‘We all feel the pressure of keeping up with the latest technology innovations. This is especially true in schools where we are preparing young people for the future.’ In a 3-part series on technology in education, Dr Ralph Saubern, Deputy CEO of the Australian Council for Educational Research, explores whether the integration of technology in schools has led to improved outcomes for learners. In part 1, he looked at a developmental approach to building teacher knowledge. Here in part 2, he takes a step back to question how schools and teachers can choose the right EdTech in the first place.
The pace of technology innovation in education has never been faster. We all feel the pressure of keeping up with the latest technology innovations. This is especially true in schools where we are preparing young people for the future. Teachers feel the pressure of keeping up with the latest software, apps, portals and platforms, and now AI. How can we teach for tomorrow with the tools and systems from yesterday?
Every new EdTech product – and now a rush of AI teaching and learning tools – promises revolutionary improvements in teaching and learning. But promises are not outcomes. We know that real educational progress demands careful reflection and strategic decision-making. This idea of ‘emerging’ value is not something new in the EdTech space. It’s one of the reasons that it has been so hard for schools, systems and researchers to evaluate the impact of technology in education.
We also know from experience and research that simple, isolated solutions to complex education problems rarely result in positive outcomes.
Professor Neil Selwyn from Monash University writes eloquently about this in his book Education and technology: key issues and debates. He calls out 3 powerful but often unstated assumptions:
- technological solutionism: the assumption that technologies are ready solutions to complex educational problems
- technological essentialism: the assumption that technologies have consistent and predictable qualities regardless of the contexts in which they are applied
- technological determinism: the assumption that technology is a natural, neutral and inevitable process that drives social change (Selwyn, 2021).
Put together, these assumptions encourage schools and teachers to assume that they must adopt technology because otherwise they will be ‘left behind’, and often this leads to an ‘adopt first, think later’ mentality.
Many years ago, a primary school principal talked me through the hard work of establishing the 1:1 iPad strategy for the school leading up to the new school year. When I asked what teachers in grade 1 would be doing with the iPads in first term, she told me that was a work in progress and teachers would need time with the new technology before they understood the value it would bring to teaching and learning.
Learning first, not technology first
While researching new models of teacher technology education for my PhD, I developed an EdTech evaluation framework for schools called the EdTech Value Evaluation Suite (Saubern et al., 2022). Grounded in evidence about effective technology use in education, the framework supports school leaders and teachers to make informed, learning-focused decisions about technology adoption.
The starting point for the framework was to establish the primacy of teaching and learning goals – a learning-first, not technology-first approach. The framework was designed as a series of questions to help teachers and school leaders make their educational goals explicit and make connections to the technologies they planned to use.
It encouraged schools to identify clear learning goals and metrics. What learning will result from this technology? How will we measure and monitor it? How will we know it is working or not working?
It also encouraged schools to think about the broader implications of technology adoption. What support do teachers need? Are there broader infrastructure implications? How much will it really cost beyond the initial price? Are there any alternatives?
The point of asking and answering these questions is not that there is a clear and right answer for each question, but to present the kinds of issues and consideration that schools should consider. They repeatedly remind us of what should be the primary purpose of any planned innovation: improving student learning.
When ACER trialled the framework in some schools in South Australia last year, there were some very interesting results and responses from the teachers, principals and school IT staff. Some participants were initially worried that they didn’t have the answers to all the questions. But they began to think about their answers.
Some schools said that using the framework had created opportunities for teaching and IT staff to talk together about technology from a learning-first perspective for the first time. Others said that the framework had helped them identify technologies that they were still paying for and either not using, or only using for things that were already done by other technologies! One school had already developed their own evaluation framework and process, and it had helped them make better decisions.
Five questions for schools before investing in EdTech
The EdTech Value Evaluation Suite has 3 different frameworks: one for whole-school review; one for existing technologies; and one for planned technology adoptions. Not every school has the capacity to consider technology integration from every angle but using the following 5 questions will help build a learning-first approach to EdTech:
- What specific learning outcomes will this technology support? First and foremost, technology must serve clear learning goals.
- What will this technology improve? Technology has its costs and overheads so it should do more than just replace – it should improve. It might help teachers be more efficient or more effective. It might help learners learn something new that they couldn't before.
- What professional learning will teachers need to use it effectively? Teachers need time, structured support, and ongoing coaching – not just access to the tool. In part 1 in this series, I described a developmental approach to technology learning that schools can adopt.
- What are the real costs? Looking past the sticker price, what are the total costs (hardware, network, software, professional learning, integration, support) now and in the future for adopting this technology?
- How will we know it worked? How will you measure whether the technology led to the identified learning improvements? At what point will the impact of the technology be reviewed? What trigger would make you continue/discontinue?
AI in education
AI learning tools are the latest entrants in the EdTech space, often promoted as simple (and free!) solutions to complex learning challenges. But without careful scrutiny, there is a real risk that AI in education will follow the same path as previous EdTech innovations such as interactive whiteboards, laptops, and tablets: expensive, disruptive, time-consuming, and ultimately ineffective in improving student learning.
Instead of empowering teachers and learners, poorly integrated technologies can distract from teaching, demotivate students and down skill professional expertise. Superficial adoption does not lead to meaningful educational impact.
By asking the right questions, and taking a learning-first approach, schools can ensure that investments in EdTech truly empower teachers and students and ultimately improve learning.
Stay tuned: In the final article in this 3-part series on technology in education, Dr Ralph Saubern addresses the challenges – and opportunities – in evaluating the impact of EdTech on learning outcomes.
References
Saubern, R., Taylor-Guy, P., & van der Kleij, F. (2022). Introducing the Education Technology Value Evaluation Tool for Schools. 2022 International conference on assessment and learning . IEEE.
Selwyn, N. (2021). Education and technology: key issues and debates. Bloomsbury Academic.
