Assumptions and Beliefs

I’ve been exploring the intersection of educational and technology through Neil Selwyn’s book in my two previous posts. The conclusion? Selwyn writes: “… the claims made for education technologies are highly symbolic and often ideologically driven in nature… by people’s wider beliefs, values and agendas… ‘educational technology’ is used as a site for wider debates, contests and struggles over education.” I’m inclined to agree with this sentiment.

 

What are some of these assumptions and beliefs? Selywn lists several, and I will comment briefly on each of these.

 

On the interplay of technology and learning:

 

·      Valuing “individual-driven learning” over “institutional-directed instruction”: Constructivist theories of education have seen a resurgence in recent years, for both good and ill, in my opinion. Yes, I agree that learning is not just moving chunks of content from teacher to student, and that something both subtle and mysterious happens in each individual mind-brain. But I’m not sure that individuals are necessarily the best drivers of their education especially at earlier stages in life, or in introductory-level courses.

 

·      Valuing “exploration and experimentation” over “pre-determined instruction”: We should continue to explore and experiment in education. But over the years we’ve learned a lot about what works (and what doesn’t) when it comes to how humans learn. The latest educational fads are often old ideas wrapped in new clothing. Perhaps I’m just conservative, but I think that education is not ripe for disruption in a major overhaul, at least where learning is concerned. There are other wider societal issues that may reasonably argue for massive changes in the structures of education, but human brains haven’t evolved so quickly as to significantly change what works in helping individuals learn new things. What works may be different depending on what you’re learning, but what works is well established.

 

·      Valuing “social and communal” learning environments: I’m in favor of this shift, because I think there is great value in students learning from each other in a wider social space. However, I think we should be cognizant not to idolize this approach. My modus operandi is to utilize different pedagogical approaches depending on what we’re going to learn in a particular class meeting. And even within the session, several approaches may be employed. Outside of class, students working together on problem sets especially in P-Chem is highly encouraged; while during class it often works better for the instructor to be explaining things and working through examples.

 

On the relevance of teachers, as valuing the authority of expertise decreases: I suppose much depends on the subject material and the level at which it is being learned or taught. If I want to learn something well, and efficiently, having someone with expertise as a teacher is extremely helpful. So I think teachers will continue to be relevant. What might change is the formal teacher-student relationship; it may become less formal, it may become more asynchronous, and I certainly hope it won’t be replaced by a bot – which I think will deepen disparities between the haves and have-nots.

 

On the relevance of schools, valuing the “efficiency” of markets over government: It’s hard for me to thread my way through this murky debate. I simply don’t have enough information to have a strong opinion leaning one way or the other. Perhaps because I’m based in the diverse and messy U.S. educational landscape, I see value in having a variety of options. Before coming to the U.S., I was in a government-only education system and had little notion that a private sector existed, not counting the problematic private test-prep market which exists whenever standardized exams of some import are a factor.

 

Like many other hot topics, there are a small number of loud voices and a mostly silent majority. Selwyn writes that “few people are overly concerned with the topic of education and technology beyond a vague notion that digital tools and applications are ‘desirable’ and ‘probably a good thing’.” That’s a problem, especially when assumptions and beliefs are not explored and debated carefully and pro-actively. If all we’re doing is responding re-actively, it will be difficult to escape the Groundhog Day cycle we seem to be stuck in.