1. Week 11, Activity 1
The Economist debate: ‘The continuing introduction of new technologies and new
media adds little to the quality of most education.’
1. (Considering the proposition) Right now, would you vote For or Against, and why?
At this point in time I would be inclined to vote For the proposal being put forward. From my
experience of working with teachers, technology is not a magic bullet and the classroom
environment can often present a number of barriers. In fact, when talking to PGCE students (i.e.
trainee teachers), the most striking thing to learn from them was that they felt technology was an
add-on and very much a hassle – when planning a lesson with technology, they had always to have a
plan B (same lesson but without technology) and pretty much always had to resort to some
elements of plan B as things invariably went wrong.
2. The opening remarks (The main arguments being put forward/ The types of argument
used/ Any changes to your own thinking)
The proposer’s remarks focus on the unrealised potential of technology in the classroom while
providing examples of successful implementation of educational technology (one of which happens
to be the Open University!). The remarks of the opposition focus on a meta-analysis of a set of
studies which show that technology can make a statistically significant difference to student
experience; he also addresses the issue of unrealised potential, arguing that most of these studies
emerged in the context of a more traditional education paradigm and so the potential of technology
might be even greater if we were able to be more adventurous when it comes to learning methods.
He also touches upon some fundamental questions about what should be the role of the schools –
should they equip the learners with technological skills or should they be a space that focuses more
on teaching students social skills and works on the assumption that their everyday life is saturated
with technology anyway?
3. Rebuttal remarks (The style or ‘discourse’ being used/ What ‘evidence’ is being drawn
upon/ any changes to your own thinking)
The moderator points out here that both sides are actually focusing on the same issue, that is the
(unrealised) potential of technology for learning and brings up the issue of resources needed to
support changes within the classroom. The moderator’s remarks also focus on impact of technology
on education – both in terms of impact on individual students and impact on educational systems
more in general. I found this distinction quite interesting and helpful in terms of thinking what
changes when we introduce technology within the classroom – i.e. is it just about students learning
how to use a particular device or do they also gain skills which are more generic in nature where for
instance through use of a mobile device they can also improve their critical thinking skills etc. The
proposer’s remarks suggest that the introduction of new technologies has not been accompanied by
a shift in educational paradigm and hence little has changed in terms of quality; he also adds that it
is the educators, rather than the tools that constitute the key component of quality education. The
opposition draws on a number of studies that provide positive examples of where the potential of
technology has been realised and where instead of being used as an add-on, technology was an
integral part of the pedagogical approach.

2. 4. Featured guest comments (Whose comments had the most impact on you and why?/ Do
later ‘speakers’ have an advantage over earlier ones?/ Any changes to your own thinking)
Don Knezekfocuses on the sense of empowerment that technology can give to the learners and
expand the educational possibilities open to learners who may otherwise be disadvantaged because
of being in remote or isolated areas. Kevin Bushweller reiterates the need to consider the impact of
education initiatives on learning; at the same time, while measuring impact and being accountable is
important, the sense of innovation should not be lost. Professor Linda Darling-Hammond reiterates
the need to balance technology with human interaction and that the aim of technology is not to
replace the teacher; instead it is a tool that will reach its full potential only when accompanied by
sound pedagogical approach. I think I found her comments most persuasive perhaps because they
tally with my own experience of interacting with the teachers and witnessing their attempts to
introduce technology within the classroom. She also recognised that technology is not a magic
bullet, especially when used as an add-on or in a mechanical way.
5. The closing remarks – (What you think the role of the moderator has been/ Anything else
that has occurred to you during this exercise about the content and form of this type of
debate)
The proposer keeps arguing that the potential of technology to make a wider impact on quality of
education remains unrealised and that the current focus seems to be on acquiring a narrow range of
ICT skills. The opposition’s comments focus on a number of examples from all over the world where
technology has led to lasting and positive changes to quality of education; both in terms of impact
“in the trenches”, i.e. schools where individual teachers are taking advantage of technology to
expand the educational opportunities available to their students but also in terms of more systemic
changes, with examples of education ministries redesigning national systems around opportunities
provided by new technologies. The moderator makes an interesting comment about some of the
voices which were absent from the debate, namely the parents.
Through the debate, the moderator kept summarising the ideas brought forward by the opposition
and the proposers while attempting to shape the debate and move it forward. I find the format quite
interesting, I am vaguely reminded of some school-based debates which are based on a similar
premise and believe that it is a good way of promoting academic ideas in a way that is accessible to
the wider public. The participants in the debate were drawing on a range of academic studies but
because they needed to contain their “speeches” within a pre-determined word limit, the speeches
did not end up being academic treatises; instead, they were quite enjoyable.