Education Tech Research Dev (2020) 68:833–836

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09736-x

SPECIAL INTERESTS

Remarks on progress in educational technology

J. Michael Spector1

Published online: 14 January 2020

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2020

Abstract
Having stepped down as editor of Educational Technology Research & Development after
15 years of service, and having learned much from Steve Ross, who served as editor for
18 years, and from many of the leading scholars in the broad and multidisciplinary field
of educational technology, I have been thinking of the value added by the research and
developments of so many talented and dedicated academics. The innovative learning envi-
ronments and careful studies I have read these last 15 years leads me to wonder why there
seems to be so little progress in the field of educational technology. In other fields such as
automotive engineering or medical research there have been remarkable gains. In fields
that inform education such as brain science and social behavior, we have also seen signifi-
cant and sustained progress. Why has there not been more progress in and impact of educa-
tional technology research and the many innovative learning environments that have been
created in recent years? That is the question that motivates these remarks.

Keywords  Educational research · Instructional technology · Student support

Some years ago I published an essay entitled “How Far We Have Not Come” (Spector
2000). The general argument of that piece was that educational technologists have been
promising much more than they have delivered for years. The temptation with each new
generation of digital technology was that education could be radically improved and would
thereby be transformed into something significantly different from and better than previous
forms of education. What came to mind then was a line from the comedian, Shelly Ber-
man, in response to the claim that flying was the safest way to travel; his response was this:
“I’m not sure how much consideration has been given to walking.” That is to say, simple
solutions often work well.
Now, almost 20 years after that simple-minded essay, I am thinking along similar lines.
My basic question is this: What has been learned from educational research and learn-
ing theory in the last 100  years? Assuming that some things have been learned, which
ones have been implemented on a significant scale for a sustained period of time, and
what impact, if any, have they had?  Perhaps  I will be  chastised as  a modern day luddite
for saying the following: It is not clear to me that educational technologies have improved

* J. Michael Spector
Mike.Spector@unt.edu
1
University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 J. M. Spector
834

learning and instruction on a large scale for any sustained period of time; the nearly con-
stant emergence of new technologies has only created the new problem of learning to use
those technologies  effectively  in support learning, to borrow a line from Dijkstra’s  The
Humble Programmer (1972). What progress are we making in terms of using technology
to improve learning and instruction? Is it a lot? A little? In isolated cases? At great cost? At
a disadvantage to some? What do you think?
Here is what I think, based on what I have witnessed as an editor of and contributor to
this and other journals. In the preface to How We Think, Dewey (1910) wrote this:
Our schools are troubled with a multiplication of studies, each in turn having its own
multiplication of materials and principles. Our teachers find their tasks made heavier
in that they have come to deal with pupils individually and not merely in mass. This
book represents the conviction that the needed steadying and centralizing factor is
found in adopting as the end of endeavor that attitude of mind, that habit of thought,
which we call scientific. This scientific attitude of mind might, conceivably, be quite
irrelevant to teaching children and youth. But this book also represents the convic-
tion that such is not the case; that the native and unspoiled attitude of childhood,
marked by ardent curiosity, fertile imagination, and love of experimental inquiry, is
near, very near, to the attitude of the scientific mind (see https​://www.guten​berg.org/
files​/37423​/37423​-h/37423​-h.htm for the entire book).
Dewey argues that the origin of thinking is in one way or another uncertainty, confu-
sion, perplexity or doubt. If one believes that thinking (in Dewey’s sense of reflecting, con-
necting facts, and seeking explanations) is inherently good, then one is led to the conclu-
sion that uncertainty, confusion, perplexity and doubt are often good or desirable as they
lead to something that is good.  This simple and somewhat compelling formulation was
made public more than 100 years ago, yet Dewey’s powerful argument has had little tangi-
ble and sustained impact on schooling in the USA or elsewhere although many educators
hold Dewey in very high regard.
In a sense, thinking is a natural and ongoing human activity. As Wittgenstein (1922)
remarked in the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, “we picture facts to ourselves” (#2.1). We
do this without effort and particularly when confronted with something novel or puzzling.
These internal pictures are what Philip Johnson-Laird (1983) called mental models. Men-
tal models are what comprises thinking and memory. Thinking can be trained to become
more productive, more accurate and more insightful (Dewey 1910). In principle the train-
ability of thinking seems to be a case now well established by cognitive scientists, learning
psychologists and philosophers. Are educators systematically helping to train the thinking
processes of students? In some cases, this surely happens. Does it happen regularly and
with all students or on a large and sustained scale? Probably not. Are policy makers pro-
posing and implementing policies to support the training of thinking processes? One might
infer that this is the case when one examines the USA’s National Educational Technol-
ogy Plan (see https​://tech.ed.gov/netp/) or examines the twenty-first century skills (see, for
example,  https​://www.nea.org/home/34888​.htm).  However, decreasing levels of funding
for education and for education research, and the lack of significant improvement on the
test scores of American students in comparison with those in other parts of the world sug-
gest that practice is neither informed by policy nor by research (see the Program for Inter-
national Student Assessment at https​://www.oecd.org/pisa/; see also Our World of Data
at https​://ourwo​rldin​data.org/finan​cing-educa​tion).
After multiple visits to this line of reasoning and the associated evidence, one might
become disenchanted or discouraged, or even decide to pursue a career in real estate  or

13
Remarks on progress in educational technology 835

gambling casinos. However, as one of my sons is wont to say, “no worries.” There is still
tomorrow. There is still another group of bright young minds eager to learn coming soon.
How shall we go about training those bright young minds?
As Dewey (1910)  and Jonassen (2000,  2011) and others have  argued, the emphasis
should not be on what to think but how to think. The job of the teacher is to get students
to think, and that means getting students to doubt, to be uncertain, to be perplexed or even
to be confused. It is in such moments when learning (stable and persistent changes in what
a person or group of people know and can do) can occur. The job of the teacher is to get
students to have questions—to admit that they do not know or understand, to commit time
and effort to gain better understanding, to consider alternative perspectives, and to reflect
on their progress (Spector 2018).
Going forward, the focus should be on learning rather than on technology. What edu-
cational technology researchers should be doing is not inventing clever ways to use a new
technology or clever terms for things other scholars thought of decades earlier. We need to
do what Robert Gagné (1985) argued was the task of educators and educational research-
ers—namely and simply, to help people learn.
Some years ago I wondered what funded educational research projects in the USA had
survived the test of time and had developed a body of evidence of positive impact on a
large and sustained scale. I arrived at two examples that stood out from all others: Head
Start  (started in 1964 and still exists; see  https​://www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs) and  Sesame
Street  (started in 1969 and still exists; see  https​://www.sesam​estre​et.org/).  I encourage
readers to look at the empirical evidence showing the impact of those two examples. While
there are many outstanding and innovative examples of technology applications in educa-
tion (see Merrill 2002, 2013; see also Gagné and Merrill 1990), few have had such a large
scale and sustained impact as those two examples.
Some have argued that the printing press transformed education as it brought learning
texts and information to the masses. Some argue that the Internet and the many associated
digital devices that make use of the Internet are transforming education just as the printing
press did centuries ago. One can argue that the court is still out with regard to the Internet
transformation of education; perhaps it is a split decision 5 to 4, as is becoming all too
common in other contexts.
Regardless of which side one takes on the debate about the positive impact of edu-
cational technologies on learning and instruction, most will agree that we can do bet-
ter (Gagné and Merrill 1990). After all, that is our job as human beings—namely, to bring
out the best in others by whatever means we can manage to do so, with new technology,
with old technology, with a new pair of walking boots, or with a map of middle earth.
We can do better as educators and educational technology researchers. We can forego the
impulse to invent new words for old ideas. We can forego the impulse to use a technology
just because it is new. We can forego the impulse to become advocates rather than evidence
seekers. We can focus on helping students learn—all students … not just the gifted or those
we like or who like us or who are like us.
I heard  Gagné  say on numerous occasions at meetings of the American Educational
Research Association and the Association for Educational Communications and Technol-
ogy that  the main task  of educators, educational researchers and instructional technolo-
gists is to help students learn. I just realized how preachy this essay has become. My apolo-
gies. If you managed to read this far, you might or might not be inclined to agree with the
reasoning and sentiment being expressed in this non-empirical short piece. In closing,
I recall a remark made by one of my philosophy professors,  Oets  Kolk  Bouswma, in an
unpublished journal entry: “I am a short thought thinker” (see Craft and Hustwit 1984;

13
 J. M. Spector
836

see also the second order learning stories from 2002 at the Learning Development Insti-
tute’s website located at www.learn​dev.org). My advice to graduate students and potential
authors has been to keep your argumentation short; keep the reasoning focused; and try to
start doing something to help people learn. Be the voice that encourages, the ear that lis-
tens, the eye that reflects, the hand that guides, the face that does not turn away (my father’s
advice to me many moons ago).

References
Craft, J. L., & Hustwit, R. E. (1984). Without proof or evidence: Essays of O, K Bouwsma. Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath & Co. Rerieved from https​://www.guten​berg.org/
files​/37423​/37423​-h/37423​-h.htm
Dijkstra, E. W. (1972). The humble programmer. Communications of the ACM, 15, 859–866.
Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rine-
hart & Winston.
Gagné, R. M., & Merrill, M. D. (1990). Integrative goals for instructional design. Educational Technology
Research & Development, 38(1), 23–30.
Johnson-Laird, P. (1983). Mental models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference and conscious-
ness. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 48(4), 63085.
Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning
environments. New York: Routledge.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research & Development,
50(3), 43–59.
Merrill, M. D. (2013). First principles of instruction: Identifying and designing effective, efficient and
engaging instruction. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Spector, J. M. (2000, Fall). Trends and issues in educational technology: How far we have not come. Update
Semiannual Bulletin 21(2). Syracuse, NY: The ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Technology.
Spector, J. M. (2018, July). Thinking and learning in the Anthropocene: The new three Rs. Presented at
the 2018 international big history conference, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, 26–29 July
2019. Retrieved from  https​://www.learn​dev.org/dl/HLA-IBHA2​018/Spect​or%2C%20J.%20M.%20
(2018).%20Thi​nking​%20and​%20Lea​rning​%20in%20the​%20Ant​hropo​cene.pdf
Wittgenstein, L. (1922).  Tractatus  logico-philosophicus. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench &  Treubner  Co.
Retrieved from https​://www.guten​berg.org/files​/5740/5740-pdf.pdf

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

J. Michael Spector  J. Michael Spector, Professor at UNT, was previously Professor of Educational Psychol-
ogy at the University of Georgia, Associate Director of the Learning Systems Institute at Florida State Uni-
versity, Chair of Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation at Syracuse University, and Director of
the Educational Information Science and Technology Research Program at the University of Bergen. He
earned a Ph.D. from The University of Texas. He is a visiting research professor at Beijing Normal Univer-
sity and at East China Normal University. His research focuses on assessing learning in complex domains,
inquiry and critical thinking skills, and program evaluation. He was Executive Director of the International
Board of Standards for Training, Performance and Instruction and a Past-president of the Association for
Educational and Communications Technology. He is Editor Emeritus of Educational Technology Research
& Development; he edited the Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology and
the SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Technology.

13