The document discusses the relationship between technology and learning. It argues that technology should not be seen as having a direct causal impact on learning and that its use needs to be understood within its social context. While schools have adopted technologies for assessment and instruction, technologies used outside of schools that empower learner agency are often excluded. The rise of information technologies calls into question the link between schooling and learning, and suggests a pluralistic model where out-of-school learning can complement in-school education.

1. The Use of ICT for
Learning and Teaching
Trudy Sweeney
EDUC 9701

2. Introduction
This presentation draws on the following two references:
 Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational
technology research: Some alternative ways of thinking
about the relationship between learning and technology.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(5), 373-384.
 Halverson, R., & Smith, A. (2009). How new technologies
have (and have not) changed teaching and learning in
schools. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 26(2), 49-
54.

3. Technological determinism
& educational technology research
 Oliver (2011) argues that “research on the
educational uses of technology frequently
overemphasizes the influence of the
technology” (p. 373).
 “The use of technology should not be
understood to operate on a causal model: it
does not have straight forward ‘impact’ in
some some mechanical way on the practices
that it encounters” (p. 381)

4. Technological determinism
& educational technology research
 “A growing body of work argues for the need for the development of
a critical perspective on educational technology use, one that looks
beyond the immediate context of learning gains and patterns of
interaction to question the ways in which technology has been
taken up in the first place” (p. 373).
 There is a need to focus on the social, political, economic, cultural
and historical context within which educational technology is used
(and not used). The purpose is not to reveal some claims about e-
learning as being false or untruthful, but “call into question ways
of talking about and justifying e-learning that obscure a more
complicated reality (Freisen 2009, p. 181)” Cited in (Oliver, 2011, p.
374).

5. Technological determinism
 “If technology determines particular kinds of social effect,
even if a ‘soft’ form [that recognises there are other factors
involved], this raises important questions of power and
morality. Such questions are not often asked of technology
and learning yet, … the very idea of agency is called into
question, particularly when technology is assumed to have
the power to determine choices” (p. 375).
 For example, technology has been bought on a massive scale
often based on the assumption that it will cause
improvements in learning outcomes. However, teachers can
struggle to integrate these into their practice and marginalise
its use so that effects are minimised (p.376).

6. Activity Theory:
One position to consider the relationship between
technology and action.
AT Builds on the work of Vygotsky and attempts to understand learning in terms
of people’s intentional actions within social settings. At it’s core is the
proposition that actions are mediated – the unit of analysis is of a subject (a
person) working towards an object (objective) using a tool.

7. Summary: It is not about the technology!
 “[T]echnology should not be understood to
operate on a causal model; it does not have a
straight forward ‘impact’ in some mechanical
way on the practices that it encounters” (p. 381).
 Avoid simplistic claims about the impact, effect
and technical causation of technology and
concentrate instead on descriptions of practice,
accounts of purposeful action and negotiated
meanings (p. 382).

8. How new technologies have (and have not)
changed teaching and learning in schools
 Halverson and Smith (2010) argue that “information
technologies [ICT] have reshaped teaching in learning in
schools. Specifically, there are technologies for learning and
technologies for teaching.
 Schools have made significant use of assessment and
instructional technologies that help promote learning for
all students, whereas technologies for learners, such as
mobile devices, video games, and social networking sites, are
typically excluded from school contexts” (p. 49).

9. How technologies have shaped teaching
and learning
 In the 1990’s in the USA there was massive investment in
technology in an attempt to create universal access to
technology in schools. There was also public investment in
how to use technologies for progressive educational
practices. These investments were supposed to result in
revolutionary changes to education.
 “The direct consequence of these investments resulted in
disappointingly meager changes in classroom practices
(Cuban, 2001). The indirect consequences, however, was the
development of a robust technology infrastructure to meet
the demand of high-stakes accountability policies for the
2000” (pp. 49-50).

10. How will technologies shape the future of
teaching and learning?
 “Collins and Halverson (2009) describe how learning technologies have
taken different evolutional courses in and out of schools” (p. 51).
 The difference in these two kinds of technologies can be seen in the
contrast of technologies for learning and technologies for learners”
(p. 51).
 “Schools tend to support technologies for learning. Technologies
that succeed in schools tend to define learning goals, develop
structures to guide students, and provide sophisticated measures of
learning outcomes. Technologies for learning minimize the active
participation of the learner; in fact, such technologies are developed so
that they work for any learner, regardless of motivation or the ability of
the particular learner” (p. 51).

11. How will technologies shape the future of
teaching and learning?
 “Technologies for learners, on the other hand, put the learner in
control of the instructional process. Learning goals are determined
by the learner, and the learner decides when the goals are satisfied
and when new goals are in order” (p. 51).
 The key difference compared to technologies for learning is that
success is measured by the degree to which the system supports
and fulfills the learner agency.
 “Technologies for learners emphasize information resources, such
as search engines, wikis, and blogs that allow for information
retrieval, browsing, incidental learning, and participation” (p. 51).
 “Technologies for learners are notoriously unreliable for
producing anticipated results” (p. 51).

12. Learning versus Winning
 “Virtual charter schools and fantasy sports illustrate that technologies
that flourish in education and those that thrive outside of education.
Both environments use information communication technologies to
structure the goals and the experience of learners. … A key difference,
however, lies in the contrast of learning versus winning. Virtual
charter schools aim to create the conditions for all students to learn;
fantasy sports create and environment in which some players can win”
(p. 52).
 “The rise of information technologies has called the identification of
schooling and learning into question. …Schools may well continue to
be places that seek to provide safe, equitable, and reliable
opportunities to learn for the majority of K-12 learners. .. Instead of
opposing in-school and out-of-school learning. The advent of learning
technologies describes a pluralistic world in which out-of-school
learning can complement in-school education” (p. 53).

13. Conclusion
 Technology itself has often been the focus of implementation in
schools and in educational research.
 “Technology should not be understood to operate on a causal model; it
does not have a straight forward ‘impact’ in some simple, mechanical
way on the practices is encounters” (Oliver, 2011, p. 381).
 It is important adopt a critical view of the use of ICT for teaching and
learning that involves questioning the very idea of agency, particularly
when technology is assumed to have the power to determine choices.
 “Instead of opposing in school and out-of-school learning, the advent
of new technologies describes a pluralistic world in which out-of-
school-learning can complement in-school education” (Halverson &
Smith, 2009, p. 53).

14. Discussion Questions
 Group 1:
How is ICT used in your educational context? What evidence is there that the
use of the technology is rooted in constructivist pedagogy?
 Group 2:
“Some technologies thrive in schools; other technologies that seem to run
counter to the aims of schooling now flourish outside of schools and animate
new learning environments, such as home schooling, learning centres, video
gaming, and social networking” (Halverson & Smith, 2011, p. 51). Discuss how
out-of-school learning could complement in-school education.
 Group 3:
How might learning management systems be designed to support increased
learner agency?
 Group 4:
“Technologies for learners are notoriously unreliable for producing anticipated
results” (p. 51). How could we reduce this risk?