As I read through the first eight chapters Martin Weller’s 25 Years of Ed Tech I couldn’t help being surprised at the many similarities between education technology and ‘Tech Bro’ culture. Weller argues that there is a year zero mentality in education technology, “…where any recognition of prior work undermines the myth of the individual creator.” (p. 6). This immediately made me think of Elon Musk, an investor who has at times been venerated as a genius despite the large teams of people actually developing the technologies associated with his companies. I draw this parallel to highlight something that I’m seeing in education, the promotion of technological solutions to ‘problems’ in education without spending the time to investigate if the solution is needed. In my field we see new simulation technology geared towards nursing education programs all the time; AI patients that students can interview that then provide real time feedback, medication administration simulations where a student must complete a medication order step by step, and high-fidelity mannequins that can do everything from talk, to bleed, to deliver a baby. While these technologies sound amazing at face value, they don’t always address real problems, technological sophistication doesn’t always translate to better learning. I have found that students get more out of interviewing a real person, medication simulation can be done with paper, a pen, and candy, while high fidelity mannequins are costly financially and in time required to train instructors in their use. Another point Weller made that I found surprising at first was that universities often feel pressured to adopt new technologies because they fear they may get left behind, but my experience in nursing education makes me question if this pressure actually results in better learning. This constant Silicon Valley style disruption, that doesn’t look at what came before I think can do more harm than good, especially when the companies producing the technology have a strong incentive to prioritize profits over education. Weller’s discussion of Shirky’s disruption narrative brought to mind Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (Johnson, 2022), where Miles Bron and his sycophants call themselves ‘the disruptors’ and constantly pursue the next big idea without considering its consequences. While I don’t think all technology in education is bad, I do think it needs to be approached in a critical way that is always asking the questions; does the technology fill an actual need? Is the technology beneficial for learning? And/or is the technology addressing an actual problem in education?
References:
Johnson, R. (Director). (2022). Glass Onion: A knives out mystery [Film]. Netflix.
Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press.
https:/doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01
Great reflection, Callan!
Your connection between edtech’s “year zero” mentality and the Silicon Valley disruption narrative really hits the mark. Your nursing simulation examples illustrate perfectly how high-tech tools often get pushed as automatic solutions without first verifying if they actually solve a pedagogical need.
I strongly agree that technology should serve as a tool to address a defined problem—not be the default solution in and of itself. In my professional practice as Director of KM and Process Optimization, this is a principle I advocate for daily. Whenever we look to improve a process, our first step is to thoroughly define the problem and identify its root causes. Only then do we evaluate technology as just one option alongside other critical levers—such as refining the process, addressing knowledge gaps, or adjusting resourcing (who is executing the work).
Applying this same mindset to education is essential. We need to start by understanding the diverse ways people learn and pinpointing the exact problem we are trying to solve. When technology is applied intentionally to fit that context, it is a fantastic tool—but as you noted, high-tech sophistication should never replace a practical, human-centered approach.
Hi Callan! Nice to e-meet you.
I enjoyed reading your reflection. I agree that technological sophistication does not necessarily translate into better learning. Your example of nursing students talking to real people reminded me of an experience I had teaching ESL in Brazil. The school introduced software that simulated a conversation with an English speaker, and teachers were required to use it with students. I remember thinking: why are we using a machine to simulate a conversation when we have real English speakers right here who students could actually talk to in real scenarios? Isn’t that crazy? It was the perfect example of adopting technology because it is new or innovative, and not because it addresses an actual educational need. A simulated conversation might be valuable when learners do not have access to people they can practice with, but in our context, that was not the problem we needed to solve.
I like the questions you raise at the end. Weller’s discussion made me think more critically about the assumption that introducing new technology automatically represents progress. Perhaps the question should not be “What can we do with this technology?” but “What educational problem are we actually trying to solve, and is technology the best way to solve it?”
Hi Callan!
I like your closing statements:
“While I don’t think all technology in education is bad, I do think it needs to be approached in a critical way that is always asking the questions; does the technology fill an actual need? Is the technology beneficial for learning? And/or is the technology addressing an actual problem in education?”
In my work for this course, I’m investigating how technology can help firefighters train more frequently in realistic simulations so that we can reduce our exposure to IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health) and the old school firefighters that I learned from still echo in my ear: “Can’t learn how to fight fires from a book or computer” so your question rings very true in my investigatory work.
I do appreciate the ability to repeat, and repeat often, the skills that aren’t easily practiced on living beings – say 100-120 beats per minute to “I will Survive”, particularly with the new QCPR mannikins that are on the market. So one could argue there is definitely a place for EdTech, even in a limited capacity.
And kudos if you caught the Office reference before reading this line.