Weller had some interesting takes on educational technology from the years 2002 to 2011. I completely agree with his argument that much of the issues educators have with the LMS is the institutional “sediment” that accompanies it. In many cases, educators feel forced to use the tool to keep relevant in the current educational landscape. This force participation becomes more absorbing each year, as currently, many of my colleagues are scrambling to develop online videos for students that cannot join their class. To them, this online world is foreign, and being asked to become a producer of content conjures anxiety and fears.
After years of helping many educators navigate the online world, I have found most people against its adoption fall into two categories:
- The self-proclaimed “Not Tech People.”
- The fear of the unknown or undesired.
The “Not Tech People” often have decided that they either have no interest or do not think they have the skills to operate technology. This decision comes typically after a negative experience or merely comparing themselves to other more proficient users. While I could write at length about how this view is a fallacy, I will state that nearly all experienced technology users have spent thousands of hours (or much more) honing their skills. To put it in sports terms, the proficient people have spent a lot more time practicing and engrossing themself in related activities. The fear group often views the horror stories of social media or data breaches and thinks everyone or everything in the online world is out to get them. These fears are often exacerbated by false or misleading tales and constant news reports of foul play. I will admit, I struggle with this group. My only success with individuals who fear the online world is by helping them shift their view and understand that the real world creates the internet world.
Now onto my next point that Weller never directly expressed but eluded to with each new technology. When the field adopts new technology, do we need to have a majority of professionals learn it and incorporate it? To be clear, when I say adopt, I do mean that the technology has become mainstream. I bring this up because, in my current position, I tend to give recommendations to school divisions on the “best” technology to implement for their usage. One issue that always arises is the resistance to change that is shockingly embedded in the education profession. I have always had a stance to “do with you are comfortable with,” but I am beginning to question that stance recently. One reason, as educators, our job is to challenge learners to engage in new content; this often means that we are telling them to engage in what is uncomfortable. I find it hypocritical of me as an educator to say to my students to do the uncomfortable because it is for their good, but in the next breath, tell my colleagues it is okay to stay in their comfort zones. Even when I ignore the mental and social aspects involved in the process, I find myself challenging my educational lethargy view.
Let me explain, if a person, let’s say, Mike, chooses not to engage in new technology or methodologies because it makes them uncomfortable, they are more likely to not engage in further related technologies. Mike will become further and further behind his colleagues in a snowballing type of effect. Even down the line, if Mike decides to engage in the technology, he will most likely be so far behind that even the most fundamental elements will cause him to struggle.
In this scenario, would it not have been better to have Mike learn the technology even though he may not want to (at least in the longitudinal view)? What makes this more interesting, thanks to COVID-19, we have discovered that the educational profession does not live in a vacuum and is required to adapt to the world’s events. Today, nearly all educators find themselves teaching online, using videos, widgets, LMS, video chat, and other online tools to not only supplement their practice but deliver it. Perhaps a lot of anxiety could have been alleviated by requiring professionals to expose themselves to these technologies. In many ways, requiring the adoption of mainstream technology is a mercy.
References
Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.
Thank you for these thoughts, Mike. Many use the term resistance to describe non-use or non-adoption of technology. I don’t like that term because it seems to assume that technology is inherently going to lead to positive outcomes and that teachers/faculty/etc ought to adopt it. In your experience, what might be some reasons for non-use that reflect something other than “resistance”?
Some reasons for non-adoption for example, may have to do with the fact that for many years teachers/etc were encouraged to adopt technologies and promised that those would make their practices easier/better; but, technologies never quite did that for them, leading to skepticism. Or, they came to use some tools for a bit and then the district eliminated their support for them or stopped funding them…
I suppose what I am inviting you to react to here the notion that there may be reasons behind non-use that go beyond resistance to change. What may we find if we dig into this a bit more?
George,
That is a very good question, and I am not sure I have an answer; one thing I have noticed when dealing with technology adoption is that many people have a disdain for it and often cannot express why. The example you state about school districts making promises or dropping tools is not confined to technology use, as I have seen thousands of people who have had their division adopt and drop new programs for reading, math, and other subjects yearly. In that sense, most veteran educators know this rollercoaster of new policies and become numb to the next big thing. In this sense, it is more a rebellion against the institution and the lack of autonomy in division-wide programs/technology implementations. An excellent example of this is me, I do not want to work in a division that does not afford me the autonomy to explore, research, and push boundaries in my practice.
Great post Mike. I am curious if you feel it’s our responsibility as the “tech savvy” instructors, to be the early adopters of technology and teach our colleagues how to evolve and use the tools in their own work? I have found more success in working with the two personality types, by being the guinea pig and showing them how easy it is to incorporate into their skill set. I would add a third personality type as well, those that are set in their ways and couldn’t care less about technology, which I find upsetting especially since they work in STEM.
Ash,
Good point, I generally find those stuck in their ways are afraid of change when I finally break them down. Still, that is a very valid point. In many ways, I agree it is the “tech-savvy” professionals that need to model proper technology use, but I would argue many have no idea what that is. When it comes to teaching others, it is a two-way street; as you stated, many people are unwilling to learn or have some aversion towards it. I find many technologies are too big of a leap for some to follow, and you need to scaffold their introduction, much like you would as you introduce a new concept in the classroom. So I would say no, it is not the “tech-savvy” person’s responsibility to teach others, but to model and coach the willing. I use the term coach because it requires the learner to apply what is being taught to their context, which is infinitely more powerful than attempting to simulate the more proficient’s persons methodology.
testing
(sorry Mike! i wasn’t able to post comments before, so just testing to see if it works now)
All good, glad it worked out.
Mike, imagine the folks you could gain from the “not tech people” content with the gamification as seen in the youtube video “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vJRopau0g0”. These good folks would not even know they are “tech-ing out” 🙂
Rob,
Yes, I agree gamification is fantastic when implemented correctly. I would recommend that everyone look at it at the least. I love watching teachers’ faces when I explain how the learning process in a video game is closely connected to the classroom’s learning process. Now that I think of it, the resistance to gamification in education is very similar to what George speaks of with resistance to technology. I am sure there is some lesson there if we dig enough.