There are as many schools of thought about what defines an educational institution as there are academic works on the subject. Rather than make the naïve argument to try and convince their readers that their school of thought is the one that everyone should be talking about, most scholars publish their research and findings with the proviso that basically dilutes their conclusions into an ocean of literature of the same ilk with the same proposals to continue more research. This phenomenon is not unique to academic literature and research and is a pattern of human behaviour that is reflected in many aspects of society. It is rooted in a deep desire to connect people together and to find common purpose and belonging. For the vast majority, fitting in is preferable to standing out. Making claims that set one apart from their peers is a risk seldom taken, especially in academic realms. This may sound counter-intuitive to the thrust and purpose of scholarly pursuits, namely innovation, however, there can be little argument that academic literature takes up next-to-no light at all in the realm of the published word in general. For example, when conducting a Google search, the Clark-Kozma debate (a “giant” in the field of academia) yields 61,300 results, whereas something almost as equally obscure to write about such as sweatshops in Bangladesh yields 227,000 results.
The notion that we should seek fame and fortune is as old as humankind. Our attention is constantly put onto those with power and influence, and on some unconscious level we might desire a bit of the same. It is a commendable trait in many cultures to want to leave some kind of legacy behind, to improve our little part of the world, be it in education or whatever, in the hope that we might not be forgotten by future generations. It is under this light that perhaps most scholarly research is created and published. However reconciling this pursuit within the context of open and distributed learning in the field of educational technology has little chance of success. This is even more evident when academics attempt to prognosticate what education technologies will look like in the future. For example the latest gimmick in Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been introduced to a public school in Port Coquitlam, BC. This is the same technology that has been used for over a year in a Japanese restaurant with the added intention to assist and become a kind of mobility surrogate for those with physical challenges.
This may appear to be a commendable step in the right direction for society in general, but research and development costs, and implementation and maintenance costs far outweigh any practical application in education or otherwise.
The Achilles’ heel lies in the fact that the evolution of education technology is utterly dependent upon technological innovation. Ideas about the future of education have only ever come from seeing the potential application of current technologies already in place and being used by other sectors of society. Much of society’s everyday and commonplace technologies such as cellular phones and flat screen TVs are thanks to innovations developed in the medical and military sectors. If it were not for such innovations such as CD-ROMs, educational software would not have developed and helped to reduce postage costs of distributed learning. The internet and hypertext transfer protocol (http) were the necessary precursors to such educational online ventures such as massive open online courses (MOOCs). Hollywood’s Motion Picture Experts Group (Mpeg) has been the pioneer that developed video and audio compression and decompression code (i.e. codecs) to allow for the education sector to move from DVDs to online video for the classroom setting. Video conferencing is a concept that was first experimented with in 1927 with the first webcams appearing on university campuses in the 90’s. Education, as an all-encompassing part of society, deeply interconnected with its many sectors, has, in many respects, been a harbour of intellectual reflection and a generator of ideas that has been sparked by the technological innovations upon which it has come to rely. It is not difficult then to apply a chicken-egg theory to the relationship between technology and education as the two are cyclically connected to one another, feeding ideas into new innovations and innovations into new ideas. However, the branch of educational technology is unique in that new ideas have always been seeded in the technologies that already exist. In other words, there have never been any technologies invented because of an educational need. Education has always adapted existing technologies to suit a learning/teaching purpose.
This presents a particularly salient point for those academics who propose to foresee the future of ed tech (educational technology). As already stated, industry drives innovation in education. To think that technology will solve the issue of providing educational opportunities for all is not only naïve, it is indicative of a ideal without any grounding in reality. Selwyn et alias (2019) say as much in their article on the near future of ed tech, “With the caveat that as with any look into the future, everything that follows is inevitably subjective.” Listing six challenges protects the authors from having to invent technologies that will be needed, and allows them to languish behind technologies that already exist, simply proposing that fundamental shifts are needed in how existing technologies are used in education to solve the challenges they present.
Open Educational Resources (OERs) are another result of educators using the internet in an attempt to share knowledge in the most equitable way possible. Stephen Downes (2019) sympathizes with this philanthropic notion, “OER projects were supported by government, institutional and foundation support, but generally with the expectation that these projects would become self-sustaining over time.” However, business and government have become the gatekeeper of most things on the internet. OERs are subject to the interests of those who hold the content which has become increasingly commercialized for profit. In this respect OERs and MOOCs share something in common. Their content has become restricted and limited, changing their purpose to one with a more advertisement-based focus, giving potential students a taste of what they could learn if they choose to go past the paywall. Downes (2019) supports this view of OERs, as does Seimens et alias (2015) in their review of issues around Learning Management Systems (LMSs) and MOOCs. They make the point that LMSs and MOOCs are only as flexible as the programming written into them. They claim that LMSs represent the highest level of limiting certain activities that the technology sector has created. However, the narratives and character sets within the gaming industry far outperform educational technology in the ways that the developers and programmers limit what the player can and cannot do in the virtual environment. Even something like Second Life creates a creepy kind of collective conformity that LMSs pale in comparison.
LMSs often claim that their limitations provide consistency. This presumes that the model of learning is driven by a teacher/administrator and not owned and directed by the student; a poor pedagogy based on an Industrial Age model of schooling. Even new technologies falsely attempt to adapt to a more modern student-centric pedagogy in just this way, but still place the balance of power on the instructor, especially where credentials are at apex of the student’s learning. Seimens et al. continue to admit that the design of LMSs and MOOCs are predicated on the earlier designs of distance and distributed learning, “the early adoption of distance learning has laid the foundation for the development of computer-based learning, and then online and blended learning” (p. 203). This does nothing to address the modern student’s need to seek out learning without structure or limits. In a footnote, Seimens et al. repeat the point, “that the learning design approaches primarily, and technology secondarily, determines effective learning.” So, again, we see research and academics putting learning design ahead of technology and essentially making the technology suit traditional modes of education (i.e. lectures, testing/evaluation, credentialing.) Technology is backed into a corner by academics who ignore the students who are adapting their learning to the emerging technologies.
Informal education is unfortunately not given much concrete consideration within the walls of the education and academic institutions, however the number of those who are learning online in informal ways far outweighs those of whom scholars and data analysts choose to write about and study.
This is the great shift that research in educational technology needs to make. It would be far more valuable for researchers and scholars to examine what technologies are being used by learners in informal ways so that the design of distributed and open learning such as LMSs, MOOCs, and the like can bring value and credence to the vast market of learners as yet unseen by educators, administrators, researchers, and scholars. A further shift away from funding education through tuition might help education institutions begin to curate the vast wealth of online learning that has turned instruction away from the practical and toward more “soft-skills” like problem solving, teamwork, adaptability, and creativity. These skills, once thought to be unteachable because of their untenable, inexplicable, or unaccountable nature, may be the focus of current education trends in curriculum development, but may also be a distraction from the real work that has to be done to reconcile formal education and the certification process with the vast amount of unchecked education that is uploaded and shared online by all types and ages of people in informal ways every minute.
References
Downes, S. (2019). A Look at the Future of Open Educational Resources. International Journal of Open Educational Resources, 1(2). Retrieved from https://www.ijoer.org/a-look-at-the-future-of-open-educational-resources/
Selwyn, N., Hillman, T., Eynon, R., Ferreira, G., Knox, J., Macgilchrist, F., & Sancho-Gil, J. M. (2019). What’s next for Ed-Tech? Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s. Learning, Media and Technology, 1–6. http://ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/login?url=https://doi.org/10/ggc9w2
Siemens, G., Gašević, D., & Dawson, S. (2015). Preparing for the Digital University: A Review of the History and Current State of Distance, Blended, and Online Learning. Retrieved from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation website: http://linkresearchlab.org/PreparingDigitalUniversity.pdf
Author unknown. (2015) The history of Video Conferencing. Retrieved from Business Matters: UK’s Leading Business Magazine website: https://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/tech/history-video-conferencing/
Recent Comments