Fashion isn’t my thing. I wear similar outfits from day to day, often with boring uniformity. Has Ed Tech ever been any more than changing fashion?

In my ongoing exploration of whether Ed Tech has fallen out of favor (and if it has, what should we be spending our electrons on?), James Abela writes a response to my query. Before I share what he said, which included mention of the popular, unsubstantiated SAMR model, let me frame the conversation a bit.

Science means being able to change your mind in light of new evidence (Source: Scientific American, 08/20/24)

Ed Tech Misgivings

Like many other Ed Tech advocates (whose origins date back to Apple //e computers in Tom Snyder’s One Computer Classroom or Hypercard/HyperStudio) observing, the turn Ed Tech has taken in the last 20 years is concerning. That turn is a fresh wave of hype around AI.

The patterns are so easy to pick out, to compare to ed tech of yesteryear that many are wondering, “Deja vu. Why are we doing this again? Why are schools forced to spend money better spent on teaching, libraries, professional learning about proven high-effect size instructional strategies?” And, funny enough, this charge is being led by Ed Tech advocates who have recanted.

After seeing some key data at Lamont—data that had been presented at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union just that week—he went home and asked his wife to pour him a drink, saying, “The conclusions of my thesis are wrong.” (source)

Their concern has resulted in a series of less than flattering articles, research studies, and shoot from the hip takedowns (see list at end of blog entry). Add AI to the mix and you see a host of anti-AI educators saying, “No, enough is enough.”

Some, however, fail to come to the realization that appears in that Scientific American article I linked above. For others, it is economic. I ask you, “Should an ed tech advocate be one simply because his/her economic interests are tied to it?” It’s not a big surprise.

What are ed tech advocates and organizations to do now that ed tech has “failed” to improve student achievement in demonstrable, widely replicable ways that are much more expensive that traditional paper and pencil means?

Backlash?

Ouch. Is there a backlash against Ed Tech going on, a realization that the evidence for Ed Tech is light, while it has been shown to be less than effective? If that’s so, why such a big push for Ed Tech at big events? Love to hear your thoughts.

On Mastodon, bigTanuki sagely observes (you may not be able to see this comment due to Mastodon’s protections):

I am not sure you can remove Tech from Education any more than any of us can remove Tech from our lives at this point.

Instead, I would argue that what is called “EdTech” is a cover for corporate Tech, and that technology was always meant to be invasive and exploitive. So any push back at this point is a consequence of feeling over-exploited. The tech is not in fact failing.

It was just never really designed to augment education. It was always meant to increase profits at the expense of the users.

We know this is true. Every year, we see educators caught up in the Ed Tech frenzy with companies seeking to build an audience with free tools, then see the gradual shift to paid plans. In the end, you get what you pay for.

Dendari suggests that Ed Tech was all about connection:

when we started the #EdTech revolution it was all about connection and bringing in that which couldn’t be done without the tech. Processes like #SAMR were developed and learning theories like #connectivism were developed. Massive open online courses #MOOCc were started. (Not the MOOC popularized by Stanford)

EdTech now means instruction from the computer. Of course we’ve known this doesn’t work since Skinner Boxes. We keep going back there because it’s cheaper.

We might make the same observation about frameworks like Dr. Ruben Puentedura’s 2010 SAMR model. When it first came out, pushed by Apple as part of their initiatives, it was quite attractive. What made it attractive was its simplicity.

Simple Isn’t Always Evidence-Based

As attractive as SAMR is, it’s NOT evidence-based. It has a limited research base, and Puentedura’s doctorate isn’t in validating SAMR as a reliable tool to use in the classroom. I know what you’re going to say, because I’ve said it myself.

“SAMR is a great way to have a conversation about educational technology in the classroom,” it is often said. James Abela, in his BlueSky response to me, says:

While I agree with what he is saying, the appearance of SAMR highlights the issue with ed tech today. We continue to rely on tools that are NOT evidence-based.

In conclusion, while the SAMR model and similar frameworks are widely used and can be beneficial for guiding technology integration in K-12 education, the scientific consensus emphasizes the importance of applying these models flexibly and in conjunction with sound pedagogical practices.

Ongoing research continues to refine our understanding of how best to leverage technology for enhanced learning outcomes. (source)

I keep coming back to Dr. McIver’s words from her keynote, cited in this blog entry:

What we can build this way is a world where policy is evidence based. Where we make data informed decisions, while understanding that the data isn’t perfect. Where kids are empowered to learn all of the skills they need to solve problems in their own communities. Where technological solutions are rationally evaluated, rather than uncritically worshipped.

The critical thinking that Dr. McIver calls for in her keynote is tough, hard work for the human brain:

The findings clearly show that mental effort, especially in tasks that demand sustained attention and cognitive focus, is inherently aversive.

The meta-analysis reveals that people from different walks of life—from students to healthcare workers and military employees—report negative emotions when engaging in mentally demanding activities.

Whether solving complex problems, navigating virtual reality environments, or performing cognitive performance tasks, the more effort the task required, the more unpleasant it felt to participants.

It should come as no surprise that ed tech advocates today may be less than eager to critically evaluate, rather than worship, new ed tech solutions flooding schools and siphoning precious funding. Now, though, those who oppose ed tech aren’t crazy stick-in-the-muds stuck in a rut of yesteryear.

They are people who have the evidence and say, “Ed Tech has failed. The frameworks (e.g. SAMR) you use are bunk. Why do you persist in pushing Ed Tech as a tool to enhance student achievement when paper-n-pencil activities will do? Why use fancy, expensive technologies when the Jigsaw Method, Direct Instruction, note-taking with paper and pencil will ensure long-term information retention?”

Let’s focus on uses of technology in schools that focus on productivity, on collaboration, on decomposition rather than some razzle dazzle tool of apparent innovation, a dazzling sparkler to distract from the mundane, rewarding hard work of teaching, learning, and leading.

List of ProEducation, Less Ed Tech