🗓️ Tuesday 20 May 2025  🕑 14:00-15:00

• 🟢Theme: Critically exploring data-driven technologies and practices in digital education

Edtech for good?

Tracey Madden

Recording

Abstract

Technology has long been suggested as a means whereby inequalities of opportunity and experience would be addressed; edtech is no exception. However, associating edtech and issues of justice in this way potentially impacts on both the understanding of what edtech can deliver, and potentially distracts from examining the injustice inherent in the technology itself. It is therefore critical to understand the discourse on ‘edtech for good’, particularly the role funders from the worlds of venture capital and philanthropy play in this, due to their increasing influence but also their conflicting or unclear motives.

Text-based material from a range of edtech funders, including venture capital firms and philanthropic organisations, underwent critical discourse analysis to help uncover what edtech and social justice meant to these funders, and then critical metaphor analysis to discover evidence of their underlying ideologies. Any activities or projects mentioned were mapped against Fraser’s work on social justice as another way to uncover their understanding of this.

Analysis demonstrated that these funders appeared to view edtech as a business sector like any other, with no acknowledgement of the unique role that education has in forming ideologies. Scientism and dataism were strong underlying ideologies. This aligned with their use of metaphor suggesting edtech as a mechanism with innate powers and a passive tool under their control.

Analysis also showed that it was largely assumed that edtech would lead to improved educational opportunities and this would lead to improved life chances. Thus, access to edtech to overcome maldistribution was the main focus of social justice claims. Though mention was made of the inclusion of other stakeholders, which could address misrepresentation, because of the relative size of the members of any ‘partnership’ it would be unlikely to lead to Fraser’s ‘parity of participation’.