Hlynka (2014). The Case Against Educational Technology.

Hlynka, D. (2014). The Case Against Educational Technology. Journal of the Manitoba Education Research Network, 8, 33–41.

“What is needed is a careful, thoughtful critique on what technology does for us and what technology does to us.” (p 34)

“Bullying and name calling has become, of late, a hot topic and unacceptable. However, the pro-technology camp calls the other side Luddites, techno-peasants, late adopters, laggards and, worst of all, digital immigrants. … early research in this area now suggests that the issue of technology utilization seems not to be generational (Bullen, Morgan, & Qayyum, 2011).” (p 35)

“Plato’s retelling of the story of the invention of writing and its rejection by the king of the Egyptians.” (p 36)

“The major signs of flawed research … testimonials … sponsored research … overgeneralizations … vague terminology … “affective” findings … In short, the above five points show how we market, not how we research.” (p 37)

“… Richard Clark (1994). Clark’s position is encapsulated in his statement, ‘The best current evidence is that media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers groceries causes changes in our nutrition’ (p. 22).” (p 37)

“‘Past research on media has shown quite clearly that no medium enhances learning more than any other medium regardless of learning task, learner traits, symbolic elements, curriculum content, or setting’ (Clark & Salomon, 1988, p. 474).” (p 38)

“There are, indeed, things that we can do so that media will make a difference.” (p 38)

“‘Something started to go wrong with the digital revolution around the turn of the twenty-first century. The World Wide Web was flooded by a torrent of petty designs sometimes called web 2.0. This ideology promotes radical freedom on the surface of the web, but that freedom, ironically, is more for machines than people. Nevertheless, it is sometimes referred to as `open culture`. Anonymous blog comments, video pranks, and lightweight mashups may seem trivial and harmless, but as a whole, this widespread practice of fragmentary, impersonal communication has demeaned interpersonal interaction.’ (Lanier, 2010, p. 3)” (p 39)

“… when something is fun and entertaining, it is difficult to be critical.” [(Dean, 2010)] (p 39)

“… ‘the future of the information age will be dominated by unintended consequences’ (Dewar, 1998, p. 3).” (p 39)

“…consider technology-in-use as opposed to technology as innovation …” (p 40)

Selected References

  • Bullen, M., Morgan, T., & Qayyum, A. (2011). Digital learners in higher education: Generation is not the issue. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 37(1), 1-24.
  • Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: What the internet is doing to our brains. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
  • Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.
  • Clark, R., & Salomon, G. (1988). Media in teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 464-468). New York, NY: MacMillan.
  • Dean, J. (2010). Blog theory: Feedback and capture in the circuits of drive. Polity.
  • Dewer, J. (1998). The information age and the printing press. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2005/P8014.pdf
  • Kozma, R. (1993). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.
  • Lanier, J. (2010). You are not a gadget: A manifesto. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
  • Selwyn, N. (2014). Distrusting educational technology: Critical questions for changing times. New York, NY: Routledge.
See this page at https://kinasevych.ca/index.php