Opening keynote provided during the 15th EATEL Summerschool on Technology-Enhanced Learning on 3 June 2019 in Bari, Italy.

1. Unintended consequences of
mainstreaming of technology-enhanced
learning in a digitised society
Prof. Dr. Marco Kalz
Professor of technology-enhanced learning
Heidelberg University of Education
kalz@ph-heidelberg.de
15th EATEL Summerschool on Technology-Enhanced Learning
June 3rd, 2019
Bari, Italy

2. The digitised society
2
The term ‘digitised society’ refers to a society that
is dependent on digital technologies, software,
platforms, media and social and digital networks
for interaction, connectedness, both at work and
in people’s everyday lives. This implies a society
characterised by an ongoing and increased
digitisation and more advanced technologies.
Fransson, 2016
3. June 2019

3. Signs of mainstreaming of TEL
3
• Many political efforts in Europe for technology
adoption in education
• Huge investments in many member states
– German digital concerted action: 5 billion EUR
investment
– Dutch VSNU program digital society etc.
• Use of digital technology has become part of
many school curricula
• Political regulations
3. June 2019

4. 4
Conditions for mainstreaming TEL
3. June 2019

5. 5
Conditions for mainstreaming TEL
Digital Economy and Society Index 2018
3. June 2019

6. 6
Conditions for mainstreaming TEL
Digital Economy and Society Index 2018
3. June 2019

7. 7
„Paradox of mainstreaming (…) refers to an
apparent contradiction between upscaling …
innovations (…), and the concerns for a loss
of core values and principles (…) in the
mainstreaming process”
Pant, 2016
The paradox of mainstreaming
3. June 2019

8. 8
9 core values/principles in the
light of mainstreaming of TEL
3. June 2019

9. Terminological/conceptual issues
9
Terminological and
conceptual issues
3. June 2019

10. Terminological fuzzyness
10
Elearning, E-Learning, technology-enhanced
learning, educational technology, advanced
learning technology, EduTech, EdTech,
digital learning, digital education, education
and learning in digital environments,
education and learning under the conditions
of digitisation etc.
3. June 2019

11. TEL as a research domain
11
Technology-Enhanced Learning was
established as a concept to
• overcome the limitations of the technology-
centric „electronic learning methaphor“ (E-
Learning)
• to stress that technology is an enhancement,
but learning in itself remains learning
3. June 2019

12. TEL as a research domain
12
• to fully embrace the interdisciplinary potential
of latest findings from education, psychology
and computer science
• to not only use but also to create technological
artifacts
• Enhancement implies improvement (Kirkwood
& Price, 2013)
3. June 2019

13. TEL as a research domain
13
Technology-enhanced learning encompasses
the development and application of (latest)
technologies based on educational theories and
theories of learning to validate the impact on
effectiveness, efficiency and accessibility.
3. June 2019

14. Criticism on the TEL paradigm (Bayne, 2015)
14
Technology-enhanced learning „has been
adopted as an apparently useful, inoffensive
and descriptive shorthand for what is in fact a
complex and often problematic constellation of
social, technological and educational change“.
3. June 2019

15. 15
• Technology decoupled from social realities
• Technology as an actor in the network
(Latour)
• Reducing education to learning
Criticism on the TEL paradigm (Bayne, 2015)
3. June 2019

16. 16
• Over-optimistic rhetoric
• Reform overwrites reform
• Always backed up by market interest
(EdTech as example)
Criticism on the TEL domain (Al Lily..Kalz, et al, 2017 )
3. June 2019

17. Determinism in TEL
17
Inherent determinism
of technology-
enhanced learning
3. June 2019

18. 18
Technological determinism
3. June 2019

19. 19
Technological determinism
3. June 2019

20. Technological determinism (Chandler,
1995)
• Reductionism: Mono-causality
• Reification: homogeneous traits
• Technological autonomy
• Neutrality of technology
20
Technological determinism
3. June 2019

21. Social determinism
• Ignoring/denying the influence of
technology
• Overestimating agency
• Ignoring that technologies are made
by people
21
Social determinism
3. June 2019

22. 22
Non-deterministic approaches
3. June 2019

23. Blurred lines and targets
23
Blurred lines and
targets
3. June 2019

24. Blurred targets
24
• Traditional goal: Use of technology to
make learning more efficient, effective or
accessible.
• Public discourse now: Digitization as a
value on its own!
• Environment argument: Due to the further
digitization of the society, education needs
to use more digital technologies
3. June 2019

25. Holistic assumptions
25
• What works in context x, also works in
context y.
• Educational science as „Hard-to-do-
science“ Berliner (2002): ”Doing science
and implementing scientific findings are so
difficult in education because humans in
schools are embedded in complex and
changing networks of social interaction”.
3. June 2019

26. Equivalency assumptions
26
• Assumption: The digitization of
administration, research and
teaching/learning can be subsumed under
one process
• In reality, these are three processes with
very different actors, goals and steps
• No common innovation model behind
3. June 2019

27. Reduction instead of enhancement
27
• Digitization is often discussed as
replacement instead of enhancement (for
example with economic effects)
• The scientific community has always tried to
improve learning to enhance possibilities and
learning opportunitites
3. June 2019

28. Beware of…. the discourse
28
Beware of…. the
discourse
3. June 2019

29. Philanthropy
29
Philanthropy is influencing the public and
political discourse
3. June 2019

30. Philanthrophy
30
Jack Ma on the future of education at the World Economic Forum 2018
Disclaimer: Edited by me
3. June 2019

31. Unintended effects on teachers
31
Qualitative study by Fransson et al. (2018)
shows the paradoxical situation of teachers
due to the debate about the digital society
• Advantageous use of digital technologies
depends on personality factors and
competences
• The debate about digitization can influence
the self-perception of teachers negatively
3. June 2019

32. TEL research
Zawacki-Richter & Latchem, 2018
3. June 2019

33. TEL research
Zawacki-Richter & Latchem, 2018
3. June 2019

34. TEL research
Where are our
institutions on our
research agenda?
3. June 2019

35. 35
A new identity for
interdisciplinarity in
technology-enhanced
learning
TEL and Interdisciplinarity
3. June 2019

36. TEL and Interdisciplinarity
36
Meltzoff et al., 2009
3. June 2019

37. 37
Technology-enhanced
learning
Psychology
Educational Sciences
Computer Science
TEL and Interdisciplinarity
3. June 2019

38. 38
Technology-enhanced
learning
Educational Sciences
• Educational theories
• Didactics
• Instructional theories
• Anchor domain
• Policy background
TEL and Interdisciplinarity
3. June 2019

39. 39
Technology-enhanced
learning
• Educational psychology
• Cognitive theories
• Theories of knowledge
acquisition
• Social psychology
• Methodological foundation
Psychology
TEL and Interdisciplinarity
3. June 2019

40. 40
Technology-enhanced
learning
• Artifact development and
adaptation
• Methodological foundation
• User-driven development
• Standardisation
Computer science
TEL and Interdisciplinarity
3. June 2019

41. 41
Kalz & Specht, 2014
TEL and Interdisciplinarity
3. June 2019

42. 42
TEL and Interdisciplinarity
3. June 2019

43. 43
ResponsibleResearch
andInnovation
Technology
Assessment
Ethics
Science,
Technology, Society
Grunwald, 2011
TEL and Interdisciplinarity
3. June 2019

44. 44
NWO MVI, 2018
TEL and Interdisciplinarity
3. June 2019

45. 45
Joss & Belucci, 2002
Participatory technology assessment
3. June 2019

46. 46
Ethics
Research Ethics vs. Ethics of Technology
3. June 2019

47. TEL and the digital divide
47
TEL and the digital divide
3. June 2019

48. 48
Worldbank, 2016
TEL and the digital divide
3. June 2019

49. 49
• SES (socio-economic status) & access to
internet/technology
Roswell, Morrell, & Alvermann, 2017
TEL and the digital divide
3. June 2019

50. 50
Social exclusion
Rapid technological change will lead to
increased exclusion of weaker societal
groups
• due to later access to technology
• due to less skills to handle the new
technology
• due to a general lack of SRL-skills
3. June 2019

51. 51
Social exclusion
Van Winden, 2001
3. June 2019

52. 52
Social reproduction/Social stratification
Education report Germany, 2016
3. June 2019

53. 53
 Warschauer (2003) as alternative to the
divide metaphor a social inclusion
methaphor:
„(T)he ability to access, adapt and create
new knowledge using new information and
communication technology is critical to
social inclusion in today´s era“ (Warschauer,
2003)
TEL and the digital divide
3. June 2019

54. Research-practice gap
54
The gap between
research and practice
3. June 2019

55. 55
Why should I bother with practice problems?
Why should I bother with science?
Research-practice gap
3. June 2019

56.  Too little impact of TEL research on
practice
 Structural division between research
context and practice context
 High amount of experimental research,
low transfer to practice
 Optimalisation problem between internal
validity and ecological validity?
56
Research-practice gap
3. June 2019

57. 57
DBR vs. Predictive Research (Reeves, 2006)
3. June 2019

58. 1. Design of learning environments and
development of (proto-)theories are
aligned
2. Research and development through
cyclic processes of design,
implementation, data collection,
interpretation and redesign
3. Design in authentic context
58
5 aspects of DBR (DBRC, 2003)
3. June 2019

59. 4. Use of standardized methods
5. Goal: Sharable theories with relevancy
for practice and research
59
5 aspects of DBR (DBRC, 2003)
13. February 2019

60. DBR criticism (Orngreen, 2015)
• Methodological overload (Dede,
2004)
• Researcher is too much involved with
the outcome
• Cyclic development leads to
uncomparable cycles
6013. February 2019

61. • Too linear view on the learning
process (Engeström, 2011)
• Too much focus on artifacts and fast
„solutions“ (Dede, 2004)
• How can we describe and exchange
designs? (Reimann, 2006)
61
DBR criticism (Orngreen, 2015)
13. February 2019

62. 62
Implementation Science 4 TEL
Tabak et al., 2012
13. February 2019

63. Objectification and reductionism
63
Avoid objectification
and reductionism of
technology
13. February 2019

64. 64
• Technology as a “discrete force with a
discernible direction and influence”
(Pannabecker, 1991)
• Berry (2014) “The digital world is increasingly
creating destabilizing amounts of dis-embedded
knowledge, information and processing
capabilities that undermine the enlightenment
subject “
13. February 2019
Objectification and reductionism

65. 65
1. Bring your own device practices in school
2. Mobile learning vs. personal notification
preferences
3. Search and information evaluation tasks in
personalised search engines
13. February 2019
Objectification and reductionism

66. 66
Neo-liberal policy making
and disconnect to education
13. February 2019

67. A lot of public discourse and policy-
making relates to learning, but not
education
• First we disagreggate competences
to stress STEM
• Then we aggregate everything back
together and call it 21st century skills
67
Learning is not education
13. February 2019

68. 6813. February 2019
Learning is not education
„individuals are made responsible for their
education, their professional development
and for finding and keeping a job.
Practically, individuals need to run their life
as a business to attain the goal of keeping
their skills up-to-date Mikelatou & Arvanitis, 2018

69. 6913. February 2019
Learning is not education
• Holistic (academic) education
• Humanistic approach
• Bildung
• Disconnected from a direct purpose
(e.g. job related)
• Integration of research and teaching

70. 70
Conclusions
3. June 2019

71. 71
Conclusions (1/4)
TEL needs to function as catalyst for new
technologies
• to evaluate their impact on learning,
education and society
• to understand the implementation context
• to assess the interaction of users
• to estimate long-term effects
3. June 2019

72. 72
To contribute to the discussion around the
digital society we need to…
1. be more critical towards deterministic
positions
2. widen our understanding of technology
3. widen the understanding of interdisciplinarity
and include principles of responsible
research and innovation (RRI)
Conclusions (2/4)
3. June 2019

73. 73
4. work as closely with practitioners as
possible and establish mutual trust
5. establish a new culture of implementation
science in TEL
6. Strengthen alliances between
subcommunities
Conclusions (3/4)
3. June 2019

74. 74
7. Develop an inclusive research agenda
focusing on social reproduction and
exclusion mechanisms of TEL
8. Use our institutions for research
9. Increase awareness about a holistic
understanding of education rather than
emphasizing only skills for the labour
market
Conclusions (4/4)
3. June 2019

75. Mainstreaming vs. Sidestreaming
75
Mainstreaming Sidestreaming
Centralised processes Decentral expertise development
Clear cause-effects relations Chances for local developments
Standardisation of technology Technological diversity
Less support through standards Support structures
Heeks, 2010
3. June 2019

76. Epistemological dimension
76
The enactment of digital
technologies in education has
ontological and epistemological
implications for the educational
system that schools, teachers and
pupils need to relate to.
Fransson, 2016
3. June 2019

77. 77
We need to ask not only what
technologies can do, but where they
fail in relation to our expectations of
education.
Hamilton & Friesen, 2013
Epistemological dimension
3. June 2019

78. 78
kalz@ph-heidelberg.de
http://twitter.com/mkalz
Thank you!
3. June 2019