1

Running Head: NOT A MAGIC BULLET

Not a Magic Bullet: Technology in Education

Kristine B. Robertson
Western Oregon University
 2
NOT A MAGIC BULLET

Not a Magic Bullet: Technology in Education

A few years ago I started a new ESL teaching job and, as part of the orientation, attended

an Intro to the Smartboard session. After being given a demonstration, we were encouraged to

spread out through the classrooms and give Smartboards a go. I played around with one for a

while, and then asked the presenter why she thought Smartboards were a good idea. Her reply

was, Because theyre cool, and the students will be impressed with our tech. I am afraid that,

as a busy teacher, this answer did not cut it for me. Actually, I had a lot of experience using

Smartboards in my previous workplace. In that job I was commended for my good use of the

Smartboard. I wanted to say, You do realize that everything Ive used it for could equally well

have been done on an overhead projector, but instead I smiled, said thank you, and accepted the

(metaphorical) gold star on my observation report.

It is likely because of these experiences that I am extremely suspicious when the claim is

made that technology will transform education. Smartboards certainly did not, by their mere

presence, transform my teaching! Whether it be Smartboards, MOOCs, personalized learning,

various apps, or Google docs, enthusiasts often give the impression that whatever is new and

shiny will bring about radical (positive) change in teaching and learning. The enthusiasm can be

sensed in headlines such as The Stanford Education Experiment Could Change Higher Learning

Forever (Leckart, 2012), iPads Improve Classroom Learning, Study Finds (Handwerk, 2013),

and New Tech in Tennessee That Could Supercharge Education (Toschi, 2016). These

headlines give the impression that technological innovations have an innate ability to improve

student learning. I would contend, however, that technology is not a magic bullet that will

automatically transform education; rather, it is a powerful force which, in the hands of skillful

and wise educators, can be used to help students learn.

 3
NOT A MAGIC BULLET

Paperts Vision

One of the classic writers on the topic of technology and education is Seymour Papert. In

Mindstorms (1980), Papert articulated a vision of how computers, and specifically programs such

as Logo, can be used to profoundly influence how children think and learn. He saw computers

as allowing children to experience and appropriate math and physics concepts in a way that was

not possible until the development of computers. These theoretical concepts are typically taught

through propositional thinking, but with computers, students are able to experience them directly

and at a much younger age. According to Papert, another significant benefit of Logo

programming is that it allows students to take greater control of their learning. When students

learn to program, they have the opportunity to do something concrete and to become active

participants in their learning. They are given power over what is being learned.

Paperts vision is one where computer technology leads to huge changes in teaching and

learning. He saw in computing potential for groundbreaking changes: students would no longer

be passive recipients of information, rather they would be active participants. However, Papert

himself was aware that it was entirely possible that computers would not be used in the way he

desired. He warned that

[t]he computer by itself cannot change the existing institutional assumptions...For those

who would like to see change, the price of inaction will be to see the least desirable

features of the status quo exaggerated and even more firmly entrenched. (p. 189)

Papert here argues that educators must take action to ensure that computers are used in

transformative ways; otherwise, they will only be used to shore up educations status quo. It

seems that Paperts warning went unheeded for some time. Certainly this is the picture painted

by Larry Cuban in Oversold and Underused (2001). Cubans 2001 book surveys the use of
 4
NOT A MAGIC BULLET

technology at various educational levels and finds that when technology was used at all, it was

mostly used quite conservatively. For example, computers were used to drill math facts or serve

as glorified typewriters. Rare was the teacher who used technology to teach in a fundamentally

different way. More recently, with the advent of the maker movement things have shifted in

the direction that Papert had hoped for. Mark Hatch describes this movement in The Maker

Movement Manifesto (2014). He explains that because the cost of both computer and

manufacturing technologies has been significantly reduced in recent years, it is now possible for

individuals to create physical objects. This means that many more people have the opportunity

to invent, tinker, and explore entrepreneurship than previously. In education, these maker

technologies can potentially be harnessed for hands-on activities, student-led creation, and

collaborative approaches to learning. Thus, perhaps it is best to see Paperts ideas as just now

emerging into mainstream culture and education.

Bonks open world

A more recent proponent of educational technology is Curtis Bonk. In The World is

Open, Bonk (2009) surveys a wide array of technological possibilities, from personalized

learning to open source software, from learning management systems to digital repositories.

Bonks book bubbles with enthusiasm for the changes that technology will bring. He focuses

almost unwaveringly on future possibilities saying Dont look back. The educational world of

your parents and grandparents no longer exists (p. 22). He is most enthusiastic about what he

calls the fourth wave of educational technology, that which makes use of Web 2.0 technologies

for sharing ideas and thoughts. He says: It is the sudden trend toward sharing educational

resourcesthat is fueling change in education and opening new doors to optimism and human

potential (p. 15). The assumption here is that more is more. As we share and access more
 5
NOT A MAGIC BULLET

information, more options, more technology, more everything, all of this will add up to more

learning. And, the assumption is that more is better.

But more has its downsides. I remember returning to the US after teaching in rural

Ukraine and feeling completely overwhelmed in the toothpaste aisle of my local drugstore.

There must have been at least 50 options for toothpaste. I stood there paralyzed. A few flavors

and formulations would have sufficed. The vast array of information, tools, and options Bonk

presents is similarly overwhelming. In education, quality, not quantity, is what counts. It is not

necessarily learning more that matters; it is learning those things that matter well. To be fair,

many of the technologies Bonk describes are exciting. Virtual trips to the British Museum would

be fantastic for a unit on ancient Egypt, tutorials on how to troubleshoot your vacuum cleaner are

imminently practical for graduate students on limited budgets, and collaborative activities with

another class halfway around the world are superb for developing communication skills and

providing cross-cultural experiences. But the abundance of opportunities available provides a

new challenge for teachers, that of how to spot gimmicks and instead use technology in ways

that will lead to deep, consequential learning.

Bonk himself does (occasionally and briefly) recognize that this technological age

presents challenges. Among the issues he identifies are web access (generally), access for the

disabled, quality, copyright, the dominance of English, the training of teachers in how to best use

technology, similar training of students, and the possibility of using the web for nefarious

educational goals (ISISs use comes to mind) (Bonk 2001). He identifies these potential

problems and urges various groups of readers to play their part in overcoming them. There is,

however, one huge concern is absent from his list of problems to be addressed: illiteracy. So

many of the possibilities outlined rely on decoding textfor those who cannot read, or who
 6
NOT A MAGIC BULLET

cannot read well, many of the learning opportunities he describes simply remain out of reach.

Warnings from Watters

A less optimistic view of education technology comes from Audrey Watters. In The

Monsters of Education Technology, Watters contends that there is a tension between how the

domains of computer technology and of education view the world (Watters, 2014). According to

Watters, many of the technology solutions offered by Silicon Valley reflect the Valleys highly

individualistic culture; education, however, is not merely about the individual, but also about the

formation of society. Watters views education as being fundamentally about people. For

Watters, part of being human is connectedness between people and fostering this connection is

an important task of education. In contrast, many of the teaching machines created throughout

the history of education technology reflect a more narrow view of education, one based largely

on behaviorism. These machines have been designed to provide behavior modification and

content delivery at scale. With many teaching machines, the goal is not to help people connect,

nor the formation of the person in a holistic sense; rather, it is to progress large numbers of

students through the educational assembly line at a faster rate.

Watters provides a few examples of such teaching machines. One is personalized

learning in which the computer programs the students (by taking them through a pre-determined

set of exercises) and quite possibly mines student information at the same time. Another

example is the Learning Management System (LMS) which, according to Watters,

circumscrib(es) educational possibilities by limiting instructors and students to certain types of

learning activities, primarily ones that are content- and instructor-centered (p. 19). Here we see

Paperts prediction that technologies could be used merely to shore up the status quo come true.

Instead of being used to forge new ways of knowing, computers are used for the same old
 7
NOT A MAGIC BULLET

approaches, and they possibly are used to gather student data as well.

In the midst of her rather gloomy remarks on education technology, Watters does offer a

hopeful note. Watters sees promise in Web 2.0 technologies that allow us to break from

programmed instruction (p. 103). It is in these technologies that allow for sociability and

connectedness that there is potential for positive change. In particular, she posits the idea of A

Domain of Ones Own (first pioneered at University of Mary Washington) in which students

are given their own internet domain at the beginning of their university studies, which they

develop over the course of their studies, and which belongs to them when they leave. This

allows students to take advantage of the readable/writable web and to actually own what they

have earned, the digital equivalent of a manila envelope full of kindergarten papers and projects.

Comparing the three

Of the three writers examined thus far, only Bonk has tendencies towards thinking of

technology as a magic bullet. He acknowledges possible barriers, but is optimistic that these

are easily overcome. Papert is also enthusiastic, but he realizes that technology can be used to

reinforce the status quo. He acknowledges that it is entirely possible that the new world learning

he envisions may not come to be. Watters is perhaps the most skeptical, but she acknowledges

technologys promise when used wisely.

Despite these thinkers varied tones, there are some things on which they agree. One of

these is the assertion that that the human element in education is essential. For both Papert and

Watters, education is fundamentally about people and technology should be used in a way that

peoples potential is developed. This is evident in Paperts focus on students acquiring a sense

of independence and power through programming. His concern is not primarily that students

access content; rather, it is that they are empowered to think and create in new ways. For Papert,
 8
NOT A MAGIC BULLET

education is not merely access to or presentation of content; rather, it is the construction of

knowledge in the human mind and the construction of things in the real world. Watters

concerns are quite similar to Paperts, but while Papert focuses on children programming

computers, Watters focuses on the communicative possibilities of the web for human

connectivity. For both, it is people that are at the center, not technology. Technology opens up

wonderful new possibilities, but it is not the main player on the teaching stage: that role belongs

to the student.

A second point of agreement is the authors emphasis on the huge potential of computer

technologies for creation and communication. Paperts focus is on creationspecifically on

students creating through the Logo system. Bonks focus is on the fourth wave of computer

technology which allows for sharing of thoughts, ideas, and digital things. Watters sees this

fourth wave (which she refers to as the readable/writable web) as allowing learners to create

and own their digital creations and as facilitating human connection. For all three it is creation

or communication, not merely consumption, which computer technology offers to the

educational endeavor.

Thinking about the metaphors

This vision of education technology being used for creation and communication in a

person-centered way is quite different from the idea of technology being primarily used to

simply impart information. At the root of this discussion is the question of what we are trying to

accomplish when we teach. In other words, what is education for? This, of course, is a huge

question. It is a political question, a social question, a complicated question. But it is a question

that must be asked. Before we can decide how technology can best be used in education, we

need to have some idea of what our educational goals are.

 9
NOT A MAGIC BULLET

While an in-depth exploration of a philosophy of education is outside the scope of this

essay, I think it is helpful to at least explore how the metaphors we use in talking about education

frame the conversation. The importance of metaphor is something considered by Neil Postman

in The End of Education (1995). In this book which asks big questions about the purpose of

education, Postman contends that one possible answer is the study of language, of how we use

language to create the world (p. 83). He says that [t]here is no escaping the fact that when we

form a sentence, we are creating a world. We are organizing it, making it pliable,

understandable, useful (p. 84). He then asks, Is anyone in our schools taking this seriously?

(p.84). What Postman is getting at is that the language we use shapes how we see things.

Metaphors are one of the linguistic elements we use to create a world.1

There are various metaphors we use to create our educational worlds. Postman highlights

various possibilities in a series of questions:

Is the human mind like a dark cavern (needing illumination)? A muscle (needing

exercise)? A vessel (needing filling)? A lump of clay (needing shaping)? A garden

(needing cultivation)? Or, as so many say today, is it like a computer that processes data?

And what of students? Are they patients to be cared for? Troops to be disciplined? Sons

and daughters to be nurtured? Personnel to be trained? Resources to be developed? (p.

174).

It should be readily apparent that how we answer these questions deeply impacts our view of

what education is for and of what it can or should look like. And it is crucial to note that there is

not one, but two series of questions in the quote above: one pertains to the human mind, the

other to students. The implication is that students are not merely minds: they also have bodies

1
For an in-depth consideration of metaphor see G. Lakoff and M. Johnsons Metaphors We Live By (1980).
 10
NOT A MAGIC BULLET

and relationships. This fact is something easily forgotten by those of us preoccupied with

academics and the life of the mind.

I would contend that any educational plan which calls on only one metaphor is too

limited. Embracing several metaphors creates a richer and more complete picture of what

education is about. There is no requirement to choose only one; we can choose several and hold

them in tension, or in harmony as the case may be. Maybe some are more helpful, more

applicable in certain situations than in others. Identifying the metaphors we currently employ

and discovering new ones is an important task for all who teach.

When considering the question of how technology can change education, it is essential to

consider which metaphors the technologies in question assume. While there are doubtless many

metaphors at work in the culture of educational technology, there are two which are prevalent.

The first metaphor is that of the brain as a vessel to be filled with information. This approach is

what educators sometimes refer to as content dump. Here it is assumed that access to

information is the problem, and that information simply needs to be made available to the student

so that it can be poured (or dumped) into the students brain. One example of where this

metaphor is at play is in the enthusiasm surrounding MOOCs (Massively Open Online Courses).

With a MOOC, anyone can gain access to high-quality information from universities such as

MIT. The assumption is that simply by providing access to the content, peoples brains will be

filled with knowledge. The second metaphor is that of the brain as a muscle needing exercise.

Technology tools such as brain training programs aim to improve cognition by taking the learner

through a series of exercises designed to improve their neuroplasticity, in other words, to help

the brain forge new connections.

A metaphor which would help to round out this picture is that of voice. Because of Web
 11
NOT A MAGIC BULLET

2.0 technologies, now more than ever before in history people are able express their thoughts and

ideas and publish them to the world. Students are able to express themselves, but more than this,

they can actually participate in finding solutions to real-world problems. They can have a voice

that makes a difference. In thinking about education as giving students a voice, it is important to

remember all that goes into the development of language. As children we have a long period of

watching and listening before we begin to speak. In teaching, this is paralleled by a time when

students are exposed to new information and ideas, when they observe and listen. When this

silent period is over, they begin to speak. With Web 2. Technologies, a students developing

voice can extend beyond walls of a classroom, and this voice can be one that either uses their

real, actual voice (as in audio or video recordings) or a voice mediated through text. There are

other metaphors which uncover different aspects of educating with technology, but this one is

particularly powerful because, unlike many others, it recognizes that humans are embodied

creatures. In a world of digital stuff, embodiment is something easily forgotten. This metaphor

reminds us that we are not only minds and that the whole person matters.

One final consideration in this conversation about metaphors is that of which metaphors

are most apt for describing technology itself.2 We tend to speak of technology as a tool, one of

several, which we can use in education. Indeed, in the preceding paragraphs I have used this

metaphor extensively. On one level this makes complete sense. We ask ourselves Should I

teach this lesson using this technological tool, or would this other one be better? Or maybe a

field trip is way to go? Maybe the textbook is a good choices? How about an art project? Here

the technological options are one of several choices to be made from a toolbox of learning tools.

While this metaphor is useful on a practical level, having it as the only or prime metaphor is

2
My thinking about the tool metaphor was spurred on by reading G. Couross We Need to See beyond the Tool
(2014).
 12
NOT A MAGIC BULLET

dangerous because it conceals the power of technology. Computer technology is not just a tool

in a toolbox; rather, it is a force that powers a great many tools, comparable, say, to electricity

which also powers many tools. Technology is a force that is shaping our world, a force that is

running, pulsating through it. As with electricity, there are times when we do not use this force,

but even when it is turned off at the switch, the force is still there, shaping things, molding

them. Like electricity, technology makes unimagined things possible, both for good and for ill.

And like electricity, we now depend on technology for life as we know it to continue.

Conclusion: A way forward

To those who enthuse about technology, whether as a cool shiny toy or as the magical

cure for our educational ailments, I would say this: technology is neither merely a fun gadget

nor is it a panacea; rather, it is a force which requires deep thinking and hard work if we are to

use it well. In light of this, there are several steps that we need to take. First of all, we need to

carefully consider our metaphors. We need to examine them to see what they say about what

education is for, what the human mind is like, what a person is, and what society is. Our

reflection on these questions should inform our practice, including our teaching about and with

technology. Secondly, as highlighted by Papert and Watters, we need to keep in mind the human

side of education when considering various technology tools. People should be at the center, not

technology. Thirdly, as emphasized by Papert, Watters, and Bonk, we should prioritize the use of

tools (whether technological or not) that allow students to create and to collaborate. These tools,

rather than those that merely allow for consumption, help students to find their voice, join the

conversation, and contribute both in and outside the classroom. Finally, we need to ponder

technology as a powerful force, not merely a tool. We need to develop our skills (both

technological and teaching) and to seek wisdom as we strive to best prepare students for life in a
 13
NOT A MAGIC BULLET

fast-changing world increasingly shaped by technology and its tools.

 14
NOT A MAGIC BULLET

References
Bonk, C.J. (2009). The world is open. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold & underused. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Couros, G. (2014). We need to see beyond the tool. Retrieved from

http://georgecouros.ca/blog/archives/date/2014/09

Handwerk, B. (2013, December 10). iPads improve classroom learning, study finds. National

Geographic. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131210-

ipad-learning-education-space-science/

Hatch, M. (2014). The maker movement manifesto. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The University of

Chicago Press.

Leckert, S. (2012, March 20). The Stanford education experiment could change higher learning

forever. Wired. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2012/03/ff_aiclass/

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Postman, N. (1996). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York, NY:

Vintage Books.

Robinson, K. (2006, February). Do schools kill creativity? [Video file]. Retrieved from

https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity

Toschi, Mia. (2016, July 12). New tech in Tennessee that could supercharge education.
 15
NOT A MAGIC BULLET

Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mia-toschi-/new-tech-

in-tennessee-tha_b_10945638.html

Watters, A. (2014). The monsters of education technology. Audrey Watters.