Ed-tech is a rapidly growing sector, with venture capital investments reaching $20.8 billion globally in 2021, which was over 40 times the amount invested in 2010. Armed with flashy apps that ‘gamify’ learning and online platforms that ‘individualize’ the classroom experience, the ed-tech industry is attempting to shoe-horn generative AI into schools, put a laptop in every child’s hands, and guarantee career progression for working adults with online micro-credentials, asserting its ability to help humans reach their full potential and narrow the achievement gap in ways that traditional education has failed—and continues to fail. Take, for example, Quizlet, a billion-dollar company that frames traditional study methods as inefficient and tedious. Its proposed solution is interactive digital flashcards and competition-inspired learning tools. Udemy, an online learning platform, presents itself as the answer to the skills gap in the job market, offering micro-credentials as career progression tools. These companies, along with many others, paint a picture of an education system in dire need of technological intervention.
As convincing as these ed-tech companies’ arguments are, however, this blog post contends that the ed-tech sector’s diagnosis of what’s wrong with education is invalid. Ed-tech companies oversimplify the complex educational challenges they claim to overcome; their proposed cures demonstrate a partial look at the issues education faces rather than a comprehensive assessment; and not only do they misdiagnose education’s problems, they peddle a false narrative that prevents others from accurately diagnosing education’s problems and implementing real solutions. You may well ask: but even if the ed-tech sector’s diagnosis is simple, partial, or harmful, surely it brings enough consideration to the table in order to be considered ‘valid’? To which I would respond: no. If we were sitting in a pub and my friend made the same, flawed arguments about education that ed-tech organizations do, I might call his diagnosis ‘valid’ because he shared them in a contemplative setting to spark further thought and conversation. By contrast, the shortcomings in the ed-tech sector’s diagnosis are not being shared in an intimate setting—their views are so well-funded and well-represented that they are shaping the public discourse surrounding education. As Plato outlines in The Republic, the truth someone finds in private contemplation must be applied rigorously when it has public consequences. Thus, the ed-tech industry’s diagnosis of education must meet a higher bar than mere opinion: to be considered ‘valid,’ its diagnosis needs to be both factual and holistic. In the following blog post, we’ll explore why the ed-tech sector’s current diagnosis fails to satisfy either criterion.
As mentioned above, the ed-tech sector’s approach to diagnosing educational tends towards oversimplifying complex issues. As Neil Selwyn points out in The discursive construction of education in the digital age, ed-tech discourses often frame educational problems in terms of outdated “industrial-era” schools that can be fixed through “innovative” use of digital technology. Ed-tech companies also employ what Selwyn calls “discourses of disruption,” presenting their products as silver bullets capable of transforming education without regard for the power dynamics at play and ignoring the nuanced realities of teaching and learning. Baicizhan, for example, a platform for Chinese English language learners, presents the problem of vocabulary learning as simply a matter of inconvenience and inefficiency, solvable through accessible digital tools and gamified exercises. While this approach may make vocabulary learning more engaging, it overlooks the complex socio-cultural factors involved in language acquisition and the varied needs of different learners. For example, learners who are not taught English at school and/or who do not have parents at home who speak English will struggle to acquire English as a second language, regardless of their access to technology, due to the necessity of language exposure as a tool for language learning. Baicizhan’s reductionist view fails to acknowledge the multifaceted nature of language acquisition, which is deeply rooted in social, cultural, and economic contexts.
As the discourse on education produced by ed-tech organizations is pervasive and potentially misleading, we should attempt to understand the sector’s diagnosis of education’s problems through different means: by examining its proposed ‘cure’ as a proxy—regardless of the impact of the prescription. The ed-tech sector’s solution, however, tends to emphasize technological solutions and ignores systemic and socioeconomic factors that significantly impact educational outcomes, demonstrating a narrow view of education’s problems. Ed-tech’s emphasis on ‘individualized learning’ and ‘twenty-first century skills’ shifts responsibility onto students and teachers while neglecting broader structural issues such as funding disparities, socioeconomic inequalities, and policy constraints. A holistic account would also encompass the history of education. However, in its rush to present itself as innovative and disruptive, ed-tech professionals often overlooks their own legacy in digital learning. Take, for example, the concept of the Skinner box, developed by behaviorist psychologist, B.F. Skinner in the 1930s. Skinner boxes are essentially early versions of programmed instruction, where learnings would receive immediate reinforcement for correct responses. Many modern ed-tech solutions, particularly those focused on gamification and instant feedback, bear a striking resemblance to these Skinner boxes. Yet behavioral psychology and action-reward principles are conspicuously absent from the narrative ed-tech advocates promote about their technology. This is much like a doctor treating a patient with a broken arm by hastily applying a cast, ignoring the fact that the patient is limping from a potentially broken leg and has a family history of osteoporosis.
The imaginaries created by the ed-tech sector play a significant role in shaping public perception of education’s problems. However, drawing on Annette Markham’s research on the limits of imagination in digital contexts, we can see how ed-tech companies employ similar patterns of “discursive closure” that effectively narrowing the scope of possible solutions to educational problems. The ed-tech sector’s narrative often embodies technological determinism, presenting digital solutions as an inevitable evolution of education. This framing creates a false dilemma: either embrace ed-tech or be left behind in an outdated system. As Markham observes, such rhetoric leads to a situation where “alternatives are limited as we repeatedly tell ourselves and others that we have no control.” This disqualifies educators, students, and communities from meaningful participation in shaping educational futures, positioning them as mere recipients of technological progress rather than active co-creators. This “discursive closure” acts like a harmful prescription masquerading as a cure. Instead of opening up possibilities for addressing deep-seated educational challenges, ed-tech’s narrative constrains our collective imagination. It prevents us from critically examining the fundamental assumptions about learning, knowledge, and the purpose of education that underlie current systems. By limiting our ability to envision radically different educational futures, ed-tech not only misdiagnoses the problems in education but also obstructs the path to finding genuine, transformative solutions.
As I draw this blog post to a close, I want to take a moment to pause and ask: why does the premise that education is fundamentally broken resonate so deeply with us? Perhaps it’s because we all, at some point, have felt let down by the system. We’ve experienced its flaws, its rigidities, its seeming inability to keep up with our rapidly changing world. In that shared frustration, the siren song of ed-tech’s promises becomes all too alluring. Education, like any human institution, is naturally imperfect. It bears the scars of historical inequities, struggles under the weight of societal expectations, and continues to falter in its noble mission of helping human beings become flourishing members of society. However, to leap from acknowledging these challenges to accepting ed-tech’s oversimplified and narrow view of education is dangerous. We must resist the easy answers and ask even harder questions: What if the problem isn’t that education hasn’t changed, but that it hasn’t been allowed to evolve organically? What if true individualized learning isn’t about adaptive software, but about diverse learning environments that honor each learner’s uniqueness? The future of education is too important to be left to those who see it primarily as a market opportunity. It’s time for educators, learners, parents, and communities to take back the reins and craft a vision of education that honors human complexity. The ed-tech sector has had its say. Now it’s our turn to imagine, innovate, and build the educational future.
(https://www.allposters.com/-sp/B-Frederic-Skinner-at-Harvard-Training-Rat-in-Skinner-Box-to-Press-Lever-and-Be-Rewarded-Posters_i3777917_.htm)
I didn’t see a word limit for this post so apologies if it’s longer than you anticipated!
Thank you for all your guidance so far. I really appreciate your feedback on my last post. It’s been over a decade since I was in a university setting and I think it’s going to take a while for me to get the hang of this. I can imagine that in your position, giving feedback at a distance, it can be a bit of a balancing act so as not to totally overwhelm us! 🙂
I could not get my act together in time to start using Zotero. I will take a look at it between now and the next CIDE blog post. Hopefully it’s still clear which readings and sources I’m referencing in this post.
How is my participation going in terms of how I’m being graded? I’m having a lot of fun, though I am finding it difficult to keep up momentum during the week in order to have good discussions with folks before I get round to writing my CIDE blog post on a Sunday. I want to fulfil all the aspects of the course to get the most out of it for myself, and also because I might need good results in order to pursue more postgraduate opportunities.
Also, looking ahead at our final essay, may I submit an outline or a first draft to you before handing in the final thing?
Well, colour me impressed Melissa. Great work on this and a really strong narrative and critical voice emerging here that I would only encourage you to further develop. This all has the makings of something significant so please do carry forward with this same level of critique and enthusiasm. It should serve you well on the programme.
Bear in mind that the feedback I provide is for you to review, reflect, and then incorporate or discard as needed. We aren’t expecting you to action everything to be sure. Just do the best you can and if your first two blog posts are any indication, you will do fine!
As for final essay, I can comment on an outline, but not a draft. But certainly happy to point you in the right direction when that time comes.
You are doing very well so far and please don’t think because you engage a bit later in the week that you aren’t engaging. This will slow down a bit soon in terms of what is expected but I promise you are doing well. Zotero is an ongoing thing so just keep at it a bit as it will pay off later. I mention citations in the feedback below but Zotero sorts all of that out.
As well as provide a bit of feedback below, I would also like to encourage you to see if you can incorporate the readings from the course (as you did) with additional readings and research. The fact that you were linking out to other resources is encouraging: continue with that and explore the affordances of the genre we are working in. Hyperlinks, however simple and commonplace, have real narrative impact. The image you provided does much the same narratively (although be sure to provide a citation).
A few foundational readings that you might store away for later use:
Bayne, S. (2014). What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2014.915851
Friesen, N. 2013. “Educational Technology and the ‘New Language of Learning’: Lineage and Limitations.” In The Politics of Education and Technology: Conflicts, Controversies and Connections, edited by N. Selwyn and K. Facer, 21–38. London: Palgrave.
Both, despite being older, do an excellent job of laying out the field, the language being discursively employed, and introduce the idea of instrumentalism and essentialism. Two important terms that you will likely return to on the course and on the programme.
Your overall premise for the post I believe is as follows: ‘Thus, the ed-tech industry’s diagnosis of education must meet a higher bar than mere opinion: to be considered ‘valid,’ its diagnosis needs to be both factual and holistic.’ Indeed, that would be a welcome goal to reach, that these claims are interrogated (along with the technology itself) and some holistic understanding of how the technology fits within the larger educational system is needed (this goes back to the Friesen reading above and the idea of instrumentalism, which is most decidedly not holistic!).
Good that you are drawing on the readings and the discussions from our course; this is why we emphasise participation across the different mediums presented as it does inform subsequent critical work. My only suggestion here is to get in the habit of inline citations, which include the page number if it is a quote (paraphrasing doesn’t require it). So we use Harvard referencing system but are happy if you just are consistent with this. This isn’t a critique but rather a nudge to allow all this writing to make it a reflexive practice. It will come in handy later!
Re: critique of Baicizhan’s and its ‘reductionist view fails to acknowledge the multifaceted nature of language acquisition, which is deeply rooted in social, cultural, and economic contexts’
Completely agree but I wonder if the discursive issue here is the presentation of these technologies as singular, almost essentialist (see Friesen article again!) entities capable (almost single-handedly) of radical transformation or outputs or gains. Rather than actors in a larger ensemble of educational purpose? So I guess what I am asking here is whether they are useful if the discourse surrounding their use is changed: we complement rather than supplant the complexity of the language learning process and the education taking place around that.
Good work on picking up on the Skinner box similarities here: ‘Many modern ed-tech solutions, particularly those focused on gamification and instant feedback, bear a striking resemblance to these Skinner boxes. Yet behavioral psychology and action-reward principles are conspicuously absent from the narrative ed-tech advocates promote about their technology.’
I do wonder about this myself. Are these omissions of behavioural psychology betraying an ignorance that they are indeed present? Or is behaviourism itself considered the lesser form of learning (as compared to cognitive approaches)? Maybe a better way to say this is how far does behaviourism get you with learning? When do the behavioural approaches bound in these technologies cease to provide utility? But you are right in suggesting that gamification, automated and instantaneous feedback, badges, nudges, pokes, are all instances of behaviourism looking to make use of extrinsic motivation. My suggestion here is to keep a close eye on how edtech application use behaviourism (as opposed to the messiness of constructivism, dialogue, and what is generally considered to be higher order cognitive processes).
OK, I will stop now. Great work Melissa and I am really enjoying this exchange so far!
Thank you for your feedback, Michael! I hope you are well. I read your feedback first thing yesterday morning, but then the day got away from me massively and I didn’t get round to replying—my husband had a mild cardiac event and we spent the day at the hospital. He is okay now, but if things take a turn for the worse, I might have to pause my studies. I’m sincerely hoping we won’t get to that point. I am really enjoying this course. Getting into the readings now! I’ll reach out if I have any questions concerning your feedback!