Is EdTech Training Us To Be More Obedient Consumers?
In week 9 of the Critical Issues in Digital Education course, we are discussing digital education’s pedagogic methods and are encouraged to consider which of them are often prioritized by educational technology and what might be the implications of this on education and society at large. In this post, I will discuss how behaviorism is making a comeback with the rise of the use of AI and “data science” in education and how I believe it is aggravating our consumerist relationship with the world.
One of the founding fathers of “radical behaviorism,” B. F. Skinner believed that human free is an illusion and that human actions are completely dependent on the consequences of previous actions. Among many other fields, Skinner saw the application of his theories in education, arguing that reinforcement and punishment play a key role in shaping behavior and proposing that people learn exclusively through the consequences of their actions rather than internal processes. When applied in education, the goal of such behavioristic teaching methods is to manipulate the environment of an individual to change their observable behaviors. Although largely disregarded in the late 1960s, Skinner’s views found application in many contemporary fields including educational technologies (Cranmore, 2022)
In her article on the state of EdTech, Noula (2021) argues that despite the progress that has been made since Skinner’s Teaching Machines, the most recent rise, and glorification of AI and “data science” use in education has made it possible to prioritize behaviorist methods and bring them to classrooms around the world at scale. This is due to several factors but, in my opinion, there are two that play an especially big part here: (1) what is easier to measure as a data point (individual’s “engagement” with the information) gets prioritized over “messy” concepts such as individual’s constructing knowledge and building their own representations of it; and (2) EdTech view of education’s only purpose being qualification and it being a means to an end (securing a job, advancing within the framework of capitalism, etc). This results in a big shift to what Knox et al (2020) call “machine behaviorism” – the combination of radical behaviorist theories with machine learning systems which creates educational environments “in which ‘correct’ forms of performance and conduct have already been decided, and learners are increasingly ‘nudged’ towards predefined modes of participation and behavior” (Knox et al, 2020). This shift is partially embraced by practices such as learning analytics and personalized learning (Friesen, 2019) which are becoming especially popular with the new wave of enthusiasm over the use of AI in education.
Source: Off the Mark by Mark Parisi June 08, 2016
Amongst many other concerns over the potential consequences of this emerging trend, this leads us to reflect on what amplifying these radical behaviorist methodologies at scale can mean for individuals’ notion that they can create their own knowledge and be part of the educational process not as just a passive consumer of information but as an active contributor and sense-maker. This leads us back Biesta’s (2005) argument against the learnification of education and the notion that the educational relationship should be seen as an economic relationship or, in other words, as “a relationship between a provider and a consumer.” What hope can we possibly have for the next generation to be anything but obedient consumers if we blindly accept the radical behaviorist methods pushed on us by EdTech? And how might we challenge these approaches and have educational technology also support more constructivist approaches to education that would leave room for individuals to form their behaviors not necessarily aligned with those that were predefined for them?
All in all, it appears that by prioritizing easily measurable behaviors such as individual “engagement” with digital content, EdTech inevitably welcomes back radical behaviorist methods into the classroom, thus promoting a certain consumerist view of education and enabling or even encouraging individuals to become passive obedient consumers of information and leaving no room for new knowledge creation and sense-making. It is our role as educators to challenge these approaches and to advocate for a more holistic view of education that includes subjectification of an individual.
References
- Biesta, G. (2005) “Against Learning: Reclaiming a Language for Education in an Age of Learning,” Nordisk Pedagogik 23, no. 1, pp. 70–82. https://brill.com/view/journals/bire/1/2-3/article-p259_259.xml
-
Cranmore, J.L. (2022). B. F. Skinner: Lasting Influences in Education and Behaviorism. In: Geier, B.A. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Educational Thinkers. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81037-5_110-1
- Friesen, N. (2018) “Personalized Learning Technology and the New Behaviorism: Beyond Freedom and Dignity.” https://www.academia.edu/36111979/Personal_learning_new_behaviorism2.docx
- Knox, J., Williamson, B., Bayne, S. (2020) “Machine behaviourism: future visions of ‘learnification’ and ‘datafication’ across humans and digital technologies, Learning, Media and Technology,” 45:1, 31-45, DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2019.1623251
- Noula, I. (2021) “EdTech is at a crossroads: Why evidence is needed, standards must be set, and regulation should be implemented.” https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2021/09/22/edtech-is-at-a-crossroads-why-evidence-is-needed-standards-must-be-set-and-regulation-should-be-implemented/
Hi there, Marta!
The blog post is superbly done. You engage with the question thoroughly and provide clear answers to a complex issue. The structure of the blog post is also well-established. As the blog post is well crafted, I can focus my feedback on details and nuances.
You did a good job with the hyperlinks. Most of them contributed to expanding the content of your blog coherently. For example, I didn’t know that Chomsky wrote about behaviourism – nor didn’t know that he do it in 1958! I had to check Chomsky’s age, and he is reaching the mark of 100 years. You also did a good job by linking to one of your blog posts. Two hyperlinks were a bit confusing: the waybackmachine hyperlink and the one that linked to Audrey Watters’ book.
One of my favourite paragraphs of your blog post is the one that begins with “In her article on the state of EdTech”. I like this paragraph because I can see your contribution to the topic you are discussing when you name the two factors that aid the prioritization of behaviourism. I find that factor number 1 is fantastic. But at the same time, I would like to know more about it. How could you expand that idea? I can see a paragraph of its own to engage with the nuances of what “messiness” is and why it is important.
Another idea that caught my attention is the following: “Amongst many other concerns over the potential consequences of this emerging trend, this leads us to reflect on what amplifying these radical behaviourist methodologies at scale can mean for individuals’ notion that they can create their own knowledge and be part of the educational process not as just a passive consumer of information but as an active contributor and sense-maker”. Here, you are making a case against edtech reinforcing consumerist identities in students. I am curious about the other side of the argument. What would edtech look like if its affordances involved engaging students as active contributors and sense-makers? How do you imagine hopeful digital futures?
Finally, I must say that you included a relevant external bibliography. Good job!
Keep up the excellent effort!
Hi Nicolás,
Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on this post!
I was equally fascinated that Chomsky criticized behaviourism back 1958! I have to admit, I often had conflicted feelings about him as a public figure (largely due to his choice of expressing his rather unfortunate political views in the last few years – https://news.berkeley.edu/2022/05/19/open-letter-to-noam-chomsky-and-other-like-minded-intellectuals-on-the-russia-ukraine-war) but couldn’t help linking his article here as it’s quite unexpected his critic dates back that far.
I agree linking Audrey Watters’ book might seem a bit out of context but I discovered it from one of the hyperlinks in Noula’s article and immediately purchased it. I’m reading it at the moment and it’s absolutely fascinating. I think I would like to write my final assessment on the topic of personalization and the history of teaching machines – please expect an email about this as soon as I get through completing the last blog post for the course.