Sitting in on a recent donor-stakeholder discussion about the use of ICTs to support education for poor people in developing countries, inspired me to formalize my critical thoughts on the increasingly common usage of the term “EdTech”. There are three main reasons why this terminology is so problematic:
First, the term EdTech places the emphasis on the technology rather than the educational and learning outcomes. Far too many initiatives that have sought to introduce technology systematically into education have failed because they have focused on the technology rather than on the the education. The use of the term EdTech therefore places emphasis on a failed way of thinking. Technology will only be of benefit for poor and marginalized people if it is used to deliver real learning outcomes, and this is the core intended outcome of any initiative. It is the learning that matters, rather than the technology.
Second, it implies that there is such a thing as Educational Technology. The reality is that most technology that is used in schools or for education more widely has very little to do specifically with education or learning. Word processing and presentational software, spreadsheets, and networking software are nothing specifically to do with education, although they are usually what is taught to teachers in terms of IT skills! Such software is, after all, usually called Office software, as in Microsoft Office, or Open Office. Likewise, on the hardware side, computers, mobile phones and electronic whiteboards are not specifically educational but are rather more general pieces of technology that companies produce to generate a profit. Learning content, be it open or proprietary, is perhaps the nearest specifically educational technology that there is, but people rarely even think of this when they use the term EdTech!
Third, it is fascinating to consider why the term EdTech has been introduced to replace others such as e-learning or ICT for education (ICT4E) which clearly place the emphasis on the learning and the education. The main reason for this is that the terminology largely reflects the interests of private sector technology companies, and especially those from the US. The interests underlying the terminology are a fundamental part of the problem. EdTech is being used and sold as a concept primarily so that companies can sell technology that has little specifically to do with education, and indeed so that researchers can be funded to study its impact!
Those who use the term EdTech are all conspiring to place the emphasis on the technology rather than on the education. This is often deliberate, but always misguided! Many of those who use the term are also concerned primarily in generating profits from education rather than delivering effective, life-changing opportunities for people to learn. If you ever use the word again, please think twice about it, and preferably use something more appropriate!
Source: Author
For those who would like a little more detail, this is the provisional Table of Contents – subject of course to revision:
The ICT industry has for far too long been dominated by men, much to its disadvantage, and it is good that an increasing amount of publicity is being shed on the sexism that has come to dominate the sector more widely. In 2014, the Guardian newspaper ran an interesting series of reports on the subject, one of which was entitled “
As a first step, I am issuing this call for all international organisations in the field of ICTs to issues guidelines on expected behaviour at their events. I prefer guidelines to codes, because codes generally require policing, and the imposition of penalties or sanctions should anyone be found guilty. In practice, this is extremely difficult to implement and enforce. Guidelines, instead, reflect expected norms, and should be acted upon by everyone participating in an event. If someone witnesses inappropriate behaviour, it should be their responsibility to take action to ensure that the perpetrator stops. In far too many cases, though, people at present do not take enough action, especially when the harassment is by someone senior in the sector. This has to change. We must all take collective responsibility for bringing an end to such behaviour, so that everyone can participate equally at international ICT events without fear of being harassed because of their gender or sexuality.
To be sure, there are very complex cultural issues to be considered in any such discussion, but the fundamental aspect of harassment is that it is any behaviour that someone else considers to be unacceptable. Hence, we must all consider the other person’s cultural context in our actions and behaviours, rather than our own cultural norms. Just because something might be acceptable in our own culture, does not mean that it is acceptable in another person’s culture. Despite such complexities, some international organisations have indeed produced documents that can provide the basis for good practices in this area. Some of the most useful are:
Tim Unwin's Blog 