Pass the SoLT

This posting follows directly on the heels of my last piece which introduced the idea of pessimism with purpose in the field of educational technology. In a paper continuing this critical theme, Martin Oliver discusses the concept of technological determinism in educational technology research and describes four theoretical perspectives that provide different lens or alternative perspectives on the relationship between learning and technology--namely, activity theory, communities of practice, actor–network theory, and the social construction of technology.

The paper introduces a growing body of work calling for more critical perspectives and begins by citing Selywn's (2010) claim that:

"The academic study of educational technology needs to be pursued more vigorously along social scientific lines, with researchers and writers showing a keener interest in the social, political, economic, cultural and historical contexts within which educational technology use (and non-use) is located" ( p. 66).

The concept of technological determinism is then explored--that is, 'the belief that technology shapes society in some way – which includes social practices such as learning' (Oliver, 2011, p.374). In arguing for a greater precision in the meaning of the concept a useful distinction is made between nomological accounts, normative accounts and unintended consequences accounts of technological determinism. I won't elaborate on the differences but they help to answer the question:

Is research about learning and technology technologically deterministic?

Oliver provides a scholarly analysis of the question citing a number of examples of deterministic thinking from different traditions. But he also concludes that various perspectives can be identified that seek to adopt more social accounts of technology. The remainder of the article describes the aforementioned perspectives--activity theory, communities of practice, actor–network theory, and the social construction of technology--and discusses them in relation to the three different categories of determinism.

I've always enjoyed the political and networked nature of Actor Network Theory, although the way it sidesteps the question of technological determinism isn't something I've given sufficient thought to in debates about the social practice of educational technologies. I thoroughly recommend the way Oliver describes each perspective and compares and contrasts the lens they provide in helping to arrive at a critical analysis of the field. This section makes excellent reading.

Importantly, he concludes that each perspective only offers a partial account or solution to the challenge of being critical of the competing and coexisting forces associated with the drive to adopt new educational technologies. Using the analogy of a blind person touching an elephant for the first time, they each provide a rich description but none of the positions and perspectives on their own fully describes the features of the elephant.

The key point is that alternative conceptions of technology is important in developing our understanding of the relationship between technology and learning, as well as identifying potential methodological implications and limitations. It follows that I highly recommend this paper to any teacher, postgraduate student or researcher who has yet to grapple with issues associated with the predominance of technological determinism in both the academic literature and educatonal practice.

Reference

Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: some alternative ways of
thinking about the relationship between learning and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 373–384

Massey University staff and students can download the article from this link to the University Library.

I rediscovered this figure recently which I produced about five years ago to describe the competing and co-existing mindsets which make up the educational technology landscape. Without explaining the diagram in fine detail, using labels adapted from Bigum and Kenway (2005) every institution has Boosters, Doomsters, Toolsters and Deschoolers who exert their influence on the level of uptake and future direction of new technologies in education.

• Booster = General proponents of technology in education, which includes students, teachers and industry groups
• Doomster = Nostalgic opponents of new computer technology in favour of traditional teaching approaches
• Deschooler = Proponents of new technology who argue for the dismantling of traditional educational institutions
• Toolster = Probably the largest group numerically in the education profession who see technology as just a tool (Brown, 2006)

In a somewhat simplistic binary sense the figure attempts to convey the tensions between social and technological deterministic world views. At the time I used this map of the educational technology landscape to argue the education profession desperately needs more critics who understand that technology is not always progress. In this sense, I claimed that new educational technology is best thought of as a type of Chinese crisis - with good and bad outcomes simultaneously. Thus, the true critic is not a Luddite but a critically reflective innovator willing to ask difficult questions about the purpose and impact of educational technology. In my own work, when thinking about the adoption of a new technology or innovation, I still find it helpful to ask two key questions:

• Why ought it be done? and
• Who will benefit from its use?

The easy answer to the question of 'where is eLearning heading?' would be to report the findings of the recent Horizon Report. If you’re not familiar with this report then I encourage you to take a look at the predictions. The 2011 edition was released about a month ago and the Report makes the following predictions:

Time to adoption: One Year or Less

• Electronic Books
• Mobiles

Time to adoption: Two to Three Years

• Augmented Reality
• Game-based Learning

Time to adoption: Four to Five Years

• Gesture-based Computing
• Learning Analytics

Here is a useful link to a presentation which elaborates on these predictions.

Although I’m on the Horizon Report Board for the Australia and New Zealand edition, I find many of the predictions imply that technology is an entity and influence independent of external forces—a classic example of technological determinism. The predictions would benefit from taking a wider societal view of technology which recognises in the words of Postman (1993, p.5) that “Every technology is both a burden and a blessing; not either-or, but this-and-that”.

Having said that, I'm not advocating for a socially deterministic or technological nightmare perspective as this is equally problematic. Such a view often reflects a level of moral panic about the influence technology is having on our lives. In unpacking the tension between competing conceptions of technology and views of the future, I often talk about the importance of thinking about Education for change rather than Education in change. Put another way, educators have a key role to play in being future makers rather than future takers.

Enough slogans for now! You may find the following video is a useful discussion piece in thinking about where eLearning is heading (or not heading). It was produced for the book the Tower in the Cloud: Higher Education in the Age of Cloud Computing.

A strong future-focus runs throughout this entry. There is a sense in which university education is under threat. A recent ebook by Bradwell (2009) on the Edgeless University observes that some people are predicting the end of the university as we have known it. Although predictions of the future are problematic and when it comes to technology there are many forks, twists and potentially blind alleys, the book goes on to state:

"The Edgeless University argues that this can be a moment of rebirth for universities. Technology is changing universities as they become just one source among many for ideas, knowledge and innovation. But online tools and open access also offer the means for their survival."

The following video from Kaplan University illustrates how one institution is responding to this perceived threat.

Although the innovative use of technology-enhanced learning is a crucial part of any modern university, we will not achieve our strategic goals by chasing the latest technology rainbow. Indeed, this type of technological determinism is potentially dangerous. Technology must be part of a wider strategy.

Rather than ask what will technology do 'for' us, we need to be thinking about what we want to achieve 'with' technology. In this regard, there is a crucial difference between education 'in' change as opposed to education 'for' change. The latter type of change is based on an assumption that to a large extent universities can create their own future. In keeping with Massey University's idea of 'discovery' we need to boldly aim to be a 'future maker' rather than a 'future taker'—always following the lead of others. This spirit of discovery is reflected in the following video which offers a taste of the type of institution that Massey is seeking to become:

As the video suggests this is not the time for defending and living in the past. While the past is important as it helps to define the future our ability to provide students with flexibility and access to learning anytime, anywhere is heavily dependant on embracing new forms of blended learning. There are new places, spaces and tools for learning and harnessing the potential of technology-enhanced learning strikes at the core of being New Zealand’s most relevant and accessible university.

Massey has a clear goal of providing an exceptional and distinctive learning experience for all students, which means that at the heart of our institutional culture we want to embrace innovation, creativity and openness to new ideas. At the same time, the challenge is to strike a balance between using technology-enhanced learning to deliver a future-focused curriculum and ensuring that technology solutions do not drive the curriculum. The crucial thing is to maintain a steadfast focus on the type of curriculum we want to offer for the type of society and world we think our graduates need to make in the future. As Toffler (1974) reminds us:

"All education springs from images of the future and all education creates images of the future. Thus all education, whether so intended or not, is a preparation for the future. Unless we understand the future for which we are preparing we may do tragic damage to those we teach."