Williamson and Hogan (2020) discussed the growth of edtech, spurred by the need for remote and online learning during the pandemic, and resulting in the increased privatization and commercialization of education. They explored the roles of private, governmental, and commercial organizations in the integration of technical solutions for learning. They highlighted the overarching message of reimagining, experimenting, and innovating the education systems through technology that became pronounced as a response to the transition to remote learning. Along with the introduction of new technology, they also noted the growing dependency on technology as it becomes increasingly embedded in the learning experience. They closed by calling to attention the downstream effect of approaching parents and students as edtech consumers, and how this results in the need for stakeholders, like parents and students, to have more democratic involvement in education.
The authors argued that “technologies carry sociotechnical imaginaries of preferred futures that their producers seek to attain, and are also interpreted and utilized by others to achieve specific aims and visions” (para. 4). In a sense, one of the key stakeholders in this relationship between education and technology are the designers and providers of the technology or tool. In addition to recognizing that their intentions and values are present in the technology, it is also important to assume the perspective of the end user. What are the imaginaries and preferred futures of the educator, learner, or parent? Fawns (2022) emphasized the need to understand the goals and values of each stakeholder in order to collaboratively determine whether a technology is appropriate for the context. Is the technology meeting our needs or are we acting according to how the technology requires of us in order to be proven effective? Evaluating technology as embedded with contextual factors helps situate its value and potential role within the pedagogy, stakeholder values, and purpose. Moreover, the values, goals, and needs may differ from population to population. What is important to a specific learner group may not be viewed as equivalently important to another group. To this end, edtech and tools should be considered in alignment with the particular groups’ culture and values and will have varying levels of efficacy depending on the user group. A tool that may be effective for one cohort of learners may not have the same results with a different population. In fact, a tool that may be seen as valuable for the educator, may not be perceived the same for the learners as each role has different goals and values.
References
Fawns, T. (2022). An entangled pedagogy: Looking beyond the pedagogy-technology dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00302-7
Williamson, B., & Hogan, A. (2020, July 14). The evolution of the global education industry during the pandemic. Code Acts in Education. https://codeactsineducation.wordpress.com/2020/07/14/evolution-global-education-industry-during-pandemic/
Hi Jolee!
I thought that you connected the Williamson and Hogan article to the Fawns article nicely. In particular I think that you addressed the critical point that when considering technological tools the designer and the technologist perspectives are important but so are the end users. As you have mentioned Fawns (2022) acknowledges that various stakeholders goals need to be understood to determine an appropriate technology for the context. Fawns (2022) goes even further and claims “the greater problem may be where teachers themselves start with a method before sufficiently considering their own or their students’ purposes, values and contexts” (p.2). Thanks for sharing Jolee!
-London
Fawns, T. (2022). An entangled pedagogy: Looking beyond the pedagogy-technology dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00302-7