8 minute read
Keeping edutech in check
By Samantha Schofield Vice President
No doubt many conversations held during 2020 and into 2021 about providing educational activities and connections during this pandemic have been around how to connect with students, parents and teachers, particularly in a digital space.
Advertisement
Given the speed and ferocity of this pandemic, it is not surprising that thorough and scrupulous assessment of digital platforms, content or providers has been unable to be undertaken.
How many of us have done a quick check and tick on the terms and conditions due to the extensive and often convoluting text? How many of our parents and students fully comprehend the terms and conditions of digital platforms or how, where and why their data will be stored and used now and into the future?
Most terms and conditions agreements require acceptance to access the product or service and drawing on the fear of missing out culture, lure and lock us into the product or service.
While digital products and platforms existed prior to the pandemic, the rise of these during the pandemic is exponential.
The speed at which teachers, school leaders and TAFE lecturers globally have been required to provide blended, and in some instances entirely digital, models of teaching is unprecedented.
Without pausing now to consider why, what and how we use digital technology to support our teaching and learning, we run the risk of having the technology become the centrepiece, rather than using technology as another tool in our repertoire. “Technology has always been a part of a teachers’ work; a chalkboard is also technology. But whether technology is a chalkboard, an over-head projector, a computer, a robot or artificial intelligence, it is a means, not an end. It is part of the pedagogical repertoire” (On Education and Democracy, page 92, bit.ly/2w4kNvW). It’s also time to question the motivation of digital providers. With an unregulated technology and digital industry, where many companies and organisations are for profit and publicly listed, it’s hard to believe that they can be entirely philanthropic in their provision of services or products in education.
A brief look at the data that is collected through a digital platform or service and you have to wonder why they need to store or keep this information and where and who is this information going to?
What’s really in it for the technology organisation/company/provider/vendor?
Reflect for a moment of what products, apps, digital devices your school/ worksite uses. How many of these are promoted through official school/TAFE communications to your communities?
Without active consideration, we risk becoming brand ambassadors for products, companies, to our school communities and beyond. While many of us do this unwittingly or without mal-intent, it’s worth considering how easily good intention and the desire to provide the best educational opportunities for students can be manipulated and turned into marketing opportunities for tech companies.
A 2017 New York Times article profiled American teacher Kayla Delzer, who incorporates technology into her classroom so innately that tech companies have started to partner with her to use their products in her class, which she in turns promotes online via social media.
“Ms Delzer is a member of a growing tribe of teacher influencers, many of whom promote classroom technology. They attract notice through their blogs, social media accounts and conference talks. And they are cultivated not only by start-ups like Seesaw, but by giants like Amazon, Apple, Google and Microsoft, to influence which tools are used to teach American schoolchildren,” the article read.
“Their ranks are growing as public schools increasingly adopt all manner of laptops, tablets, math teaching sites, quiz apps and parent-teacher messaging apps. The corporate courtship of these teachers brings with it profound new conflict-ofinterest issues for the nation’s public schools.
“Moreover, there is little rigorous research showing whether or not the new technologies significantly improve student outcomes.
“More than two dozen education startups have enlisted teachers as brand ambassadors. Some give the teachers inexpensive gifts like free classroom technology or T-shirts. Last year, TenMarks, a math-teaching site owned by Amazon, offered Amazon gift cards to teachers who acted as company advisers, and an additional $80 gift card for writing a post on its blog, according to a TenMarks online forum.
“Teachers said that more established start-ups gave them pricier perks like travel expenses to industry-sponsored conferences attended by thousands of teachers. In exchange, teacher ambassadors often promote company products on social media or in their conference talks — sometimes without explicitly disclosing their relationships with their sponsors. “Many public schools are facing tight budgets, and administrators, including the principal at Ms Delzer’s school, said they welcomed potentially valuable free technology and product training. Even so, some education experts warned that company incentives might influence teachers to adopt promoted digital tools over rival products or even traditional approaches, like textbooks. “‘Teachers can’t help but be seduced to make greater use of the technology, given these efforts by tech companies,’ said Samuel E. Abrams, director of the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Teachers College, Columbia University.”
While this example may be international, the sheer fact is that the reach of digital platforms is global, and with an unregulated digital industry, there is potential for education systems, teachers, school leaders, TAFE lecturers and students to be used as marketing tools by tech companies.
While teachers and school leaders have good intention to find tools to support their teaching and learning, it cannot be the sole responsibility of teachers, school leaders and TAFE lecturers in understanding all the potential risks and legalities in this digital space, particularly with the speed and evolution of technology and digital technology.
It is important that we have an education system that has central oversight, risk management and dedicated IT personnel who understand the potential risks to our students, staff and educational content and outcomes. It is also equally important that there are industrial parameters in place for working conditions in digital environments.
The SSTUWA has been, and will continue to, work with the Departments of Education and Training and the state government to raise our concerns around the professional and industrial implications for teaching in and learning in digital environments.
In 2017, the SSTUWA won an Exchange of Letters which outlined parameters for electronic communications. This was then included in the 2019 General Agreement – clause 30.
In the 2019 General Agreement, the SSTUWA has won the inclusion of clause 54 – Information and Communication Technology – which acknowledges the importance of digital technologies in education and the need for technological infrastructure.
While the provision of extra bandwidth allocation for public schools announced by the state government at the end of 2020 is a welcome addition and recognition of the lengthy conversations by the SSTUWA with DoE and the state government, it is but a small element of the provision of resources in public education that needs addressing.
In 2020, the SSTUWA made a submission to the state government’s Digital Inclusion in Western Australia blueprint highlighting the need for a systemic approach to the funding, provision, maintenance, repair and staffing of IT infrastructure and its associated utilities and resources across both our public schools and TAFEs.
Embrace new technologies with prudence
The below is an excerpt from On Education and Democracy – 25 Lessons from the Teaching Profession by Susan Hopgood and Frank van Leeuwen. It can be accessed at: bit.ly/2w4kNvW
Unlike other forms of communication such as mail, electronic media and the telephone, the internet did not begin as either a public service or a regulated monopoly. Commercial internet service providers (ISPS) began to emerge in the very late 1980s. Today, control of the internet is concentrated in only a handful of private corporations and is designed around earnings from the sale of advertising. A related “product” is the valuable, saleable data that they collect. One of the consequences of the widespread use of the internet and the growth of social networking has been the invasions of the privacy rights of students and teachers. Issues include commercial exploitation and deception, tracing of student views or interests for commercial purposes or for other ends, exposure to pornography or hate speech, and use of big data gathered from students including personal information.
From a very young age, very direct and targeted appeals are made to [children] to shape their consumer habits and attitudes. Their personal data is being “mined” and provided to commercial interests, often without student knowledge or approval, just as is happening with adults. While people and political leaders are becoming more aware of privacy risks, the handful of companies that play a leading role in the collection and control of data are becoming powerful lobbyists to protect their interests, “their data” and their professional secrets. Their business model depends on fees for the use of services, but is “free”, meaning that they make their money from data.
Internet operations are dominated by a few giant corporations and there is little or no democratic control on the collection and use of data, which in some places, public authorities are eagerly collecting and storing personal data without much regard for privacy.
