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:
As you listen to his talk and read his article, consider the following questions built from the 4A's protocol:
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.
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.
Logging in, please wait...
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
In the video, Selwyn states that there is a lot of dialogue happening about digital technology in the educational setting; however, these conversations are lacking positive concerns for public education, inequality, democracy, and the common good. He states that there are contractions that should be noticed. For example, he states that individualized, market-driven, deemotionalized forms of education do not mesh well with traditional values of public education. He advises that future research should address these concerns, the alternate agendas of profit, and the decrease of state and government involvement. Selwyn stated the “silence” is not a problem, but, we should pay attention to the words and discussions taking place around digital technology.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree that we need to be paying attention to the conversations and discussion going on about technology but if we are not administrators how to we get others in education to listen to us? Is the answer for us in this program to become administrators? Or is it that we become more informed and educated that administrators will start listening to us?
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I agree with the idea that slow, small-scale change is how the most permanent and successful adoption of classroom tech actually plays out. This reminded me of last week and Cuban’s (1992) proposal that ed tech integration would look like the cautious optimist approach in schools. From my experience, this is certainly how ed tech was actually most often utilized in the classroom. I’m just not sure that this is how it should be. I do think ed tech needs to fit conceptually and contextually within a teacher’s belief system and content, but I also think pushing the comfort boundaries a bit more could be a good thing. However, I’ve always had more of a “jump right in” and idealist mindset towards trying new classroom technologies so hopefully this course helping me look at things more critically and realistically. :)
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I agree. Gradual changes are best when implementing new concepts. The example used by Selwyn with regards to smart boards and chalkboards was right on point. These two products were so similar in their functions that their implementations were not shocking to teachers or students. I think it should be the same with future educational technology.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I had an example about Smart Boards in my original reply to Katie but then I changed my mind. Smart Boards were one of my examples for the district being slow to implement and then deciding to not buy the product anymore. Everyone couldn’t wait to get one and then after everyone had it the district said “we’re not going to buy these anymore.”
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
The issue that concerns me about slow, small-scale change is that the pace of technology moves so fast. If a school district is too slow to implement then by the time everyone receives the technology it could be obsolete or the district has to replace the technology that was purchased in the first round. I also have the “jump right in” mindset when trying new technology in the classroom but school districts seem to move at a slower pace. I understand why since they are spending the money on technology and they want to make the best decision but it can be frustrating waiting for them to make their decision. It’s also frustrating if you don’t agree with the choice they made.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
In reading Selwyn’s description of considering how technology will “fit with the whole-school context” it made me think a lot about how my school district requires the whole-school to use a specific type of technology and won’t allow teachers in the district to change to another type of technology even though they’ve given reasons why a different type of technology would be a better fit. I am one of three speech-language pathologists in my school district and a few years ago we asked our special education director for three iPads (one for each of us). Our director did not have an issue with the request and we provided her reports showing how the iPads were used in other districts and how we were the only speech pathologists in the area which included multiple school districts and our IU that did not have iPads. However, our request was denied by a person who “hates Apple products” and no matter how many times we tried to go around this person we could not get our request met. We were told, “the students use Chromebooks so you need to use Chromebooks too.” We continually showed any administrator or tech person how Chromebooks did not have the speech-language programs needed to use in therapy but were always redirected to talk to another person. This type of “one-size-fits-all” thinking in my district has been very frustrating to me.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I could be wrong, but, I understood him to be a bit sarcastic. He stated that even though “there are conversations taking place around digital education that is disguised, a number of significant conflicts and intentions need to be addressed; however, these apparent contradictions should not be assumed to be a concern, because there are many that might be advantaged by individualized, market-driven, deemotionalized forms of education and should not be viewed as a bad thing.” In him stating this he is making it clear where he stands with regards to digital education and how it is being addressed currently. He is raising a red flag and stating that we need to pay attention to the conversations that are taking place.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
This makes me think of what Ertmer stated in her interview with Davis (2017). She stated that district principals and leaders can best help with teachers really taking a higher-level approach with ed tech by sometimes just “getting out of the way” and letting teachers explore pedagogies and experiencing new opportunities. I think some of the barriers that teachers and support staff face in these endeavors need to be broken down in order for this higher-level impact of ed tech to occur.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I agree with Selwyn that the selection of technology in educational settings should not be based on an individual’s preference but a “collective, communal and shared concern”. Paragraph 28, point #6 Selwyn states that “Charismatic Champions” are usually the ones that lead technology projects within educational settings, but the problem is that when they leave so does the enthusiasm for the project. This resonated with me because the same occurs with charismatic principals that take on at-risk high schools. They have the ability to implement effective changes improving the performance of the school, teachers, and students; however, they do not stick around long enough to see the improvements take root. This makes it difficult for the staff, teachers, and students because they have to begin the process again with the next principal or the next “IT enthusiast”. Instead, creating a collective and communal community where there is an exchange of ideas is the best approach because it gets the key players (teachers, students, parents) involved in creating solutions that work best for everyone involved. The implementation of educational digital technology should be addressed by those who will be affected by its use. As stated in paragraph 26, point 4, technology is not a one-size-fits-all and the selection of digital technology should address settings and situations of all parties involved.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I think that community decisions would help to make ed tech implementations and projects more sustainable. The “charismatic champions” as leaders of tech projects certainly rang true in my previous school and district. I wonder what the best method is to have staff, teachers, and students involved. My previous district implemented many surveys for various stakeholders, but I’m not sure that those were always the most effective/had the greatest impact.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Yes, I agree with you Frida about the charismatic principals. When I first started working in an elementary school, the principal there was very interested in technology and pushed for a lot of new tools and training. The majority of the teachers that worked with me at the time were close retiring and felt that his ideas were unnecessary and didn’t want to learn the technology. Then that principal retired and we lost a lot of what he was trying to encourage us to do with technology. Eventually, my district hired an instructional technology specialist and that helped to keep things equal throughout the district. Before you were lucky if your principal was interested in investing in technology, now the instructional technology specialist helps to keep things the same in all the buildings and has a schedule of when to be in the buildings so everyone can get help if needed.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
General Document Comments 0
Some words and phrases that Selwyn (2017) often repeated/used that seemed connected were “distribution of power”, “profit”, “control”, “private”, “inequality”, and “dominance”. These linked together for me. I think Selwyn believes that the government, corporations, experts, and other entities can often be trying to sell ed tech to districts by offering a “one-size fits all” approach that doesn’t truly meet specific local needs and contexts. I agree with Selwyn on this concept. I also think he is encouraging administrators and educators to be considerate of the true intentions of these entities. His thoughts shared in the video even seem to indicate that the way ed tech is talked about and promoted may be intentionally widening the inequality and gaps that already exist between districts and socio-economic statuses. Again, not sure if this is what he was insinuating but it really caused me to start thinking about ed tech differently as I’ve never considered it in such an ill-intentioned light before. I found it interesting that Culatta, on the other hand, placed the issue of inequality in a pretty positive light (Davis, 2017). He stressed that measures to combat inequity with ed tech were working well and that any remained inequities were due to “leadership issues” and not due to a lack of district funds/resources. Overall, a theme in the video that really resonated with me was the idea of unequal distribution. My research interests have been focused on how ed tech can be used to create more learning equality for all through assistive tech and UDL and now I’m thinking about the disparities that may exist in these arenas.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Katie, I liked how you picked out certain words to identify a theme. He does seem to paint a picture of inequality and unequal distribution. I also have never thought about ed tech in the way he described. I want to believe that school districts are doing what they think is best for the students and teachers to improve education but Selwyn sees things differently. Unfortunately I think I’m starting to see that unequal distribution exits and school districts aren’t always acting on behalf of students and teachers.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
As I listened to the video, I really tried to understand the point he was trying to make with the concerns he listed. I understood that he wants those involved with educational technology to think about the vocabulary and words used when describing educational technology. I also understood that the main idea he was trying to get across was to be critical of what is being promised about implementing educational technology in schools. However, I found myself getting lost in the descriptions he was using. It reminded me of the way a politician or administrator answers questions. Instead of giving a direct answer, the person uses a lot of terminologies that dance around the question asked but don’t actually answer the question. I would have liked some examples specific to his concerns so I could have understood better the argument he was trying to make.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
I can connect with what you said about how the way he described his concerns with ed tech discourse is similar to the way a politician or administrator can talk around a point. I wonder about his intentions behind this. Does he share his thoughts in this way to avoid potential political/social challenges or disagreements? Or is he doing this to intentionally promote listeners to think deeper about the issues and come up with their own conclusions and beliefs? I’m not sure…just reflecting on this. I thought the phrases and words he used seemed to lead towards some purposeful ill-intentions of companies/politicians but, like you said, it was unclear so I couldn’t be sure.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
Good questions to ask Katie. I agree that he could have been trying to promote some deeper thinking from the listeners. It’s possible that (since he referred to his talk being part of a conference) that he was speaking to like-minded people who were familiar with the topics he was addressing. If the listeners already had some prior knowledge they may have better understood the message he was trying to get across.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment