Theoretical Debates #1: The Educational Investment in Technology

As with most topics which focus around the uncharted territory of the future, there are a range of opinions and theories about the current state of the political, economic and cultural systems, what it all means, and where it’s going to take us. These opinions and theories are often framed around dualistic and opposing social values; the political debate of liberal vs. conservative, the economic debate of capitalism vs. socialism, the cultural debate of mass-production vs. customization.  Deeply embedded within all of these dualisms lies technology, the ultimate symbol of how clever we humans really are.  And as more and more of our social processes become digitally mediated, the impact of information and communication technology on the larger society, and education specifically, comes to the forefront of all the debates.

At the crux of this debate lies the rhetoric of what has been called the “Information Society” or the “Knowledge Economy” or the “New Economy”, which has been used to rationalize the astounding investments in the technological capacities of Canadian public schools.  While there is no dollar figure currently attached to ICT investment in Canadian public schools, the figure is undoubtedly high.  Canada is ranked among the highest in the world when it comes to computer and Internet access, with an estimated 1 million computers in schools nationwide, and approximately 90% of these connected to the Internet (Statistics Canada 2004). The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) shows that Canada is above average, in relation to the 31 OECD countries considered, in student to computer ratio, percentage of school computers connected to the Internet, and computer availability at home (Council of Ministers of Education, 2003).  Some critics question these high levels of investment, given that it seems to be coming at the expense of basic literacy and arts programs.  Whether the two are directly related is unclear.

In The Digital Economy, Tapscott speaks of this new economy and the transformative potential of computer technology within that economy.  He calls this new economy a knowledge economy, and states, “In the new economy, more and more of the economy’s added value will be created by brain rather than brawn” (p7).  Education then is viewed as an important element to the training of “knowledge workers of tomorrow.”  Tapscott indicates that the digital economy will require a “rethinking of education” and highlights 6 key themes of teaching and learning in a technologically driven society.  They are as follows:

1. Work and learning are becoming the same thing
2. Learning is becoming a lifelong challenge
3. Learning is shifting away from the formal schools and universities
4. Progress is slow in the reinvention of the educational institution
5. Organizational learning is required in learning organizations
6. New media can transform education

Within these six themes, a discourse emerges which indicates that the line between the citizen and the worker, the individual and the institution, education and the economy will be dissolved as technology is integrated into our daily lives.  Learning becomes a lifelong process where the individual must shift and bend towards the will of the economy’s workforce.  Further, the individual will likely have very little institutional support in doing so, because as hard as the institution is trying to adapt, it is falling short in the effective implementation of technology in the classroom.  Because of this, training will most likely take place in “learning organizations”, which mainly exist in the private sector and as collaborative processes among employees towards common economic goals.  Along with private sector transformation, technology will also transform education, through the delivery of distance courses and the vast databases of knowledge that can be stored and distributed through the use of CD-ROMs.  In particular, Tapscott believes that the new media will “be truly spectacular for students in rural or isolated communities” (p.206).

Critic Neil Postman presents a more cautionary view of the integration of technology into the learning process.  He opens Technopoly, his cautionary diatribe of the computerization of society, with the story of King Thamus, from Plato’s Phaedrus.  One day, Thamus entertains Theuth, the god of invention, who introduces the concept of writing to him.  Theuth claimed that writing was a gift to the Egyptians which would improve both their wisdom and memory.  Upon being present with this gift, King Thamus replied: “Those who acquire it [writing] will cease to exercise their memory and become forgetful; they will rely on writing to bring things to their remembrance by external signs instead of their own internal resources.  What you have discovered is a receipt for recollection, not for memory.  And as for wisdom, your pupils will have the reputation for it without the reality: they will receive a quantity of information without proper instruction, and in consequence be thought very knowledgeable when they are for the most part quite ignorant.  And because they are filled with the conceit of wisdom they will be a burden to society” (Plato in Postman, 1993: p4).   While Postman identifies his own voice as a dissenting one, he does concede that the assumption of any new technology as being a burden, and only a burden, is a mistake.  However, “it is inescapable that every culture must negotiate with technology, whether it does so intelligently or not” (p5).

Postman argues quite contrary to Tapscott’s ideals of the transformative potential of computers on learning stating that computer technology is actually an impediment for critical thinking skills and other educational outcomes.  He believes that the rhetoric of the Technopoly (the totalitarian technocracy) is “immodest” and that it “encourages insensitivity to what skills might be lost in the acquisition of new ones” (p.120).  Postman’s view of the effects of computers in the classroom is similar to Tapscott’s, in that he agrees that computers promote “private learning and individual problem-solving” (p.17).  However, his interpretation of the outcome of this is hardly something to be heralded, prophesizing instead, the movement towards a Huxleyian society where egocentrism is virtuous and alternatives are invisible (p.48).

In the book “Silicone Snake Oil,” Clifford Stoll is less abstract in his criticisms of classroom technology and the new forms of learning and understanding, stating that the educational investment in computers is coming at the expense of the more fundamental elements of learning and education.  In keeping with the story of King Thamus, Stoll states, “Computer networks return answers – often the right ones – but they emphasize product over process” (p.125).  Further, computers do nothing to address the real crises which are occurring in schools such as overcrowded classrooms, teacher incompetence, and low budgets for salaries, books and paper.  They are, in fact “expensive, quickly become obsolete, and drain scarce capital budgets” (p. 127).

At this point in time, however, arguing against the installation of computer technology in the classroom may be futile.  Educational investments in technology and curriculum reinvention towards technological skills have been well underway for the past decade.  The digital economy is in full swing, and both the critics and the proponents of the “digital revolution” understand how necessary it is for students to gain access to and develop facility with computers and the internet to assist in their entrance into the workforce, or to continue with their education.  Thus it is clear as to which side of this debate has reigned supreme. 

However, what is also clear is that the majority of students coming out of high school do not have basic literacy skills, and anyone who has had to mark a first-year university student’s paper could provide us with anecdotal evidence to support this statement.  Grammar and spelling is atrocious, thought patterns and ideas shift all over the pages with no sense of coherance or beginning-to-end flow on the topic at hand.  Further, while the students are proficient with MSN and YouTube and Facebook, they are still unable to logically navigate simple software, many still find computers overwhelming if they are not being used in the context of their own social lives.

So the big question remains… has all this investment paid off?  But before we can answer that we have to ask ourselves, what is the pay-off supposed to be?  Something that maybe should have been clear before we started dumping millions of dollars into the investment in the first place.