachers face a tough task when it comes to making sense of technology. There are still many benefits to be gained from digital technology, but this is an area that requires careful attention. Unfortunately, there are no quick or easy answers to ‘what works’. Instead, perhaps the most helpful thing to do at this point is to offer seven brief bits of advice for any teacher wanting to make sense of the technologies that are featured in this issue. In no particular order…
#1.
Be clear what you want to achieve
The implementation of digital technology in schools often fails where there is no genuine purpose for its use.
While this might sound obvious, many schools continue to purchase the latest devices and apps simply because they ‘look cool’, or because other schools are buying them.
Instead, technology implementation works best when teachers start by identifying a ‘real-world’ problem.
Only then will they begin to think through which specific technologies might offer an appropriate way of addressing that problem… or perhaps whether any technology is required at all.
The actual device or software package should be the final piece of the process, not its starting point.
#2.
Set appropriate expectations
It certainly helps to have modest expectations of what might be achieved through the use of any device or application.
On one hand, educational technology has long suffered from being an area beset with hype and grand ambitions.
It is still common to hear people talk about digital technology ‘transforming’ teaching, boosting engagement or fostering ‘21st-century skills’.
These claims are so vague as to be meaningless – setting the technology-using teacher up to fail before they have even begun.
On the other hand, technology use can also suffer from being attached to overly specific ambitions.
Even if such changes do occur, it is impossible to say whether the use of a particular app was associated with a two-per-cent increase in graduation rates.
Schools are complex ‘ecosystems’, where there are many confounding factors behind why something happens (or does not happen).
Instead, it helps to set broad goals and exhortative targets that relate to appropriate areas of classroom practice.
Digital technology might reasonably be expected to give students more convenient opportunities to access curriculum materials, but it would be foolhardy to expect technology to somehow ‘cause’ a 10-point grade improvement over a semester.
#3.
Aim for small-scale change
Often, the best way to encourage the take-up of technology throughout any school is to aim for ‘low-hanging fruit’.
Most technology adoption in schools is gradual, slow-burning and aligned with established ways of doing things.
As such, the digital technologies that take hold in schools tend to be those that fit comfortably with how teachers and students are accustomed to doing things.
For example, the use of interactive whiteboards follows neatly on from chalkboards.
Similarly, the use of digital textbooks follows on from paper books.
These technologies support practices that teachers, schools and students feel familiar and safe with.
Despite the grand talk of technology transformation, revolution and reinvention, thinking small and keeping things simple can often be the best way to encourage lasting technology adoption within a school.
#4.
Pay attention to the ‘bigger picture’
Everything that takes place in school is influenced by a variety of people, processes and other pressures.
In this sense, it is important to think through how any technology use will ‘fit’ with the whole-school context.
This includes familiar issues such as lack of time and resourcing.
It also includes a range of within-school issues that do not usually get talked about when it comes to technology use – from the physical layout of classrooms and school buildings, to staffroom micro-politics.
Similarly, technology can be influenced by a range of outside-school factors – from National Curriculum requirements through to local neighbourhood characteristics.
This means that there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ way of getting technology to work.
Successful technology use requires a lot of planning for the specific contexts and circumstances of your own school.
#5.
Think about unintended consequences
Even if you are clear what you want to achieve with technology, it is important to give some thought to what other consequences might also result.
Using any technology in the classroom might have unexpected implications for pedagogy, student behaviour and group dynamics.
At the same time, technology use also raises issues that stretch well beyond the classroom.
For example, what data is being generated by the software you are using and where does it go?
Is data being sold to third parties, or used by school authorities to measure and monitor performance?
Perhaps most important are concerns relating to fairness and equity.
Research shows that technology use tends to benefit particular students over others – usually those who are already most advantaged (the so-called ‘Matthew Effect’).
So, which students are likely to gain most from your use of technology, and who else might actually suffer?
In the words of the media critic Neil Postman, the most important considerations are not questions of what technology will do, but questions of what technology will undo.
#6.
Technology use is a collective concern
There is a longstanding tendency for successful school technology projects to be those driven by ‘charismatic champions’.
The introduction of new technologies into school is understandably reliant on the expertise and energy of committed individuals – from the enthusiastic IT-using teachers who drag colleagues into projects, to the technicians that keep everything running on a shoestring.
The trouble with this approach is that once these individuals move on, then the impetus for technology use often moves with them.
Instead, sustained technology use is best achieved by making digital technology a collective, communal and shared concern.
Rather than one person pushing things through, technology works best when teachers work together – talking with each other and getting the whole school community on board in working out what to do.
The days are of education technology being a personal passion project for just a few teachers are over.
Developing technology use should be a collective responsibility for all staff, students and parents.
#7.
Beware of over-confident ‘experts’
Educational technology is an area that is fuelled by bold predictions, strong assertions and promises of improved teaching and learning.
There are many people who make a good living from telling teachers what technology can do for them.
Unfortunately, this is an area where no one can be completely certain of what will happen.
As mentioned previously, every school is a locally specific context.
What works in one school might not be applicable to another.
It is nigh-on impossible for researchers to ‘prove’ that education technology leads to particular gains, improvements and outcomes.
Anyone who is trying to tell you otherwise is either being cavalier with the facts, or else trying to sell you something.
The most useful education technology knowledge does not come from globe-trotting ‘gurus’, keynote speakers and product evangelists.
Instead, the best technology advice can often come from simply trying things out for yourself and/or speaking with colleagues working in similar situations and circumstances.
There is still a lot to be said for teachers drawing on local knowledge and trusting their own judgement.
Conclusions
Set against the hype that usually surrounds education and technology, these low-key suggestions might not seem particularly exciting or inspirational.
Yet the actual implementation of digital technology in schools is rarely that exciting or spectacular.
Neither is school technology simply a ‘technical’ issue of what new device to buy next, or which app to get your class to download.
Instead, school technology is a ‘socio-technical’ issue – relating to the social, cultural and political aspects of people and schools, alongside the technical aspects of organisational structure and processes.
In this sense, getting the best from digital technology involves thinking about the specific contexts of your school, and how you can work with (and sometimes work around) them.
This all points to the need to approach technology use in schools in a manner that is realistic rather than idealistic. This involves being questioning, objective, discerning, disinterested and dispassionate when it come to the claims being made about specific technologies. This involves being curious about the problems – as well as potential – of new technologies. Above all, this involves seeing digital technology as something that requires plenty of forethought and collaboration with others around you.
Digital technology undoubtedly involves more (rather than less) thought and effort for teachers. Of course, there are plenty of benefits to be had from engaging with the vast variety of digital opportunities that are now available to schools. Yet perhaps it is most fruitful to always view digital technology as a choice. Digital technology is not something that teachers have to adapt to in the best way they can. Instead, digital technology should be something that you engage with on your own terms, to achieve your own goals and to address your own needs. Used appropriately, digital technology can be a powerful addition to any teacher’s repertoire. I hope that these articles provide you with plenty of food for thought.
Remember: Please offer at least one comment on the video and one comment on the text to begin the conversation.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
I would like to believe that EdTech discourse will have a broader impact on society, especially since Covid-19 forced students and educators, who may not have been favorable of educational technology in the past, to have a deeper look at its possibilities.
EdTech discourse is a hot topic these days, and I never thought about it as Selwyn (2017) suggests. Thinking back, I can remember educators using terms, such as blended learning and 21st century skills, as buzz words. It was also quite clear that the meaning escaped some of them. (Similar to the “thinking out of the box” scenario for innovation and creativity which has become so cliche’)
I think Selwyn’s (2017) list is important to consider as budding EdTech scholars:
1. Individualization
2. Education as a area of informalization and risk
3. Reframing educational concerns
4. Competitive endeavor
5. Free-market values (but covertly promote monetization of education products)
6. Reconfiguration as a commodity
7. Privatization
8. Expansion of education—always on
9. Emotional aspects
We, as researchers, need to take his advice and make EdTech discourse useful and understood, as well as study areas of missing discourse, including ethics and common good. I firmly believe that we are in a pivotal moment in history where EdTech has suddenly been thrust into mainstream society. How fortuitous to be in the DET program now, so we can share our knowledge with others.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
It has been taken for granted, mismanaged, and ethically concerning as a “magical” tool by the commercial industry and politicians alike.
I agree with Selwyn and the comments noted below struck me with a “Wow” moment. I wasn’t aware or it should have been considered and addressed earlier by the responsible parties involved, but hindsight is 20/20:
Are the benefactors really benefiting?
#2. Set appropriate expectations
“Schools are complex ‘ecosystems’, where there are many confounding factors behind why something happens (or does not happen). Instead, it helps to set broad goals and exhortative targets that relate to appropriate areas of classroom practice. Digital technology might reasonably be expected to give students more convenient opportunities to access curriculum materials, but it would be foolhardy to expect technology to somehow ‘cause’ a 10-point grade improvement over a semester” (Selwyn, 2017).
Disadvantaged students will continue to be or be more disadvantaged.
#5. Think about unintended consequences
“Research shows that technology use tends to benefit particular students over others – usually those who are already most advantaged (the so-called ‘Matthew Effect’). So, which students are likely to gain most from your use of technology, and who else might actually suffer? In the words of the media critic Neil Postman, the most important considerations are not questions of what technology will do, but questions of what technology will undo” (Selwyn, 2017).
It has its flaws and these need to be addressed by all stakeholders.
#6. Technology use is a collective concern
Rather than one person pushing things through, technology works best when teachers work together – talking with each other and getting the whole school community on board in working out what to do. The days are of education technology being a personal passion project for just a few teachers are over. Developing technology use should be a collective responsibility for all staff, students and parents" (Selwyn, 2017)
The “experts” are not forthcoming.
#7. Beware of over-confident ‘experts’
Unfortunately, this is an area where no one can be completely certain of what will happen. As mentioned previously, every school is a locally specific context. What works in one school might not be applicable to another. It is nigh-on impossible for researchers to ‘prove’ that education technology leads to particular gains, improvements and outcomes. Anyone who is trying to tell you otherwise is either being cavalier with the facts, or else trying to sell you something" (Selwyn, 2017).
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
#5. Think about unintended consequences
“Research shows that technology use tends to benefit particular students over others – usually those who are already most advantaged (the so-called ‘Matthew Effect’)”(Selwyn, 2017).
“The Matthew effect of accumulated advantage, Matthew principle, or Matthew effect for short, is sometimes summarized by the adage " the rich get richer and the poor get poorer " (Matthew Effect, 2020).
This is an effect that is alive and well today. As helpful as ed tech is, it is not as accessible for those who really need it. Disadvantaged children are typically behind the curve, and now with this enlightenment, this idea just added salt to an open sore. For those that are not exposed to ed tech, the ‘have nots’, have no way to truly compete with the ‘haves’ in this arena. It saddens me.
“The Matthew effect plays a role in today’s educational system.
Students around the United States participate in the SAT every year to then send those scores to the colleges to which they are applying. The distributor of the SAT, the College board, conducted a study based on the income earned by the families of the test takers. The results showed the Matthew effect is prevalent when it comes to a family’s economic earnings: “Students from families earning more than $200,000 a year average a combined score of 1,714, while students from families earning under $20,000 a year average a combined score of 1,326.”16
Not only do students with a wealthier family score better, but statistics show that students with parents that have accomplished more in school perform better as well. A student with a parent with a graduate degree, for example, averages 300 points higher on their SAT compared to a student with a parent with only a high school degree" (Matthew Effect, 2020).
Matthew Effect.(2020, March 25). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_effect&oldid=947248016
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think it’s really interesting the way you thought of the “Matthew effect” LaTonya. Some of the traditional solutions for reducing this effect are:
Letting students work at their own pace with project-based learning
Letting students work on mathematics tasks collaboratively
Giving students different kinds of problems that meet their own particular needs, in this way boosting their confidence
Giving quick feedback (Chubb, https://buildingmathematicians.wordpress.com/2018/01/15/minimizing-the-matthew-effect/)
Now, we need to apply these basic solutions to the technology industry. As for the distribution of tech tools, all students need to be given equal opportunities. We need to target the tech industry that is making billions of dollars manufacturing and distributing their tools. They should be held accountable for insuring that even the most disadvantaged student have access to their learning tools.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
Hide Thread Detail
Of course when the doors are closed in a physical classroom, the teacher can basically use any method he/she wants to, but I disagree with you, Jennifer, about the online situation. Even though the class is virtual and there are no physical doors to close, the teacher is in his own private domain. HE is the one delivering the class so HE still remains the one making the choices. Certainly outsiders can look in, but does that really matter.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
My boss has been a regular visitor in my classes since we started teaching online, plus I’ve had visitors from the ministry of education drop in. I assume it’s mostly because of the novelty of online classes, but some countries/institutions are more intrusive than others. For me, I enjoy using humor in my classes. I teach English to future engineers who really don’t like English, so my main strategy is to keep things fun and engaging. According to students, they love my classes and feel like they’ve learned, but I feel like it’s a 16 week community building project each semester. Onlookers may not understand that. For example, a few weeks ago I started adding quarantine memes at the end of each class. Students loved it, but I wonder if management has that same sense of humor.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I am not in this group, but this particular comment reminds me that our opinion can be sometimes fall under demographic / cultural influence.
I grew up my k-12 years in India, I am in USA from NY to TX to Iowa and so on. So I have seen it a lot.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I’ll bet your boss has been visiting your class since we started teaching online due to Covid19, but do you think he’s visiting to see what you’re doing or to “admire” the evolution of technology that you’re promoting? I would wager for the latter, frankly. As DET students, we have a definite advantage over some of our colleagues. We have experienced being IN online classes and we know what makes this environment more or less successful from those experiences and teachings. Now’s your time to shine girl :))
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I agree that tech in schools is necessary given the day and age that we live, but at the same time it can be overwhelming for teachers. As the lead English teacher in a university, I have attended numerous meetings with vendors trying to sell their wares. Each product is “the next best thing” and each vendor wants us to try it out for a couple of weeks. The problem is that any new technology/device needs an implementation plan. Throwing it into a classroom for a few weeks without proper knowledge of how to use it and how it benefits your class is often disastrous. Not only that, but the current lesson plans get side-tracked. And then, to add insult to injury, even if teachers like the product/device, procurement departments might veto the purchase.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
Even though there are plenty of people who avidly protest smartphones in the classroom, there are many others who see valid opportunities to learn with mobile devices. The International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning is dedicated to the topic. For example, students can use their phone for an engaging round of Kahoot or respond to a question as a voice note.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I agree with Selwyn in that teachers need to have a practical use in mind before adoption. In the past, I’ve been inspired to use new technology simply by hearing what another educator had to say about it. Sharing knowledge, whether it’s at a conference or in the lunch room, is an important first step.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I actually think that better ideas can come from the lunchroom than from industry salesmen. They ALL think their products are the best. I want to test tools myself or hear from the people actually using a particular technology before implementing it in my classroom. And as you mentioned early, Jennifer, every classroom situation is different. What works with one group of students, may not work or may have to be used differently with another group of students.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Unfortunately, the slow adoption process doesn’t apply to our current situation. It will be interesting to see which digital technologies survive in the coming months.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Selwyn talks about how technology is not a “one-size-fits-all” strategy, but national and even state-wide curricula are aiming for certain standardized goal—and technology is often only a tool to take those exams on.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I agree with Selwyn that teachers need to consider the context of their school, but what if management isn’t supportive? What if those same “social, political, and cultural aspects” get in the way of progress?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think that, in general, management and administration are never supportive when asked to monetarily back virtual ideas. They need and expect tangible proof before they can become enthusiastic about sharing your vision. For that to happen, baby steps in the use of technological tools need to be taken without asking for monetary support. Start by using anything that’s free and can prove its value as a learning tool. Give examples of students that are going above and beyond the required work assigned because they’ve been motivated by a new approach to learning through the use of a new tool. Actions speak louder than words and giving proof of success speaks louder than just sharing a vision. When proof is given, it will allow you to expound upon your vision and that’s when administration and management will want to share that vision.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
General Document Comments 0
Selwyn assumes, and rightly so, that many teachers feel like technology is a managerial tool for controlling the class. Unfortunately, this brings up some issues with the common good of computer use within a classroom. For technology to evolve into a valuable medium for the transmission and acquisition of knowledge Selwyn points out some important aspects that need to be established. While he lists 10 of these, the first one is major. “Be clear about what you want to achieve.” I really think that all the others build off this one. Setting up clear and attainable goals with reasonable class expectations should be the starting block. And they should not depend on the claims of external sources like manufacturers of technology tools, they should be base on an instructor’s understanding of his own class situation.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Prof Sara,
I totally agree with you. It seems like a given that use of technology should have clear achievable goals, but according to Cuban (and me) this isn’t always happening in classrooms. I had an English “lab” last semester where students were supposed to work on-campus in a computer lab to complete language activities. I kept asking myself why the students were even in the class. They all have laptops and access to the online software, so there isn’t really a need to keep them on campus. I think the original plan was faulty and the technology could have easily been replaced with pen and paper.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I agree with Selwyn’s discourse relating to the opinions and advice given by “so-called” experts in the use of technology in a classroom. The problem with following entirely to the letter the advice of these experts, is that an instructor needs to examine his needs through his own lens. Not only does it allow him to establish his own specific goals as they relate to the level of his own students, but it allows him to determine if these goals are reasonable and realistic as he proceeds through the process of adapting technology tools to his needs. He must consider what works with his students, but he also needs to consider what works for him. Selwyn mentions that these outcomes are not always similar, so the instructor may have to make some concessions to privilege the tools that work best and motivate his students towards reaching the predetermined goals.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
What works for one teacher’s class may not work for mine—even within the same subject. Teachers’ and students experiences and personalities vary from class to class which also affect implementation.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
One of the things that Selwyn says that motivates me in my DET studies in general is when he explains that we need to “encourage researchers to examine technology and be mindful of the words that are used to explain the value of technology in education.” Simply stating that it’s new and advanced is not enough. Studies need to show why this or that tool did or didn’t work. They need to provide clear examples of how a tool can be used and if needed modified to adapt to differing instructional needs. What Selwyn calls “lazy generalizations” about the success of tech tools has contributed to their failure. Successfully personalizing and adapting computers to meet each student’s needs can convince a wider population of instructors to give up their old computer habits. Studies need to encourage the teachers that primarily use their computers at home (Cuban) to bring them back into the classroom. To do this, research results need to include less “fluff” and more concrete reasons for teachers to invest their time in creating pedagogy that includes technology.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Selwyn also talks about this in his conference presentation. We need to avoid producing fluff in favor of hearty, meaty research plus meet the needs of under-represented groups.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment