This week, I want to write about edtech and its promise of progress.
My reason is simple – I don’t believe in it.
That may come as a shocker. After all, I’m a copywriter. I help companies and organizations tell better stories. By extension, I position them to increase their sales. I shouldn’t be so critical while working in that industry, right? Wrong.
It’s not that I think all education technology is evil, useless and a scam. What I do believe is that all technology doesn’t equal progress or solutions by default. In other words, we need to be critical of the promise of edtech that states that it will solve every problem school systems are experiencing.
Technology that benefits people and transforms their realities is done by people-centred and inclusive design processes. It doesn’t happen when people are left out.
So, allow me to reframe my reason: I believe in the promise of people power and creativity. This is why I write copy and tell stories. I believe that people – students, teachers and parents – should be included in the design process to create tools and technology that make a real difference.
The Imagination of edtech
The other day, I re-watched this keynote speech by Dr. Ruha Benjamin at the 2016 ISTE Expo & Conference. She asks many important questions to the audience of school teachers, administrators, executives and leaders alike. This is the one I keep coming back to:
Whose imagination is at the heart of new technology?
Unfortunately, it isn’t often the imaginations of the people who are supposed to benefit from it. Therefore, the design and function of technology ends up reproducing the same inequities that already exist and disadvantage the same marginalized people. So, where does that leave the promise of edtech?
Sidenote: this is where the importance of media literacy cannot be understated.
We have seen these inequities in real-time with social media. These online platforms have changed the way we engage with one another. While it has its benefits and perks, it has also subjected many marginalized people to harassment, theft of intellectual property and disinformation campaigns.
Also, we have seen this with education technology. Of course, this technology has been a life-saver for education professionals, students and teachers worldwide. It has helped manage online classrooms and cut down on paper. However, it has also expanded surveillance practices on students as well as discipline tactics. Additionally, education technology tools gave teachers an unexpected shove to learn a gazillion different tools without considering privacy and security concerns.
While this doesn’t seem like the worst, it does seem invasive.
The values of edtech
I think about this alongside another question Dr. Ruha Benjamin asks:
What values are we building into our schools and students?
A few days ago, I attended a webinar about digital literacy. There was a discussion about education technology tools. One of the panelists spoke candidly about how so many tools became available very quickly after the spread of COVID-19 was declared a pandemic. Teachers quickly adopted tools, even if they were only beneficial to them. Suddenly, there were free trials, extended memberships and lower costs for services.
You may be thinking this is good. Companies had to rush because of how quickly the pandemic changed things. Teachers, students and parents needed quick fixes. But what if those quick fixes were exacerbating the problems?
I think of the pivot to using Zoom. It became the central place for teachers to teach their classes. However, it also became a place for bullying, lewd comments, harassment, Zoom-bombing and more. I read a story on Twitter about a mother whose son was a bit distracted in class. As a result, his teacher punished him with “Zoom detention” (His mother did not send her son there).
If the promise of edtech includes surveillance and punishment, we have to question it. Technology will not do it for us.
The future of edtech
Finally, Dr. Ruha Benjamin poses a question that I reflect on in my copywriting practice:
How do we prepare ourselves and our students to engage with these default settings?
This questions reminds of my time as a media literacy educator. For about six years, I taught young girls how to read media with a critical lens. At first, we focused on representation and countering narratives online. What I realized was that so much of the work was in response to rather than in preparation for media. In other words, we were not intentionally creating the media we wanted to see.
During the last few years in the role, I shifted the curriculum focus to design and re-imagining without realizing how impactful it would be. This is where we engaged with default settings about media construction. We made a zine about the future we wanted to see. Additionally, we evaluated the designs of physical spaces and safety for young girls in the community. And while we discussed body image in relation to photoshop and camera filters, we also learned about how cameras were not designed with people of colour in mind.
This is the place where students, parents and teachers are with education technology tools, in my opinion. They are individually and collectively critiquing the default settings of tools being instantly good and progressive. College students have been speaking out about the exam surveillance technology and facial recognition software. Parents of K-12 students have spoken about online education privacy issues. Young students are calling for more support to slow things down.
Conclusion
Education technology is its best when people are engaged at every step of the way, not just to consume the products or to be subjected to the services. It’s vital to include those who have been historically excluded in the future we want to see. I think the future of education depends on it.
Black Futures Now Toronto is just one example of meaningful engagement and design. In their “Mapping Black Futures” project, they redesigned the map of Toronto to reflect the past, present and future of the city where Black Canadians thrive. Flocabulary is another example. It’s a New York-based company that uses hip hop to teach literacy, math and a variety of other subjects. They include teachers in creating raps and invite students to submit their work.
Finally, I want to reiterate: I don’t think all education technology is evil, useless and a scam. What I do believe is that all technology doesn’t equal progress or solutions by default. Technology that benefits people and transforms their realities is done by people-centred and inclusive design processes.