Tagged: What I Believe

Tim Holt over at the Intended Consequences blog tagged me a while back with the “This I Believe” theme for educational technology. This is a good exercise, because it’s important for all of us in the education business to sit down and think for a minute as to why we’re doing all the stuff we’re doing. I can’t do as good a job at this as Tim has, but I’ll give it a shot:

- I believe that computers and related technology are not necessary for students to learn in school, but they make certain things easier for both students and teachers (if they know what they’re doing), and often add a higher level of interest and excitement for the students.

- I believe that education at its most basic level is communication; that education cannot take place without communication. In that regard, any technology/device that enhances or propels communication can (and probably will) be appropriated by stakeholders for educational purposes.

- The most intriguing form of educational technology to me is the instructional videogame. I believe that placing learning objectives within a gaming environment can open venues for students, including recalcitrant ones, otherwise unavailable. As such, educational gaming offers a nifty tool for teachers in the encouragement of their students toward attaining certain objectives, including some not easily assessed on standardized exams.

- I believe there is no one “cure-all” or panacea for teachers to get their students to obtain higher test scores. Any company offering such is selling a fake bill of goods. What does lead to higher test scores includes good teaching by the teachers and good studying by the students. To wit: the technology or software or program is not necessarily what causes higher scores directly; rather, it is the teacher and the students using the product that results in higher scores. With that in mind, I firmly believe educational technology can and often does play a significant role in this process, and many products can help teachers and students in attaining those scores.

- Finally, I have learned a bit about educational research in the pursuit of my doctorate. I think the majority of debate regarding research would disappear if those arguing understood the basics of research and its implications. To wit: researchers in the social sciences can never “prove” anything, only add to the body of research supporting one conclusion or another. In that regard, the “soft sciences” are weaker than the “hard sciences,” but the notion behind understanding research precludes accepting any statement without question. This can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the educator. So, anyone who claims research “proves” a component of educational technology is beneficial in some way (or, conversely, detrimental) should be considered suspect. What one should say is, research supports the use of a particular technology (or does not support it). Nothing is ever “proven” in the social sciences.