Science, Vision, or Advocacy? Who Shapes the Future of Education Technology?

Session Leader: Marianne Bakia, Project Director
Federation of American Scientists

If the United States fails to embark on a well-managed, long-term research and development agenda for education technologies, it risks wasting the billions it invests annually on infrastructure and may fail to capture many potential rewards. Several major studies of the future of US education highlight the need for an aggressive information technology research and development program to advance education and training in the United States (see http://fas.org/learn/calls.htm). The current Federal portfolio is, in fact, very small relative to other industries and relative to education expenditures. The United States designated about $50 million in research specific to civilian uses of educational technology in Fiscal Year 2000. The funds were spread across 5 agencies and multiple programs within each agency (Bakia 2002). The Department of Defense, on the other hand, invested more than $150 million a year, mostly in high-end simulations and cognitive tutors, although little effort is made to channel these advances to the wider education and training communities. Despite the relatively low-levels of funding, these programs have made important contributions to the knowledge regarding educational technology efficacy.

But a low-level of funding is not the only problem faced by US education technology research programs. The research portfolio is unbalanced in many ways. Funds are heavily weighted toward late-stage development and implementation projects. Supported projects are usually small-scale, and rarely replicated. Assessment tools are often very rudimentary, and projects often leave little more than anecdotes. In addition, the education research community is often isolated from software and management innovations in business and government that could have direct bearing on education research - such as the design and use of advanced simulation techniques and inquiry management systems - and links between cognitive science and information science are weak. As a result, we do not know nearly enough about what is possible, what works, why, when, or with whom.

Despite the recognized need for more and multifaceted research and development of educational technologies, the climate in the U.S. seems to be getting worse instead of better. The reasons for a decline in support for the research and development of educational technologies are multiple and complex, but the following list is illustrative: administrative and organizational barriers to the adoption of technology within schools; over-promising short-term gains to educational technology and subsequent skepticism about the utility of technology in education; limited respect for educational research; difficulty in realizing synergies across disciplines and across education and training systems; and, absence of passionate lobbies. To re-energize stakeholders and advance the necessary educational technology research agenda, educational technologists need to: develop and communicate a coherent vision about the potential of education technologies; provide evidence that progress is possible and a plan for going forward; and bolster advocacy for the vision and proposed course of action.¹ Each of these requirements is discussed briefly below. Questions for discussion are collected at the end of the paper.

Vision

"Vision" refers to some compelling picture or story of what could be "if only." Because education is largely a public, community practice, it can be very difficult to come to consensus about goals. Nevertheless, the President's Information Technology Advisory Council (PITAC) offers a vision for the transformation of education through the application of technology. "Expected improvements in technology hold the promise of dramatic, paradigm-shifting ways of making far more ambitious content available and having new forms of communication and collaboration between learners and instructors that may make today's practices obsolete" (PITAC 2001). What can we say about what these new paradigms might look like? What are the critical questions that must be answered if we are to make advances? If researchers are successful, what can we expect in 5 or 10 years?

Science

"Science" as used here refers to theoretical foundations of why technology should make a difference and evidence that some things do in fact work. This combination of theory and evidence supports the case that progress toward the vision is possible. If it was not theoretically possible to put a man on the moon, and no one had any success in launching rockets, it's safe to say that the nation would not have devoted phenomenal time and resources toward putting a man on the moon. What theories do the educational technology community rely on to advance its work? What evidence is there that current tools and/or systems are effective?

One thing that probably unites educational technologists is an emphasis on tools, but this doesn't have to mean that technology is advanced for technology's sake. Tool-building is an applied science that can and should embody insights from learning theory and address a variety of extremely difficult problems in information management, cognitive science, psychometrics and assessment, and instructional design. Focusing on these applied problems is likely to lead to new basic research questions. How might basic research dovetail with targeted applied programs?

The education community will have to expend considerable effort to develop the necessary physical and technical infrastructure and know-how to manage an aggressive program of research of this magnitude, although models do exist in other domains. Given the limitations of the current educational technology research and development portfolio discussed above, if new money became available, what are the critical elements of supplemental programs? How should new programs be managed? What are the models that the US edtech community can turn to? Are there compatible roles for the public and private sectors?

Advocacy

"Advocacy" suggests that stakeholders, whether motivated by personal gain or public good, solicit support more directly from decision-makers. The educational technology community today is at a critical juncture. Among educators, there appears to be a growing skepticism that technology can make a meaningful contribution to educational practices, and among policymakers there is some sense that the private-sector ought to be able to do what's necessary to create quality products for schools. Although many groups list educational technology research and development among their priorities, it is often number 8 of 10, and rarely becomes a priority in discussions with policymakers. Even the private-sector groups directly involved with the creation and sale of software products for schools cannot be counted upon to lobby for more research and development. The educational technology market is so tenuous at the moment that they are most focused on finding ways to generate demand for their products right now, whereas research and development are by definition longer-term ventures.

How can those in the government, military, business, and research and teaching communities find common voice to define the goals of educational technology and agree on a process for getting there?

Questions for Discussion:

• What can we say about what these new paradigms might look like? What are the critical questions that must be answered if we are to make advances? If researchers are successful, what can we expect in 5 or 10 years?
• What theories do the educational technology community rely on to advance its work? What evidence is there that current tools and/or systems are effective?
• Given the limitations of the current educational technology research and development portfolio discussed above, what are the critical elements of a new system? How should the program be managed? What are the models that the US edtech community can turn to? Are there compatible roles for the public and private sectors? How might basic research dovetail with targeted applied programs?
• How can those in the government, military, business, and research and teaching communities find common voice to define the goals of educational technology and agree on a process for getting there?

Bibliography:

Bakia, M (2002). Survey of International Investment in Educational Technology Research and Development. Washington, D.C.: Federation of American Scientists.

President's Committee of Advisors for Science and Technology: Panel on Educational Technology (1997). Report to the President. New York: Author.

President's Information Technology Advisory Committee: Panel on Transforming Learning (2001). Report to the President: Using Information Technology to Transform the Way We Learn. Washington, D.C.: National Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and Development.

¹Thanks to Dr. Henry Kelly, President of the Federation of American Scientists, for his intellectual leadership in encouraging robust educational technology research and development.