H800 Week 11, Activity 1(a–e)
Proposition: This house believes that the continuing introduction of new technologies and new media adds little to the quality of most education.
Activity 1a (How would I vote?)
At first sight, I would vote in favour of the proposition, as I think technology alone does not necessarily improve quality in education. Briefly, as Block 1 established, there is uncertainty among teachers and learners over how technology can be used effectively. Technology can be a barrier, it can exclude, it can become the end in itself rather than the means, so detracting from education, or it can simply be used as a replacement for teaching, with harmful consequences.
Activity 1b (Types of arguments)
The moderator seeks to conciliate between the sides by setting out the conditions that would unite them, were such conditions to be met (namely, coordination with staff training, applications and curriculum, and an educational culture focussed on creative thinking, problem-solving and life-long learning for the modern knowledge economy). He accepts that there isn't really anything at issue here, that both sides effectively agree, but that what sets them apart is the question: How do we measure the quality we know (or suspect) that technology can bring to education?
Finally,the moderator appeals directly to the floor – 'Do you want someone experimenting with your children?' Are you in favour of tried-and-tested, three 'R's-style education, or do you accept that technology is a fact of life and as such can not be excluded from education?
The proposition, briefly, makes historical and economic references (Guttenberg, Adam Smith); points to a limited number of e-learning success stories; and implies that the problem lies not with technology but with education – in his view, educators are not able to grasp the opportunities afforded by technology; rather they are characterised as luddites, 'artisans' in a 'cottage industry'.
The opposition, briefly, lays his cards on the table and accepts the failings, but points to the inadequacies of the research methodologies before presenting some positive evidence.
Both proposition and opposition seem to envisage a kind of technology-enhanced educational utopia, and to imply that we appear to be on the tipping point of achieving it (if only we knew how, and if only we could be sure of recognising it when we find it). This is reflected in the contributions of the featured guests, especially the splendid Prof Darling-Hammond.
Activities 1c and 1d (Style/'discourse' and evidence)
The proposition points to flaws in the opposition argument (that it is so nuanced as to make the case for, not against, the motion), before seizing on the opposition's 'what if' scenario: 'Now we're talking!, he writes, as if to say, 'Look, voter, he agrees with me!'. He then appeals to history (once again) with the reference to the printing press, and he cites the 3'R's; and he furthers his case on the basis of anecdotal evidence for what students say they value (i.e. printed books and good tutors). (In so doing he reveals a past affiliation with The Open University, which he acknowledged previously as one of the few e-learning success stories. Failure to disclose this interest at the time might be seen to undercut his earlier arguments.)
Possibly hurting from the first round, the opposition toughens up here: the 'results are clear', he says. No more Mr Nuance Guy. More detailed discussion of case studies (complete with URLs) follows, in support of his 'we're getting there' message. Still, he acknowledges that conditions remain: well-trained teachers, and the need for underpinning social and economic policies. (The proposition makes a similar point in the previous round of statements, when he suggests that the problem is with education and its socio-economic context.)
Meanwhile, the other featured guests (Knezek and Bushweller) make arguments that can be summarised as follows: 'Yes, technology can improve quality if used intelligently, but it's not a silver bullet, and what's at issue here is really how we measure quality, and what we measure'. Like Prof Darling-Hammond, the chaps seem to have a 'time-is-ripe' attitude.
Activity 1d (Closing remarks)
The role of the moderator has been:
-
to look back over and summarise the arguments and positions taken by the two sides
-
to represent the views of the floor and ensure balance and fairness
-
to appeal to and seek to engage the undecided voter (and ensure the rules are respected, for example, by urging people not to vote more than once)
-
to add to the progress and substance of the debate in informed and stimulating ways and without undue influence or prejudice
-
to represent the editorial policy of The Economist
-
to round up the debate with a closing statement, placating all sides
-
to advertise the success of the project (on his employer's behalf): 'we have ... shown the value of the traditional academic skills of logic, rhetoric, and courtesy' (writing in the winner announcement).
Anything else that occurs to me
The debate is a lot of fun. But it isn't a debate at all as such, since both sides agree. The question at issue seems to be how we will agree to measure technology's contribution to quality in education. Measuring anything in education seems to be enormously controversial. Very recently, a British teachers' union voted to boycott government tests. The controversy of SATs tests, like the question at stake in the debate here, seems to be one about the nature of education and what education is for in the 21st century – is it about passing exams, or social skills, or being a good person (or a good citizen))? And who is responsible – teachers, government, Apple or Microsoft, or even (imagine the horror), parents?
So the value of this debate, for me, is not in whether one side won out over the other. Its value for me doesn't lie in the arguments about printing presses or the Knowledge Forum or anything else, interesting as these detours are. It's valuable because it makes clear that the introduction of technology to education has enormous impact on the interests of many parties, from teachers and learners to policy makers, politicians, philosophers and theorists. Technology in education is destined to be controversial as there are countless 'stakeholders' and as many different vested interests, legitimate or otherwise.
Finally, of all the contributions, I enjoyed Kevin Bushweller's the most. To summarise his thoughts: we have moved too far in the direction of accountability (and away from innovation) in our eagerness to prove the value of technology. So we need to move back into the middle ground between accountability and innovation, as it is at this point that technology will come into its own if we use it to enhance learning and motivation, and to prepare learners for the modern world.