Reflecting on Ed Tech Lessons Learned from the U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment: What Resonates Today?
Civics of Tech Announcements
Civics of Tech Parent Testimonials, by 11/1/24 - Read Allie’s blog post and click here by November 1, 2024 to submit your testimonial about how educational technologies are manifesting in your child(ren)’s schooling.
Monthly Tech Talk on Tuesday, 11/05/24. Join our monthly tech talks to discuss current events, articles, books, podcast, or whatever we choose related to technology and education. There is no agenda or schedule. Our next Tech Talk will be on Tuesday, November 5th, 2024 at 8-9pm EST/7-8pm CST/6-7pm MST/5-6pm PST. Learn more on our Events page and register to participate.
Book Club, Tuesday, 12/17/24 @ 8 EST - We’re reading Access Is Capture: How Edtech Reproduces Racial Inequality by Roderic N. Crooks. Charles Logan is hosting, so register now to reserve your spot!
Spring Book Clubs - The next two book clubs are now on the schedule and you can register for them on the events page. On February 18th, Allie Thrall will be leading a discussion of The Propagandists' Playbook. And on April 10th Dan Krutka will be leading a discussion of Building the Innovation School, written by our very own CoT Board Member Phil Nichols.
by Natalie Milman
As an educational technology researcher, I spend a lot of my time reading research, like most other researchers. And, like many researchers, I also allocate considerable time for reviewing articles for consideration of publication in my role as the co-editor of the Current Practice section of the journal, Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, as well as a board member of and reviewer for several other educational technology journals. I do this service largely because I recognize the importance of contributing to scholarship that is shared (i.e., published)—after all research should not happen in a vacuum; it is the duty of researchers to participate in research communities that evaluate and help improve the quality of scholarship.
Very often, however, findings from current research (published or not) echo those outlined in reports and studies from the past few decades that are often overlooked because they are considered too old to be relevant today. As a result, I often reflect on how it seems history repeats itself and how much of today’s scholarship neglects to build on—or at least learn from—the past, such as research by the defunct U.S. Congressional Office of Educational Technology (OTA) and the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow. Examining the past (including sites like Technology over Time) can help us understand the present and forecast the future, even if our world is/will be significantly different. When considering educational technology, new technologies often emerge from or as an offshoot of existing ones.
In this blog post, I share a few quotes from two OTA (1988; 1995) reports that influenced my understanding of educational technology as it relates to P-12 and teacher education. During its 23 years, OTA published many reports that are archived online. It was also a pioneer in its sharing of reports via digital means. The OTA was established in 1972 to:
provide competent, unbiased information concerning the physical, biological, economic, social, and political effects of [technological] applications” [to be used as a] “factor in the legislative assessment of matters pending before the Congress, particularly in those instances where the Federal Government may be called upon to consider support for, or management or regulation of, technological applications. (Technology Assessment Act of 1972, pp. 797-798)
Power on! New tools for teaching and learning (OTA, 1988)
In this report, the OTA investigated
the use of computer-based technologies, [analyzed] key trends in hardware and software development, [evaluated] the capability of technology to improve learning in many areas, and [explored] ways to substantially increase student access to technology. The role of the teacher, teachers’ needs for training, and the impact of Federal support for educational technology research and development [were] reviewed as well. (OTA, 1988, p. iii).
The following are some quotes from this report that we might also see in published research today:
“Regardless of the rate of investment in interactive technology and support for it, policy makers should focus their attention on four closely related areas if the technology is to move toward realizing its potential. Each of these areas affects, and is affected by, the others:
expanding the amount and capability of technology in schools to increase student access;
providing training and support for teachers;
encouraging innovation and improvement in educational software; and
supporting research, development, demonstration, and evaluation, with emphasis on ties between research and the classroom” (p. 4)
“One of the most obvious questions about using interactive technologies in schools is ‘Does it work?’ (p. 41).
“How much do new instructional technologies cost? Are they worth the investment? These are not academic questions, but have important practical consequences” (p. 69).
“Training with computers is an ongoing process that takes place at varying levels, depending upon the teacher’s responsibilities and the way the technology is to be used. Teachers need opportunities for practice with the computer, with continuing support from trainers or computer-using peers” (p. 88).
“the teacher is central to full development of technology use in education. Teachers are not the problem, and without them there can be no solution” (p. 114).
“Educational technology R&D requires interdisciplinary research, pulling together expertise in cognitive science, artificial intelligence, computer science, anthropology and sociology, psychology, instructional design, and education” (p. 152).
“Information technologies have transformed the worlds of business, science, entertainment, the military, government, law, banking, travel, medicine, and agriculture. The question is whether they will make as deep a mark on classroom learning— and how” (p. 200).
In contrast, there are some findings in the 1988 OTA report that are quite different from today, especially as it relates to screen time and cellphone bans:
“on average, computer-using students spend only about 1 hour per week on the computer” (p. 34) – in comparison today’s children and teens have several hours of screen time (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2023)
“Teachers believe that technology eases some aspects of classroom management. There are reports that students engrossed in computers pose fewer discipline and absenteeism problems” (p. 14). On the other hand, Prothero et al. (2024) provided information about which states that have banned or limited cell phones in classrooms.
Teachers and technology: Making the connection. (OTA, 1995)
In this report, the OTA addressed some important questions that many of us are still asking today:
What are some of the reasons teachers do not use technology? What happens when they do use technology? What factors influence technology integration in schools? What roles do schools, districts, states, the private sector, and the federal government play in helping teachers with new technologies? (p. iii)
The barriers (see also Tables 1 & 2, p. 19) in the report are consistent with those identified in several recent studies I have reviewed, such as: teacher time, access and cost, vision or rationale for tech use, training and support (OTA, 1995, p. 18). Below are some additional quotes that applicable in 2024:
“Helping teachers use technology effectively may be the most important step to assuring that current and future investments in technology are realized” (p. 2).
“One overarching theme emerging from the data presented throughout this chapter is the need to begin thinking differently and more critically about what constitutes ‘access’ to technology by teachers and students” (p. 122)
“If there is a single overarching lesson about the process involved in these efforts it is that effective technology implementation takes more time and effort than many anticipate when first undertaking technology initiatives” (p. 163).
“The way that new teachers are prepared is often under public scrutiny-in the media and press,12 as well as by educators themselves” (p. 169).
For the Civics of Technology community, these reports can help us understand how some things have – and have not changed in the past few decades vis-à-vis the intersection of teaching, learning, and educational technology. Additionally, these reports have technosolutionist (Morozov, 2013) language that continues to be prevalent in the present day. Reading these reports and highlighting quotes that are/are not currently pertinent and/or technosolutionist can cultivate discussions about change and innovation over time.
References
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2023, May 30). Constantly connected: How media use can affect your child. HealthyChildren.org. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/family-life/Media/Pages/Adverse-Effects-of-Television-Commercials.aspx
Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. Public Affairs.
Prothero, A., Langreo, L., Klein, A. (2024, June 28). Which states ban or restrict cellphones in schools? A look at statewide laws and policies on cellphones in schools. EducationWeek. https://www.edweek.org/technology/which-states-ban-or-restrict-cellphones-in-schools/2024/06
Technology Assessment Act of 1972 P.L. 92-484. (1972). https://www.congress.gov/92/statute/STATUTE-86/STATUTE-86-Pg797.pdf
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1988). Power on! New tools for teaching and learning. U.S. Government Printing Office. https://ota.fas.org/reports/8831.pdf
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. OTA-EHR-616. Government Printing Office. https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1995/9541/9541.PDF