Over the past decade, education has experienced an explosion of edtech that provides powerful new tools but has also led to controversies about how the applications of these technologies affect learner outcomes of diverse learning styles. Edtech facilitates continuous observation and assessments of students by collecting learning process data, but it also raises ethical questions about autonomy, surveillance, privacy, and discrimination, as students are separated into ability groups that may ultimately compromise learning (Regan & Jesse, 2019).
Divisions remain between critical pedagogies that emphasize social justice and democracy and digital assessment methods that make education more exclusive and privileged, and it is arguably becoming more apparent that technologies alone may be incapable of reconciling these two distinct approaches to education.
Edtech often emphasizes assessment over authentic student-teacher engagement. Morris and Stommel (2018) suggest that technology-centered education programs may stifle student developing, sterilize innate student curiosity, and limit academic exploration. Edtech focuses on trackable results that determine student placement, and consequently, education has become much more test and results oriented, and critics charge this approach is too narrow and restricting.
Rather than focusing simply on testing for outcomes, educators that value the critical pedagogy approach feel that education systems need to cultivate resiliency, empowerment, and learner agency (Morris & Stommel, 2018). As edtech becomes more integrated into modern curriculums, questions arise about how programs can be developed that improve agency and learner autonomy while also broadening education to account for the needs of critical pedagogical approaches to social justice and democratic values.
Resolution to these conflicts may not reside in the digital integration of platforms. While digital technology may improve educational performance and facilitate independent learning, assessments remain overemphasized. It is important to recognize that most edtech applications cannot be categorized as blended learning (Vaughan et al., 2013).
Educators must recognize how Edtech can enhance learning, but also understand the need to integrate these technologies in the blended learning classroom environment. While Edtech may resolve the dilemma of large classrooms sizes and unfavorable student to teacher rations, educators should also focus more on how to improve learning outcomes for all students, while still adopting some edtech in the classroom.
This may necessitate additional curriculum standards that serve to progressively regulate the use of edtech in classrooms.The current lack of regulatory oversight deepens divides between the needs of critical pedagogical approaches and practical technological applications, as educators are left to manage both approaches without clear guidance.
Blended learning approaches aim to improve curriculums, making learning more engaging and peer-centered. Vaughan et al. (2013) propose that educators should not continue to layer additional edtech on students without considering the potential consequences of this approach.
While emerging technology may have some benefits, edtech must complement traditional pedagogical approaches that value whole classroom learning, social justice and democratic values. Focusing on learner outcomes instead of the results of personalized assessments may ultimately lead to an education system where technology augments learning but does not exclude or alienate learners, where critical learning values are retained.
References
Morris, S. M., & Stommel, J. (2018). An urgency of teachers: The work of critical digital pedagogy. Hybrid Pedagogy.
Regan, P. M. & Jesse, J. (2019). Ethical challenges of edtech, big data and personalized learning: Twenty-first century student sorting and tracking. Ethics and Informational Technology, 21, 167-179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-018-9492-2
Vaughan, N. D., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M. (2013). Teaching in blended learning environments: Creating and sustaining communities of inquiry. AU Press.