Technology in schools have always been neat tools of curiosity for students to explore. At its onset, any latest technological innovations were brought in as something to study, work or play with, but relegated to the sole focus of specialty courses.
Workshops were setup for woodworking equipment, automotive classes and manufacturing. Computer labs were set aside for computer focused courses such as keyboarding, programming or (my personal favourite) communications technology. The technology was there for that class and for that purpose.
However, all of that changed when the big tech companies recognized a lucrative market in education. Suddenly, there were talks of “1-to-1 devices” and “leveraging digital” as an “equalizer” and “preparation for the future.” Education platforms sprung up overnight and every company marketed the hell out of the “educational benefits” of their latest piece of software or hardware. Students were promised that all their education woes would be fixed and teachers were sold the dream of perfectly engaged classrooms and easy planning/marking/administrative tasks.
With such a strong sales pitch, how could we not just flood every classroom with as much tech as a school board can reasonably afford? Just get everyone on board, learn the latest tools and ta-da! Education has been permanently “fixed.”
Now, don’t get me wrong, some of these tools seemed pretty impressive and having a background in tech, I was curious to see what I could do with them. This would be taken to its limit during the pandemic when all learning went online and suddenly all these tech companies had to make good on their promises.
And that’s when we found out it was all bullshit.
In fact, every year since we started putting devices in front of students faces for all their classes, we’re discovering how horribly misguided we all were. Actually, duped would be a better term to use.
Some of these tools are helpful within specific contexts and are of benefit in specific ways. But the overall aim of any “educational” piece of technology isn’t to make learning better/easier/more engaging. Remember, these are private companies with profit agendas, who don’t really care whether the outcome is favourable for the audience they are serving. The only concern is keeping people engaged with the platforms and finding ways to fit square pegs into round holes when necessary.
They will find (or make up) something a teacher did at one school that looks good on the surface without showing whether it had any meaningful outcome (in magic, we call this a “flash-in-the-pan”), and then offer “certification” courses in their products. I can promise you those certifications are about as meaningful as my kids’ certificates for completing bike camp.
Then, of course, once the cost to switch platforms becomes too high because schools have invested most of their resources in it, these companies then start making their products worse and focus on extracting as much profit as possible. Cory Doctorow discusses this brilliantly in his work, enshittification – article and book.
They will add cute metrics such as “streaks” and “points,” but won’t produce a single metric to show whether this is any better for learning. At best, they will pay some educator influencers to provide anecdotal examples by asking them to find ways to use it in a classroom so they can showcase it. More flash-in-the-pan antics.
As someone who drank the kool-aid for years, finding neat and “innovative” ways to use these tech tools, I constantly kept coming up against a wall of new products to use while others I built around completely changed or disappeared. However, the most important piece was finally understanding that throwing technology in front of a person doesn’t automatically build the foundation they need for learning. That takes time, deliberate practice and consistency.
Personal case example was when I was teaching grade eight language arts. There was an “innovation” grant being offered to teachers who put up a proposal for what they would do in their classroom. Recognizing that reading rates have plummeted and many of my students don’t, won’t or refuse to read, I decided to make that my focus and proposed giving me the money for books. Paper books. In my classroom.
They gave me $500.
I spent the year scouring for deals, give-aways and begged others to fill out my initial grant so I can surround my students with books and then, get them reading every day. My “innovative” approach was to conference with them during their reading time, see how they’re progress is going, help them find a book that might interest them and keep pushing them until they found their gateway to reading.
After two months of them getting the picture they couldn’t hide, they got on board. To push it further, I also had them practicing their writing every day using pen and paper. Those students with learning disabilities who required a device were given one (specific context, right?). By the end of the year, they were complaining that the 3000 word limit I set was too small for their final short story assignment.
Could this be replicated everywhere? I’m not sure because it worked for me in my specific context. It’s like asking if you could you tell the same joke as a comedian and get the same reaction. Depends on the personality and the audience. Same goes for any other teaching approach that’s been around since the 70s. Sometimes they act as a main course and other times they make good seasoning.
Throwing technology at students (and teachers) to be the main course and the seasoning sounds like a dream, because it is. A dream of profits for companies and nightmares for IT departments as they now have to support this infrastructure and the countless cyber-security issues it presents. Don’t even get me started on the lack of privacy, which no company can convince me they actually care about considering the inevitible “data-leaks” that always happen, and how my grade twelve students (and only them) get emails from the big G to tell them to transfer their stuff over to a personal account now that they’re graduating. Gee… a for-profit, data-mining company that spends its fortune lobbying for less regulations around their practices are building profiles of students that are supposed to be sensitive data? Who knew!?
As I’ve shifted away from tech use in my classroom over the past few years, my students have come to tell me they really appreciated the more hands-on approach: index cards, post-it notes, chart paper, conversation, direct instruction and, wait for it… building personal connections.
And this is where it gets really interesting—as technology in the classrooms becomes less reliable, more frustrating, distracting and shittier in their use, it’s pushing educators away, students away and pissing off parents.
In other words, it’s failing on its own terms.