Junhong Xiao has played an important role in my own work over the years so I am always inclined to take what he says seriously. Thus I take his critique of sustainable openness of technology-based education as doubly challenging. His core argument is this: "what extent technology can deliver the goal of equitable education depends, in a sense, on how cost-effective technology-based education is." And, of course, I would not disagree with this. And I'm also supportive of the three principles he advocates at the end of the paper: first, that "we need to be cautious of naturalizing the 'mainstream' discourses concerning technology-based education", second, "all stakeholders... are entitled to have their say in what counts as accessible high-quality education", and third, "sustainable openness in technology-based education is also related to students' social and cultural factors."
But I'm less sanguine about how he gets to these conclusion. To be sure, his research is impeccable, consisting of a review of some 3,059 studies reporting on technology innovations in education. But being familiar with the studies published by people like David Wiley on student savings achieved through the use of OER, I question the finding that "none of the studies investigated the costs which students (and their families) had to bear when technology-based education was implemented." Has he read the wrong 3,059 studies? The true test of the technology is not found in the academic studies, but rather, in whether people actually use it. That's why (as we saw Tuesday) YouTube is reported as this year's top tool for education.
But the main issue, I think, is the confounding of the issue of technology in education with broader social, political and cultural issues. Inequality and access to technology are of course issues for open education - but would it make sense to stop building roads and rail because not everyone can afford a car or train ticket? Do we stop broadcasting television because not everybody can afford electricity? These are technologies, and in their own way, important educational technologies. And this leads to my third criticism: we can't make the mistake of classifying all technologies within a single category. Heavy expensive over-engineered technologies like XR are one thing. Light and widely useful technologies like the Gutenberg library are another. Image: Vare, et al.
Today: 0 Total: 1398 [Direct link] [Share]
