Remarks on Progress in Educational
Technology
J. Michael Spector
Mike.Spector@unt.edu
Some years ago I published an essay entitled “How Far We Have Not Come’
(Spector, 2000). The general argument of that piece was that educational
technologists have been promising much more than they have delivered for years.
The temptation with each new generation of digital technology was that
education could be radically improved and would thereby be transformed into
something significantly different from and better than previous forms of
education. What came to mind then was a line from the comedian, Shelly Berman,
in response to the claim that flying was the safest way to travel; his response
was this: “I’m not sure how much consideration has been given to walking.”
Now,
almost 20 years after that simple-minded essay, I am thinking along similar
lines. My basic question is this: What has been learned from educational
research and learning theory in the last 100 years? Assuming that some things
have been learned, which ones have been implemented on a significant scale for
a sustained period of time, and what impact, if any, have they had? Perhaps I
will be chastised as a modern day luddite for saying the following: It is not
clear to me that educational technologies have improved learning and
instruction on a large scale for any sustained period of time; the nearly constant
emergence of new technologies have only created the new problem of learning to
use them effectively, to borrow a line from Dijkstra’s The Humble Programmer
(1972). What progress are we making in terms of using technology to improve
learning and instruction? Is it a lot? A little? In isolated cases? At great
cost? At a disadvantage to some? What do you think?
Here
is what I think. In the preface to How We Think, Dewey (1910) wrote
this:
Our schools are troubled with a multiplication of studies, each in
turn having its own multiplication of materials and principles. Our teachers
find their tasks made heavier in that they have come to deal with pupils
individually and not merely in mass. This book represents the conviction that
the needed steadying and centralizing factor is found in adopting as the end of
endeavor that attitude of mind, that habit of thought, which we call
scientific. This scientific attitude of mind might, conceivably, be quite
irrelevant to teaching children and youth. But this book also represents the
conviction that such is not the case; that the native and unspoiled attitude of
childhood, marked by ardent curiosity, fertile imagination, and love of
experimental inquiry, is near, very near, to the attitude of the scientific
mind. (see http://www.gutenberg.org/files/37423/37423-h/37423-h.htm
for the entire book).
Dewey argues that the origin of thinking is in one way or another
uncertainty, confusion, perplexity or doubt. If one believes that thinking (in
Dewey’s sense of reflecting, connecting facts, and seeking for an explanation) is
inherently good, then one is led to the conclusion that uncertainty, confusion,
perplexity and doubt are in general good or desirable as they lead to something
that is good. This simple and somewhat compelling formulation was made public
more than 100 years ago, yet Dewey’s powerful argument has had little impact on
schooling in the USA or elsewhere although many educators hold Dewey in very
high regard.
In a sense, thinking is a natural and ongoing human activity. As
Wittgenstein (1922) remarked in the
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, “we
picture facts to ourselves” (#2.1). We do this without effort and particularly
when confronted with something novel or puzzling. These internal pictures are
what Philip Johnson-Laird (1983) called
mental models. Mental models are
what comprises thinking and memory. Thinking can be trained to become more
productive, more accurate and more insightful (Dewey, 1910). In principle the
trainability of thinking seems to be a case now well established by cognitive
scientists, learning psychologists and philosophers. Are educators
systematically helping to train the thinking processes of students? In some
cases, this surely happens. Does it happen regularly and with all students?
Probably not. Are policy makers proposing and implementing policies to support
the training of thinking processes? One might infer that this is the case when
one examines the USA’s National Educational Technology Plan (see
https://tech.ed.gov/netp/) or examines the
21
st century skills (see, for example,
http://www.nea.org/home/34888.htm).
However, decreasing levels of funding for education and for education research,
and the lack of significant improvement on the test scores of American students
in comparison with those in other parts of the world, suggest that practice is
neither informed by policy nor by research (see the Program for International
Student Assessment at
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/; see also Our
World of Data at
https://ourworldindata.org/financing-education).
After multiple visits to
this line of reasoning and the associated evidence, one might become
disenchanted or discouraged, or even decide to pursue a career in real estate or
gambling casinos. However, as one of my
sons is wont to say, “no worries.” There is still tomorrow. There is still
another group of bright young minds eager to learn coming soon. How shall we go
about training those bright young minds?
As Dewey (1910) argued, the
emphasis should not be on what to think but how to think. The job
of the teacher is to get students to think, and that means getting students to
doubt, to be uncertain, to be perplexed or even to be confused. It is in such
moments when learning (stable and persistent changes in what a person or group
of people know and can do) can occur. The job of the teacher is to get students
to have questions – to admit that they do not know or understand, to commit
time and effort to gain better understanding, to consider alternative
perspectives, and to reflect on their progress (Spector, 2018).
Going forward, the focus
should be on learning rather than on technology. What educational technology
researchers should be doing is not inventing clever ways to use a new
technology or clever terms for things other scholars thought of decades
earlier. We need to do what Robert Gagné (1985) argued was the task of
educators and educational researchers – namely and simply, to help people
learn.
Some
years ago I wondered what funded educational research projects in the USA had
survived the test of time and had developed a body of evidence of positive
impact. I arrived at two examples that stood out from all others:
Head Start
(started in 1964 and still exists; see
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs) and
Sesame
Street (started in 1969 and still exists; see
https://www.sesamestreet.org/). I
encourage readers to look at the empirical evidence showing the impact of those
two examples. While there are many outstanding and innovative examples of
technology applications in education (see Merrill, 2002, 2013), few have had
such a large scale and sustained impact as those two examples.
Some
have argued that the printing press transformed education as it brought
learning texts and information to the masses. Some argue that the Internet and
the many associated digital devices that make use of the Internet are
transforming education just as the printing press did centuries ago. One can
argue that the court is still out with regard to the Internet transformation of
education; perhaps it is a split decision 5 to 4, as is becoming all too common
in other contexts.
Regardless
of which side one takes on the debate about the positive impact of educational
technologies on learning and instruction, most will agree that we can do
better. After all, that is our job as human beings – namely, to bring out the
best in others by whatever means we can manage to do so, with new technology,
with old technology, with a new pair of walking boots, or with a map of middle
earth. We can do better as educators and educational technology researchers. We
can forego the impulse to invent new words for old ideas. We can forego the
impulse to use a technology just because it is new. We can forego the impulse
to become advocates rather than evidence seekers. We can focus on helping
students learn – all students … not just the gifted or those we like or who
like us.
I
just realized how preachy this essay has become. My apologies. If you managed
to read this far, you might be inclined to agree with the reasoning and
sentiment being expressed in this non-empirical short piece. In closing, I recall
a remark made by one of my philosophy professors, Oets Kolk Bouswma, in an unpublished journal entry: “I am a
short thought thinker” (see Craft & Hustwit, 1984; see also the second
order learning stories from 2002 at the Learning Development Institute’s
website located at
www.learndev.org). My
advice to graduate students and potential authors has been to keep it short;
keep it focused; and try to start doing something to help people learn. Be the
voice that encourages, the ear that listens, the eye that reflects, the hand
that guides, the face that does not turn away (my father’s advice to me many
moons ago).
References
Craft,
J. L., & Hustwit, R. E. (1984). Without proof or evidence. Essays of O,
K.Bouwsma. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Dijkstra,
E. W. (1972). The humble programmer. Communications of the ACM, 15,
859-866.
Gagné,
R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th
ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Johnson-Laird,
P. (1983). Mental models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Boston, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Merrill,
M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology
Research & Development, 50(3), 43-59.
Merrill,
M. D. (2013). First principles of instruction: Identifying and designing
effective, efficient and engaging instruction. San Francisco: CA: Pfeiffer.
Spector,
J. M. (2000, Fall). Trends and issues in educational technology: How far we
have not come. Update Semiannual Bulletin 21(2). Syracuse, NY: The ERIC
Clearinghouse on Information Technology.
