technology vs teachers essay

Will technology replace teachers? No, but ...

Michael trucano.

In the future, will a machine replace me and smash other machines on my behalf?

We waived the policy for another reason as well. It is decidedly not politically correct to say so, but we also allowed this teacher into the class because he was ... old. He claimed to be over 70, but said he wasn't exactly sure of his exact birthdate, other than that it had occurred on a Friday . While my Ghanaian colleagues expressed some skepticism that this fellow was actually as old as he claimed, there was no doubt that he was decades older than any of us in the room. He was an English teacher, he said, noting that he had heard that it was possible to get access to all of Shakespeare's plays on the Internet, for free, and wanted to see how this was possible. A computer became available (the teachers using it had been frustrated that poor bandwidth kept interrupting their CU-SeeMe session and so decided to return to the dormitory before dinner), so we sat down, fired up Alta Vista , and typed in >. After scanning the search results, one of the young teachers grabbed a mouse and pointed, clicked and scrolled her way through play after play after play. The older teacher was simply flabbergasted. He said something to the effect of, "Now I have seen everything. It has been my dream as an English teacher to be able to read all of Shakespeare's plays. Now all teachers will be able to do this. Education will change forever." We kept the computer lab open for a while so that he could be assured that all of them were indeed there ("There's Hamlet! The Tempest. Coriolanus!"); he promised that he would be the first one at the lab door once we opened the following morning. As we were shutting things down, he articulated a concern that I would hear voiced hundreds of times in the coming years, in many variations:

It would be very exciting for me to be a young teacher today now that the Internet is coming. But I am glad that I am not a young teacher, because I fear that these computers will eventually replace us teachers.

Will technology replace teachers?

Here's a short answer to that short question : Introducing new technologies will not replace teachers. Experience from around the world shows us that, over time, teachers' roles become more central -- and not peripheral -- as a result of the introduction of new technologies. Introducing new technologies will, however, replace some of the things that teachers do -- and require that teachers take on new, often times more sophisticated, duties and responsibilities. That said, teachers who don't use technology will be replaced by teachers who do. And : In places where there are currently *no* teachers, technology can help in some very useful ways to, in part , overcome this absence.

In my experience, introducing computers and the Internet into education systems for the first time almost always meets with resistance -- sometimes quite significant resistance -- from certain portions of the teacher population (and often from teachers' unions as well).

Such resistance is understandable, and perhaps to some extent even inevitable. Change can be scary -- or at least rather inconvenient.

Note that the type of resistance I am talking about here is of a very basic, initial, almost instinctive nature. It is not the resistance of teachers who, for example, have worked in a system where computers have already been introduced, with negligible or even negative effect, and who thus look on educational technology initiatives with a very skeptical, jaundiced eye. It is not the resistance of teachers who see the introduction of yet more technology as the lamentable enabler of more (and more! and more!) standardized testing. Nor am I talking about worries about wages ( Will we be paid more if we are expected to learn these new 'computer skills'? ) or changes in related expectations and job responsibilities ( Will we be expected to do or accomplish more, or something for which we have not been trained, now that we have these new gadgets? ).

No, I am talking about a more basic fear here, one that (potentially) challenges the primacy and traditional role of the teacher in the classroom and vis-a-vis her students:

My students will know much more about computers than I do. How can I not look stupid in front of them when I try to use them in my teaching?

And, more ominously:

Will I (eventually) be replaced by a machine?

Greetings, pupils. Please find an available power outlet, class will begin shortly.

It is important also to note that, while technology will not replace teachers, in places where there are currently no teachers, or where there are not sufficient numbers of capable teachers, technology can play a vital role in providing access to educational resources and opportunities for learners that are otherwise unattainable. This is not to contend that students will, if simply 'left to their own devices', be able to educate themselves to the same extent than if they had a capable teacher to help guide and support them. That said, UNESCO currently that "93 countries have an acute shortage of teachers", and projects that "28 (or 30%) of these countries will still not have enough teachers in classrooms by 2030". Using technologies in an attempt to help address *some* of the educational challenges in such places while education systems work on narrowing the teacher gap seems a prudent thing to explore.

That said :

In no education system around the world where I have worked has the introduction of new technologies made teachers less vital or central to the teaching and learning process. On the contrary : As dust settles after new equipment arrives in schools (and eventually begins to work, more or less), and the initial hype around the potential for quick 'transformational change' subsides, the role of the teacher is almost always more central, indeed fundamental, than it was before the introduction of technology .

While many policymakers, education officials and parents (and even many teachers themselves) may profess a belief in the 'digital native hypothesis' -- that young people somehow instinctively understand technology and know how to use it in ways that their elders don't -- there is a big difference between being able e.g. to quickly figure out and manipulate an on-screen menu system, or to blast a bunch of aliens, or to record a short video and post it to YouTube, and being able to successfully utilize whatever new technologies are at hand in service of a student's learning needs and objectives. For that, students need the help and guidance of their teachers.

This isn't to say that introducing new technologies will not change the roles that teachers are expected to perform, however.

While, generally speaking, introducing new technologies makes the jobs of teachers more important, more central to the learning process in many ways, it also makes teachers less central or integral (or even needed) to many of the activities currently associated with being a teacher in many parts of the world.

Books -- a technological innovation that helped transform educational practices in previous centuries -- didn't replace teachers, but they did help enable new forms of autonomous learning, and replaced and changed the nature of some of the things that teachers traditionally did.

And, it might be added, the importance of the human connection between teacher and student.

Note : The image used at the top of this blog post of so-called Luddites smashing a loom ("In the future, will a machine replace me and smash other machines on my behalf?") comes via Wikimedia Commons and is in the public domain . The second image of two robots ("Greetings, pupils. Please find an available power outlet, class will begin shortly") comes courtesy of the Wikipedian JosepPAL via Wikimedia Commons and is used according to the terms of its Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license . The final image, of B.F. Skinner's "teaching machine", comes courtesy of the Wikipedian Silly rabbit via Wikimedia Commons. It is also used according to the terms of its Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license ; its inclusion here was inspired by this upcoming book .

Digital Development

Get updates from Education for Global Development

Thank you for choosing to be part of the Education for Global Development community!

Your subscription is now active. The latest blog posts and blog-related announcements will be delivered directly to your email inbox. You may unsubscribe at any time.

Visiting Fellow, Brookings, and Global Lead for Innovation in Education, World Bank

Join the Conversation

Share on mail
comments added

Can Technology Replace Teachers?

Nancy Bujnowski, a French and German teacher who was laid off from Eagle Valley High School before officials adopted an online learning program, calls friends to help her make a last-minute move to Colorado Springs, Colo. She was recently hired by that school system.

Of all the recent budget cuts made by the Eagle County, Colo., school district —the loss of 89 staff jobs through attrition and layoffs, a 1.5 percent across-the-board pay cut, and the introduction of three furlough days—none sparked as much anger or faced the same scrutiny as the decision to cut three foreign-language teaching positions and replace them with online instruction.

At a spring school board meeting, supporters of the targeted programs in French and German, as well as the affected teachers, railed against the 6,200-student district for replacing face-to-face instructors with a digital option they argued would not be as rich or as meaningful.

The highly charged response reflects the fear many teachers are beginning to feel that technology could push them out of their jobs, especially in an era of persistently tight budgets. Emerging management models that rely on a smaller number of highly paid teachers supported by new technology and a larger roster of relatively low-paid paraprofessionals are also fueling such fears.

Those worries seem likely to grow, even though younger teachers and many veterans appreciate the teaching potential of the Internet and digital devices, and educational technology advocates insist the teacher is still essential to any technology-based effort to improve schools.

Brian Childress, the Eagle County schools’ human resources director, said his department recommended keeping face-to-face instructors for Spanish and Chinese because of higher enrollments in those courses, but also suggested cuts in the arts at the high school level and other cuts of staff in the elementary and middle grades.

“I’m surprised that we didn’t have an equal amount of attention for all the pieces that we had to do,” he said.

It’s unclear whether the concerns dramatized by the action in Eagle County, about 120 miles west of Denver, are justified on a broad scale.

Most administrators say decisions such as the district’s move to offer students online French and German courses are more reflective of extraordinary budget circumstances than an institutional desire to cut staffing.

Further, developers of even the most sophisticated learning technologies insist their goal is to help make teaching a more efficient and effective profession, not a less relevant one. Teachers’ unions and other teacher advocates also appear to vary greatly in their openness toward technology initiatives according to the policy and economic climates in different states and districts.

“It’s not only about how do you bring teachers into these new roles so it is not disruptive to their own livelihood and so forth, but how you bring about these roles to ensure it brings about a better education system,” said Michael Horn, the co-founder and executive director of the Mountain View, Calif.-based Innosight Institute’s education practice. He is an advocate of blended learning, which mixes online and face-to-face instruction.

“The thing is, you’ve got 5 percent of teacher training that is focused on 95 percent of your job,” Mr. Horn added, regarding how poorly he says the content of current teacher training matches the demands of teachers in a technologically integrated classroom. “It’s terrifying for an individual and terrifying for a system.”

Mr. Horn is among several educational technology leaders who say they see technology’s role as enabling improvements to make teachers more focused and efficient.

For example, Joel Rose, a self-proclaimed follower of Mr. Horn and a former educational-human-resources director for the 1.1 million-student New York City school system, founded the School of One math program in the city in 2009 on the idea that a combination of adaptive online content from multiple vendors could be the primary source of instruction for students. The role for teachers then becomes to intervene when students encounter difficulty with a computerized lesson, ideally with different teachers having different specializations in a manner similar to a team of doctors at a hospital.

By co-founding the New York City-based New Classrooms Innovation Partners in January, and breaking away from the city school district, Mr. Rose is trying to carry the model to a handful of new districts.

If implemented more broadly, the model likely wouldn’t affect the total number of positions, but it could mean a restructuring of compensation with a few highly paid expert teachers and a broader base of lesser-paid paraprofessionals.

One in a series of briefs released last week by Public Impact, an education policy and management-consulting firm in Chapel Hill, N.C., estimated that such an approach could result in a 41 percent increase in compensation for those more expert instructors.

The briefs resulted from the organization’s examination of 20 alternative models of schooling that have been researched through its Opportunity Culture Initiative, which is funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (The Gates Foundation also helps fund Education Week ’s coverage of business and innovation.)

Intellectual Tasks

Richard J. Murnane, an economist by training and a professor of education and society at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, says such a restructuring driven by technology would mirror the effect technology has already wrought in other industries.

With an increase in automation, jobs in education would likely shift toward three functions he says are difficult to computerize: expert thinking and complex communication; solutions to new problems; and service jobs.

But because the demands of the school system itself are changing, Mr. Murnane suggests that the future education system may include a larger number of higher-paying positions that involve thinking, communicating, and problem-solving.

“Effectively, the country is asking our schools to provide all students with skills that, 40 years ago, only a small percentage mastered,” Mr. Murnane said, referring to the new push for college and career readiness. “So that’s just a dramatic new demand on the nation’s educators, and it’s important in my mind to frame it that way.”

But at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, researchers at the school’s Language Technologies Institute believe they are exploring the kinds of technologies that could aid even those more sophisticated tasks through natural-language processing, the science of how computers can interact with human language.

Although Carolyn P. Rosé, an associate professor at the institute, and her research team gained publicity for participating in a recent analysis of automated essay graders, that work flowed out of more in-depth explorations of using computer analysis to moderate student online discussions and analyze individual student contributions to collaborative projects.

Those technologies, such as a computerized persona that can contribute comments to a class message board, have been tested in middle and high school classrooms in the 25,000-student Pittsburgh school system, but Ms. Rosé said they are not yet “stable enough” to be offered to other school systems.

When those technologies are perfected, they will ideally help a teacher keep tabs on small-group work completed outside of class, while informing students of the type of information they should contribute to larger-group discussions during class, says Ms. Rosé.

She acknowledges that she could also foresee a scenario in which a cash-strapped district might use the technology to increase teacher courseloads, even in classes emphasizing collaborative learning.

“I would definitely say our goal is to work with teachers and support the instruction teachers are doing,” Ms. Rosé said. But, she added, “I don’t have any moral concern about what we’re doing, because even if it’s misused, … even if they don’t have the opportunity to have [smaller class sizes], then I would say at least they’re getting [the technology].”

Arguments in Idaho

It’s an issue Ms. Rosé has dealt with only in theory. Developers and proponents of virtual education, however, are now seeing arguments over the use of their technology to replace teachers sprout across the country.

Nowhere has the issue been more pronounced than in Idaho. State Superintendent Tom Luna successfully pushed a three-piece education package that includes a mandate for all high school students to pass two online courses to graduate, and for all Idaho high schools to provide 1-to-1 computing environments out of their district budgets within the next five years.

The Idaho Education Association, an affiliate of the 3 million-member National Education Association, opposed the legislation all the way through to its passage and has led a successful effort to put Mr. Luna’s “Students Come First” package to a referendum in this fall’s general election.

Without specific state aid provided for the technology changes, the IEA maintains that the requirements would result in districts being forced to cut teacher positions to find funding for the package. And although most of the online courses students would take would have a human instructor, the IEA claims those courses would generally be provided by for-profit companies that it says skimp on hiring and paying qualified instructors in order to maximize profits.

“We know that online providers, as they have done in the past, will continue to use fewer teachers to teach more students,” said IEA President Penni Cyr. “That equates to a loss of teaching positions if you are requiring online courses.”

Mr. Luna counters that most teachers are actually indifferent to or in favor of the digital-learning provisions in the legislation, but instead oppose the two other major provisions, which curb unions’ collective bargaining rights and impose performance-based-pay measures. He says the IEA has directed its scorn at the digital-learning requirements because that issue is an easier sell to the general public.

“It’s easier to get parents riled up over laptops and online classes than it is over labor issues,” Mr. Luna said. “So they chose to focus on replacing teachers with laptops.”

Nationally, union attitudes toward technology’s impact on teachers appear more nuanced than simple opposition. In June, in an apparent endorsement of digital-learning practices, the 1.5 million-member American Federation of Teachers announced the launch of a digital-content repository designed to give members access to learning objects aligned to the Common Core State Standards.

In Arizona, where more than 36,000 students enrolled in multi-district virtual schools during the 2010-11 school year, the state teachers’ union has indicated that its concern is not virtual schools themselves, but their implementation in a district as a cost-saving measure.

“Teachers get excited when you put these issues in terms of innovation and teaching students better,” said Andrew F. Morrill, the president of the Arizona Education Association, an NEA affiliate. “Where teachers get sensitive is when teachers get the impression that the legislature is not concerned about quality.”

‘Cutting Good People’

In Colorado’s Eagle County, where three foreign-language instructors lost their jobs, and students in French and German classes were given the option of continuing their studies online, a perceived lack of quality in the online alternative appeared to rankle teachers, parents, and community members.

Mr. Childress, the human resources director, concedes that offering only the online courses isn’t ideal.

“We are cutting good people, and we are cutting good programs, and we know that,” said Mr. Childress, who says the decision to lay off French and German instructors was made based on student demand, and came well before an online substitute was explored as a possibility. “It’s not what we want to do.”

One teacher who lost her job, Nancy Bujnowski, disputes that position, saying that the administration and district parents had not considered foreign languages—aside from Spanish—as important to students’ education because they had little exposure to practical uses for French and German in Eagle County.

In fact, Ms. Bujnowski says, that lack of regard for other foreign languages proves that administrators were thinking first about which courses to cut before they explored any sort of online replacement, because if they had been thinking of the two hand in hand, they might have considered cutting instructors in courses that more easily lent themselves to online instruction.

“One of my fellow teachers said to me, ‘I don’t see them cutting out the math program and doing it on a computer. Wouldn’t that be the most logical?’ ” said Ms. Bujnowski, who, after 21 years at the district’s Eagle Valley High School, will take a new job teaching French in Colorado Springs this fall. “It’s all finances. The first thing they always think of is the money part of it.”

Computer vs. Teachers

Ms. Bujnowski also said computerized programs like those promoted by Arlington, Va.-based Rosetta Stone, which are marketed to the public at-large in addition to educational institutions, also give the public a sense that computerized foreign-language instruction is suitable to replace a flesh-and-blood teacher.

However, Gregg Levin, the senior vice president of school solutions for Aventa Learning , a subsidiary of Herndon, Va.-based K12 Inc., said that the French and German instruction and curriculum his company will be providing the Eagle County district will include feedback from a live—albeit remotely located—teacher and much more oversight.

He said the district should understand the nature of the Aventa Learning courses since the company previously offered courses to students in the district’s Vail Ski and Snowboard Academy.

“They were looking to support a student population that is a natural fit for online learning,” Mr. Levin said of the company’s work with the academy, which serves elite-level youth skiers and snowboarders who are unusually mobile and under obligations for their time. “We’ve created a purposefully flexible model so we can expand and contract however school districts want to run their program.”

If districts are going to use online courses to help cut costs, they should try to give teachers in brick-and-mortar schools some ownership of those courses, said Todd Yohey, the superintendent of the 8,100-student Oak Hills district in suburban Cincinnati. His district switched to a mandatory online health course before the 2010-11 school year.

While Mr. Yohey acknowledges that the decision was partially budget-driven—and that the retirement of three health teachers made the decision to implement a cheaper online option easier—the Oak Hills district also bought proprietary rights to the course material, allowing other teachers in the health and physical education department to tweak the course as they saw fit.

“I think providing ownership of the online programs is critical to its success,” Mr. Yohey said. “You don’t want to create a competitive environment, where teachers feel like they’re competing for students with an online option.”

“Our hope is that our classroom teachers are also the online facilitators,” he said. “That’s our goal.”

A version of this article appeared in the August 08, 2012 edition of Education Week as When Technology Tools Trump Teachers

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

School bus on rural route, Owens Valley, CA.

Sign Up & Sign In

Corporate Updates
Early Childhood
Exclusive Story
Government News
Higher Education
Human Resource
Policy Matters
Pre Schools
Preschool Leaders Interview
Schools News
Uncategorized
Weekly Newsletter Archive
Newsletter Subscribe
Our Magazine
Magazine Subscribe
Upcoming/Past Education Conferences
Event Reports
Write for Us

AICTE, ISpA Sign MoU to Empower India’s Emerging Space Talent

Karnataka’s educational prowess on display at atl marathon 2024, school education in andhra pradesh set for rs 32,000 crore boost, iit madras research anatomy lab inaugurated by pfc cmd.

Special Story

Technology cannot replace teachers’ role in class

A teacher leads, guides, facilitates and mentors a student. They are role models who set an example to students and drive them towards a brighter future. A good teacher encourages independent thoughts and independent learning by Pankaj Samantray of Elets News Network.

A modern classroom is defined by technology these days. The Corona pandemic has accelerated the usage of technology in classrooms. There is constant pressure on teachers and administrators to implement technology in classes. Though there are several advantages of making use of technology in teaching, the question remains – can technology replace teachers in Future Classrooms? Well, the answer is clearly no. Though beneficial, technologies can never replace a teacher.

There is no doubt that ICT has become the need of an hour. It changed the basic needs from food, shelter, clothes to food, shelter, clothes and internet. ICT helps the individual in fulfilling all needs. It deals with interpersonal and interpersonal relationships. It also reaches the core areas to remote areas of any country. Right from the city to any village we can see the use of the internet. Many times it is used for entertainment or communication. But we have to think seriously about using the internet in education for enhancing the quality.

Also read: Ed-tech start-up eduTinker launches student- teacher management app

No matter how advanced or smart a computer program or a product is, it can never come close to the knowledge and life experience a teacher brings. Several researches have been conducted and it has been proven time and again that teachers bring about a change which no technology can. A teacher simply does not impart knowledge or information. And teaching is definitely not about facts and figures. A teacher leads, guides, facilitates and mentors a student. They are role models who set an example to students and drive them towards a brighter future. A good teacher encourages independent thoughts and independent learning. He/she can be a positive influence, can be an inspiration to set and achieve goals. The trust and bond between a teacher and student creates the perfect learning environment; which can never be achieved through virtual learning.

In today’s age the old school method of books and notes will not work. Teachers have to stay updated with today’s trends and equip themselves with the latest in technology. They have to implement these technological innovations in their curriculum, without losing their control over the classroom. For example, there are several school apps and smart apps for preschoolers available that make the process of learning and teaching really simple. The future of education is clearly going to be personalized-tech infused learning.

The generation today loves technology. To connect with students and help them understand better, a teacher will have to come out of the comfort zone and explore new ways to engage them. And, technology will certainly play an important role in achieving just that. Technology has immense potential to upgrade today’s educational system. There are several students’ apps and smart apps for preschoolers that help teachers improvise and enrich the overall teaching experience. New educational technologies will not only energize the students, but teachers as well. Which means, even in a technology infused learning environment, the role of the teacher will remain ever-important. Yes, it will become less traditional, but important nonetheless!

So, where do we stand in this debate of teachers versus technology? Well, the answer will have to be the middle ground of the two. While classrooms cannot function without a teacher, the fact remains that in the near future it will be the other way around too. Facilitating learning through technology presents tremendous opportunity for both the student and the teacher to deepen their knowledge and empower themselves. The teacher will have to become a facilitator of parting trustworthy information from electronic sources to the students. Teachers versus technology is an ongoing battle.

Technology plays a supporting role, but it’s the teacher who brings it all together. Technology is certainly changing the way students learn, but it cannot be termed as a replacement for teachers. High-quality teachers create a classroom culture that motivates students and leads them on the path of success. Technology cannot inspire, help them through their struggles, help them fight back and stand up. Yes!

In recent days, online courses offered by numerous top universities and how this has opened doors for students all around the world as now they can study whatever subject in any field they want from their homes.

It was after the introduction of these courses that the debate about this topic got started. Now that the students have access to all the resources at home, what is the need of the physical presence of teachers, right?

Moreover, we see more and more use of computers in the classrooms. We see social media is being used in learning environments, we see children using multiple apps to help them in their studies.

Now, let us talk about some points from the other side of the debate. Although technology is helping a lot in the learning environment, it has not completely taken over the role of a teacher.

Technology is merely an augmentation to a teacher. It can help the process of learning, but it certainly cannot replace the role of the teacher.

Even in online courses, we see that teachers are necessary to give lectures, whether in the form of videos, tutorials or via Skype sessions. Children still need to learn computers, which of course are taught by teachers.

Students need teachers to direct them in learning hands-on skills in science, technology, engineering, art, and mechanics. Moreover, in order to learn critical skills like decision making, time management, etc. a child needs a teacher, as the technology cannot teach these human skills.

It is also important that we remember a teacher is more than just a facilitator of knowledge; a teacher also acts as a guide, a mentor and an inspiration for students, a role that cannot be replaced by technology of any kind.

Teachers can take help of different software to fulfill the needs of diverse learners as per their learning styles. In today’s world no one should neglect the fact of diverse needs of learners. We should try to provide hands-on experiences to them. We are volunteers of the Skill based Society.

ICT has opened thousands of opportunities in front of us. If we travel in Global village ICT is the only vehicle through which we can complete our journey and reach our desired goal. In this way a teacher can take help of ICT to provide quality education to his learner. This can be a challenge for a teacher and learner to accept the change in education. But in reality ICT has shown the role of teachers in a global perspective.

Due to Globalization, Liberalization and Privatization education has widened in every manner. We need to take help of ICT to improve and sustain quality in education. Few NGOs and governments are giving free training of advanced ICT to teachers. Let’s hope that we will be able to bridge the gap between public and private educational institutes by using ICT.

Technology can only be a helping factor to learn, but it cannot replace the knowledge and experience that come with a teacher. And as long as the balance is maintained we can expect an education system that not only promotes learning, but also opens doors to creative freedom and expression.

For latest jobs, events and exciting company updates!

Welcome to Elets Technomedia

For continuing, Please agree our Terms & Conditions and acknowledge our Privacy Policy . This same account can be used across all Elets News portals.

Top Trending News

Iit delhi launches third batch of professional certificate programme in fintech to address growing..., education ministry set to reveal nirf 2024 rankings today at 3 pm, lead group survey validates national curriculum framework(ncf) guidelines: multi-modal education delivers results, b2b edtech platform classplus projects 65% revenue growth, targets rs 250 crore in fy24, tamil nadu to fund higher education for government school students at top institutions, samagra shiksha to pm-usha: india’s pioneering steps toward universal education, iim lucknow and fpsb india launch new financial planning certification program, kerala government introduces ‘study in kerala’ and plans seven centres of excellence, karnataka’s initiative to support 25,000 students, tata motors unveils vidyadhan and utkarsha programs to empower higher education, dharmendra pradhan launches nats 2.0, ensuring rs. 100 crore stipends to nurture young talent, top trending categories.

Magazine 3079
Higher Education 2292
Article 1091
Interviews 851
Corporate Updates 843
Policy Matters 706
Schools News 326
Government News 271
Features 166
Editorial 146
B-schools 74
Startup News 51
Press Release 50
Budget 2022 41
Women's Day 39
Pre Schools 27
Privacy Policy
Magazine Subscription
Upcoming Events

Already using Kognity?

Educator Hub

student working on a laptop on top of several books

digital textbooks | learning | teachers | technology

Technology vs Teachers: Can technology replace teachers?

Over the last decade, the number of people taking online courses and therefore using technology as a tool to enhance their education has increased dramatically. You can now master a foreign language or complete a whole degree without leaving the comfort of your sofa. You can decide not only when you want to learn but also how you want to learn. Meanwhile, the range of technology used inside the classroom has also boomed, with the rise of smartboards, digital textbooks and, most notably, the tools offered on the Internet. But what does this continuing growth in education technology mean for teachers?

While many teachers are excited by technology and interested in the ways in which they can use it to enhance their teaching, others are concerned by its rapid development and wonder whether they themselves could eventually be replaced. At Kognity, this is a question we are frequently asked and recently one of my colleagues brought to my attention an article in the Guardian about just that: Can technology replace teachers? As an employee of an “Edtech” company, I often think about this question, and reading the Guardian article made me reflect on my own teaching experiences and wonder whether teaching and technology are mutually exclusive.

What does technology do for us?

Walking into a classroom in Thailand for the first time with 50 students staring at me while I realised I only had myself and a chalkboard to keep them engaged was intimidating. Think about having no access to a computer, no videos, no projector, not being able to make copies, having to enter all your students grades by hand … The list goes on. In a geography lesson, we can now transport students to explore another country via Google Street View, while in an English class we can take them back in time to experience Shakespeare’s plays as they were performed during his lifetime thanks to YouTube. Students are able to watch videos at home that explain how to use algebra or allow them to see first-hand the life cycle of a plant. Technology doesn’t discriminate based on a student’s ability or skill, but instead provides an opportunity to engage students using a medium that they recognise. Lest we forget, technology is growing not just within our classrooms but also in our everyday lives, so it is therefore natural that we should increasingly incorporate it into classrooms.

Great technology requires great teachers!

Crucially, as the Guardian article points out, the use of technology in the classroom doesn’t lessen the need for great teachers. In fact, it is great teachers who make using technology so significant in students’ education. Whilst technology is able to take on a whole host of tasks, it does have its shortcomings – most prominently its inability to interact with humans. Technology can therefore facilitate the learning process but it cannot replace the role of the teacher. As Vivienne Collinson points out in a study for the College of Education at Michigan State University, “Computers do not teach children to question, to discriminate among sources of information, to weigh perspectives, to think about consequences, to bring contextual meaning to a situation, to be creative, or to make careful judgments.” Teachers impart students with life skills, valuable life lessons and inspire them to reach their potential. A teacher is so much more than a facilitator: they are also a guide and a mentor. Without a great teacher, technology merely becomes an automated tool and stops inspiring and engaging students. Ultimately, it isn’t about teachers being replaced by technology but how teachers can adapt to incorporate technology in their lessons.

The question of whether technology will replace teachers is an age-old debate and one that is likely to continue as technology evolves further. In the same way that the calculator didn’t replace maths teachers, technology will continue aiding teachers to educate well-rounded and engaged students. At Kognity, we realise that promoting the use of technology in the classroom is only possible by coordinating effectively with teachers. As our CEO, Hugo Wernhoff, notes, “We’re not only in it to offer flexibility in time and place for students, or lower costs for providers. Our main ambition is instead to deliver better learning.” Technology can only assist in delivering better learning when it is used by a great teacher. Teachers’ roles within the classroom will inevitably change as the resources at their disposal develop. However, as many before have noted, students will always benefit from the guidance and instruction from a teacher at the front of a classroom.

Do you want to try Kognity at your school?

Blog articles

Teachers vs. Technology: The Synergy of New Transformation

Almost a decade ago, after the intrusion of computers in the public domain, one of the apprehensions was that will the growing use of computers negatively affect the manual employment opportunities? ‍ But the time proved this apprehension to be wrong as we see today that the introduction of computers has rather increased the employment opportunities and has also paved the path for new avenues in terms of education as well as employment. ‍

The situation now is more or less the same with the expansion of internet-based technologies in the education system. The age-old classroom teaching is being challenged by the introduction of online platforms such as Zoom, WebEx, Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, and several educational apps.

Technology vs. Teachers

We wandered around the technology path, but never really accepted it in the education sector. Apart from an ICT class, there wasn’t much thought given to the need for technology in education. Yet, we had EdTech startups and companies investing actively in EdTech for many years. ‍

It all came together with the Covid-19 induced lockdowns. ‍ Everything went online in an instant. It was a choice between no education and education aided by technology. ‍

Majority of the world was slowly embracing EdTech. Now, though, they had to do it, by force. ‍

Technology alone, however, couldn’t hold students together. Can teachers be replaced by computers? Of course, no. ‍ Teaching was always more than facts and figures. Books can do that job. ‍

Teachers' role involves guiding, mentoring, and leading students through their course, and often through their professional lives.

Teachers set the base for the future, and it can’t be replaced by technology. We haven’t yet seen a classroom of students where computers replace teachers. However, technology is perfect for aiding the process. Hence, we come back to the question.

Can technology replace teachers?

Absolutely not. We believe that technology will never replace great teachers, but technology in the hands of great teachers will be transformational. ‍

The role of a teacher is not merely confined to imparting knowledge. It goes far beyond that. ‍

A good teacher inculcates values to the students, and also becomes an inspirational role model for kids. ‍

Many times, even parents are not able to impart all the values which a teacher does effortlessly. Especially in the case of small children and young students the importance of teachers can not be undermined. ‍

A good teacher understands the needs of students with different learning abilities and grasping capacities and accordingly modifies her way of explaining lessons. ‍

With a live and personalised classroom teaching student has the liberty to ask questions and clarify doubts then and there. ‍

No doubt, the best teachers will always play a pivotal role in educating and inspiring students for decades to come but technology must be seen as a tool to enhance the teacher’s potential and not as a replacement for the teacher. There are many advanced tools, like online platforms for virtual meetings and interactive sessions which can be treated as a support system for our teachers. ‍

Rather than treating technology and teachers as some diverging source we can think of the two as a converging source of knowledge. ‍ Technology in a way also facilitates teachers to increase their reach and simplify the teaching process. ‍ The advancement of technology has also given the opportunity to the teachers to enhance their ability and depth of knowledge through regular upskilling.

The Role of Technology ‍

The role of technology is specific. It is about plugging the holes in education, while also using the tools at disposal for the best of the students. ‍

Books and notes aren't sufficient anymore. It is the job of the institutions and the teachers to upgrade their learning tools to the present, to do their job most effectively. ‍

Today’s generation sits in the lap of technology. If you plan to take it away, it will not work. ‍

However, if you use it effectively, it will reap great results. The aim of the present education system is to use a technology-infused learning environment. ‍

This environment respects the role of the teacher as the leader, while providing tools to help students grasp the concepts. ‍

Bill Gates once said, "Technology is just a tool. In terms of getting the kids working together and motivating them, the teacher is the most important." ‍

How technology and teachers work together? ‍

Technology can help teachers in making education more interesting and accessible. ‍

Some of the ways in which technology can help teachers in the greater benefit of students are: ‍

1. PowerPoint, Animations, and Games ‍

Some of the most difficult subjects can be made easier using simple presentations, animations for 3-dimensions, and games to make the subjects fun to learn. Several educational apps are integrating all these into their system already. ‍

2. Digital Homework Assignments ‍

The focus of assignments must be on the learning. Digital assignments help keep track of progress, while also making it convenient for both students and teachers. ‍

3. Online Grading Systems ‍

The benefit of the online grading system is two-fold. First, it makes the process more systemised and smoother. Second, it makes the system of grading unbiased, with an online system of marking. ‍ ‍

4. Classroom Tablets ‍

Tablets allow students to learn, instead of being busy scribbling down the notes from the teacher’s lecture. It also allows for scope for students who aren’t present for any reason, to be able to follow the lecture.

The Covid Connection

Education was one of the biggest targets of lockdown. It seemed to be a challenge with worldwide lockdowns and people stuck in their homes. Had it not been for technology, students would have been deprived of their primary right – education. ‍

The advancement of EdTech was a primary reason. ‍

Despite a couple of years of hiatus from physical schooling, students were prepared and continued studying. All the above features were for the test with Covid, where teaching was influenced and started by technology and teachers embraced it with open arms.

Did computers replace teachers, though? No. ‍

Teachers were still calling the shots, aided by computers and technology. The Post Covid-era is likely to see the growth of technology in education at the same pace.

Teachers vs. Computers

‍ "Teachers vs. Computers" is a topic of significant interest in the modern age of technological advancements. ‍

On one hand, computers have ushered in an era of personalised learning, offering customised content at a pace tailored to individual needs. ‍

Artificial intelligence can process vast amounts of information and present it in diverse formats, catering to various learning styles. ‍

However, while computers may facilitate information delivery, the importance of a human teacher cannot be underestimated. Teachers bring a personal touch, emotional intelligence, and the ability to inspire, motivate, and mentor. ‍

They can perceive subtle cues, understand individual struggles, and offer invaluable moral and emotional support. ‍

Furthermore, human interactions foster critical soft skills like communication, empathy, and teamwork.

Hence, while computers may complement the learning process, the irreplaceable essence of human connection in education ensures that teachers remain pivotal in shaping minds and characters.

Teachers should not be replaced by computers

Teachers occupy a vital position in the fabric of our educational system, and the notion of replacing them with computers is both simplistic and shortsighted. ‍

While computers offer an array of resources and tools, facilitating vast information access and customised learning modules, they lack the intrinsic human qualities that make education a profound experience. Teachers not only impart knowledge but also inspire, guide, and mentor their students, fostering critical thinking, creativity, and emotional growth. ‍

They create safe environments for discussions, debates, and collaborations, helping students navigate complex interpersonal dynamics. ‍

A teacher's ability to read the room, pick up on non-verbal cues, and tailor their approach based on individual student needs can never be replicated by algorithms or software.

The Global Connection

We envisage a future where there will be no geographical barriers in connecting students globally to the best teachers globally in a personalized manner. ‍

Any student sitting far apart and in remote areas can be benefited through the teaching of a good teacher even without meeting her in person.

Teachers will have access to every information about the student at their fingertips - past performance, behavioural traits, past assignments, and AI-driven recommended curriculum and learning roadmap that can be reviewed and further refined with the guidance of the teacher. ‍

During the class, teachers will be able to digitally use the best resource to explain concepts - whiteboard, sample finished projects, real mentors from the field, or guided explanation using kids’ Avatars to make it fun. ‍

Technology can be used to recommend the relevant personalised assignment to enhance the learning - and all this will happen with the teacher guiding the technology so it improves over time. ‍

Great teachers empowered with technology can have a transformational effect on the overall development of students, and we have just embarked upon this journey to make this reality by improving the quality of education, one student at a time.

Wrapping Up ‍

Will technology replace teachers? The answer is ‘no’. ‍

Although, we can safely say that the teaching profession is more enhanced and improved by technology. ‍

Technology can be a great add-on to the existing education system, helping connect students and teachers from anywhere, while also providing useful technological tools in the arsenal. ‍

Do we need technology, though? With the uncertainties and the melting global education boundaries, we can’t manage without technology. Education is a process of knowledge transfer. Teachers and technology together can make this the perfect gift for students.

Is technology changing the role of teachers? ‍

Technology is definitely changing the role of the teachers, making them more aware of the tools at their disposal. Teachers are now developing into their role of mentors and leaders even more, having the notes and books load lightened by technology.

Will teachers be replaced by robots?

Teachers who are repeating the books and exam notes can certainly be replaced by robots. Robots don't have human intelligence, sensitivity, and intuition. ‍

Robots cannot inspire us. They won't be able to mentor students. Most teachers don't rely entirely on books and are leaders within themselves. It is not possible for robots or computers to replace, at least in the foreseeable future.

Why are teachers better than computers? ‍

Teachers are better than computers because of their human nature. They can lend an ear to the student in doubt and can lend a hand to the student in need. A teacher is a bridge between knowledge and students. Computers can be great at many things, but not the humane touch, intuitiveness, and leadership skills.

Do you think computers will one day replace teachers in the classroom? No, it's unlikely that computers will fully replace teachers in the classroom. While technology has made significant strides and computers can now deliver personalised learning experiences, provide instant access to vast amounts of information, and offer interactive platforms for students, they cannot replicate the myriad human aspects that teachers bring to the educational process

Sign up for a trial class and let your child explore the world of coding!

Want a trial coding class for your child?

Online Scams: Protecting Your Child—How to Keep Them Safe in the Digital World

Empathy Behind the Screen: How to Cultivate Kindness in the Digital Age

The Future of Mobile App Development: Should Your Child Learn It?

Start learning with us, teach your child coding, ai and robotics.

Give your child the gift of a bright future by providing them with in-demand tech skills. Take a trial class today.

Sign up for a free trial class

Introduce your child to the exciting world of Coding, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics with our interactive free trial class. Unlock their potential and ignite their curiosity.

My 8 year old son is coding independently! With JetLearn, he has developed increased concentration, computer & english language skills, and logical reasoning abilities.

REALIZING THE PROMISE:

Leading up to the 75th anniversary of the UN General Assembly, this “Realizing the promise: How can education technology improve learning for all?” publication kicks off the Center for Universal Education’s first playbook in a series to help improve education around the world.

It is intended as an evidence-based tool for ministries of education, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, to adopt and more successfully invest in education technology.

While there is no single education initiative that will achieve the same results everywhere—as school systems differ in learners and educators, as well as in the availability and quality of materials and technologies—an important first step is understanding how technology is used given specific local contexts and needs.

The surveys in this playbook are designed to be adapted to collect this information from educators, learners, and school leaders and guide decisionmakers in expanding the use of technology.

Introduction

While technology has disrupted most sectors of the economy and changed how we communicate, access information, work, and even play, its impact on schools, teaching, and learning has been much more limited. We believe that this limited impact is primarily due to technology being been used to replace analog tools, without much consideration given to playing to technology’s comparative advantages. These comparative advantages, relative to traditional “chalk-and-talk” classroom instruction, include helping to scale up standardized instruction, facilitate differentiated instruction, expand opportunities for practice, and increase student engagement. When schools use technology to enhance the work of educators and to improve the quality and quantity of educational content, learners will thrive.

Further, COVID-19 has laid bare that, in today’s environment where pandemics and the effects of climate change are likely to occur, schools cannot always provide in-person education—making the case for investing in education technology.

Here we argue for a simple yet surprisingly rare approach to education technology that seeks to:

Understand the needs, infrastructure, and capacity of a school system—the diagnosis;
Survey the best available evidence on interventions that match those conditions—the evidence; and
Closely monitor the results of innovations before they are scaled up—the prognosis.

Podcast: How education technology can improve learning for all students

To make ed tech work, set clear goals, review the evidence, and pilot before you scale

The framework.

Our approach builds on a simple yet intuitive theoretical framework created two decades ago by two of the most prominent education researchers in the United States, David K. Cohen and Deborah Loewenberg Ball. They argue that what matters most to improve learning is the interactions among educators and learners around educational materials. We believe that the failed school-improvement efforts in the U.S. that motivated Cohen and Ball’s framework resemble the ed-tech reforms in much of the developing world to date in the lack of clarity improving the interactions between educators, learners, and the educational material. We build on their framework by adding parents as key agents that mediate the relationships between learners and educators and the material (Figure 1).

Figure 1: The instructional core

Adapted from Cohen and Ball (1999)

As the figure above suggests, ed-tech interventions can affect the instructional core in a myriad of ways. Yet, just because technology can do something, it does not mean it should. School systems in developing countries differ along many dimensions and each system is likely to have different needs for ed-tech interventions, as well as different infrastructure and capacity to enact such interventions.

The diagnosis:

How can school systems assess their needs and preparedness.

A useful first step for any school system to determine whether it should invest in education technology is to diagnose its:

Specific needs to improve student learning (e.g., raising the average level of achievement, remediating gaps among low performers, and challenging high performers to develop higher-order skills);
Infrastructure to adopt technology-enabled solutions (e.g., electricity connection, availability of space and outlets, stock of computers, and Internet connectivity at school and at learners’ homes); and
Capacity to integrate technology in the instructional process (e.g., learners’ and educators’ level of familiarity and comfort with hardware and software, their beliefs about the level of usefulness of technology for learning purposes, and their current uses of such technology).

Before engaging in any new data collection exercise, school systems should take full advantage of existing administrative data that could shed light on these three main questions. This could be in the form of internal evaluations but also international learner assessments, such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and/or the Progress in International Literacy Study (PIRLS), and the Teaching and Learning International Study (TALIS). But if school systems lack information on their preparedness for ed-tech reforms or if they seek to complement existing data with a richer set of indicators, we developed a set of surveys for learners, educators, and school leaders. Download the full report to see how we map out the main aspects covered by these surveys, in hopes of highlighting how they could be used to inform decisions around the adoption of ed-tech interventions.

The evidence:

How can school systems identify promising ed-tech interventions.

There is no single “ed-tech” initiative that will achieve the same results everywhere, simply because school systems differ in learners and educators, as well as in the availability and quality of materials and technologies. Instead, to realize the potential of education technology to accelerate student learning, decisionmakers should focus on four potential uses of technology that play to its comparative advantages and complement the work of educators to accelerate student learning (Figure 2). These comparative advantages include:

Scaling up quality instruction, such as through prerecorded quality lessons.
Facilitating differentiated instruction, through, for example, computer-adaptive learning and live one-on-one tutoring.
Expanding opportunities to practice.
Increasing learner engagement through videos and games.

Figure 2: Comparative advantages of technology

Here we review the evidence on ed-tech interventions from 37 studies in 20 countries*, organizing them by comparative advantage. It’s important to note that ours is not the only way to classify these interventions (e.g., video tutorials could be considered as a strategy to scale up instruction or increase learner engagement), but we believe it may be useful to highlight the needs that they could address and why technology is well positioned to do so.

When discussing specific studies, we report the magnitude of the effects of interventions using standard deviations (SDs). SDs are a widely used metric in research to express the effect of a program or policy with respect to a business-as-usual condition (e.g., test scores). There are several ways to make sense of them. One is to categorize the magnitude of the effects based on the results of impact evaluations. In developing countries, effects below 0.1 SDs are considered to be small, effects between 0.1 and 0.2 SDs are medium, and those above 0.2 SDs are large (for reviews that estimate the average effect of groups of interventions, called “meta analyses,” see e.g., Conn, 2017; Kremer, Brannen, & Glennerster, 2013; McEwan, 2014; Snilstveit et al., 2015; Evans & Yuan, 2020.)

*In surveying the evidence, we began by compiling studies from prior general and ed-tech specific evidence reviews that some of us have written and from ed-tech reviews conducted by others. Then, we tracked the studies cited by the ones we had previously read and reviewed those, as well. In identifying studies for inclusion, we focused on experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations of education technology interventions from pre-school to secondary school in low- and middle-income countries that were released between 2000 and 2020. We only included interventions that sought to improve student learning directly (i.e., students’ interaction with the material), as opposed to interventions that have impacted achievement indirectly, by reducing teacher absence or increasing parental engagement. This process yielded 37 studies in 20 countries (see the full list of studies in Appendix B).

Scaling up standardized instruction

One of the ways in which technology may improve the quality of education is through its capacity to deliver standardized quality content at scale. This feature of technology may be particularly useful in three types of settings: (a) those in “hard-to-staff” schools (i.e., schools that struggle to recruit educators with the requisite training and experience—typically, in rural and/or remote areas) (see, e.g., Urquiola & Vegas, 2005); (b) those in which many educators are frequently absent from school (e.g., Chaudhury, Hammer, Kremer, Muralidharan, & Rogers, 2006; Muralidharan, Das, Holla, & Mohpal, 2017); and/or (c) those in which educators have low levels of pedagogical and subject matter expertise (e.g., Bietenbeck, Piopiunik, & Wiederhold, 2018; Bold et al., 2017; Metzler & Woessmann, 2012; Santibañez, 2006) and do not have opportunities to observe and receive feedback (e.g., Bruns, Costa, & Cunha, 2018; Cilliers, Fleisch, Prinsloo, & Taylor, 2018). Technology could address this problem by: (a) disseminating lessons delivered by qualified educators to a large number of learners (e.g., through prerecorded or live lessons); (b) enabling distance education (e.g., for learners in remote areas and/or during periods of school closures); and (c) distributing hardware preloaded with educational materials.

Prerecorded lessons

Technology seems to be well placed to amplify the impact of effective educators by disseminating their lessons. Evidence on the impact of prerecorded lessons is encouraging, but not conclusive. Some initiatives that have used short instructional videos to complement regular instruction, in conjunction with other learning materials, have raised student learning on independent assessments. For example, Beg et al. (2020) evaluated an initiative in Punjab, Pakistan in which grade 8 classrooms received an intervention that included short videos to substitute live instruction, quizzes for learners to practice the material from every lesson, tablets for educators to learn the material and follow the lesson, and LED screens to project the videos onto a classroom screen. After six months, the intervention improved the performance of learners on independent tests of math and science by 0.19 and 0.24 SDs, respectively but had no discernible effect on the math and science section of Punjab’s high-stakes exams.

One study suggests that approaches that are far less technologically sophisticated can also improve learning outcomes—especially, if the business-as-usual instruction is of low quality. For example, Naslund-Hadley, Parker, and Hernandez-Agramonte (2014) evaluated a preschool math program in Cordillera, Paraguay that used audio segments and written materials four days per week for an hour per day during the school day. After five months, the intervention improved math scores by 0.16 SDs, narrowing gaps between low- and high-achieving learners, and between those with and without educators with formal training in early childhood education.

Yet, the integration of prerecorded material into regular instruction has not always been successful. For example, de Barros (2020) evaluated an intervention that combined instructional videos for math and science with infrastructure upgrades (e.g., two “smart” classrooms, two TVs, and two tablets), printed workbooks for students, and in-service training for educators of learners in grades 9 and 10 in Haryana, India (all materials were mapped onto the official curriculum). After 11 months, the intervention negatively impacted math achievement (by 0.08 SDs) and had no effect on science (with respect to business as usual classes). It reduced the share of lesson time that educators devoted to instruction and negatively impacted an index of instructional quality. Likewise, Seo (2017) evaluated several combinations of infrastructure (solar lights and TVs) and prerecorded videos (in English and/or bilingual) for grade 11 students in northern Tanzania and found that none of the variants improved student learning, even when the videos were used. The study reports effects from the infrastructure component across variants, but as others have noted (Muralidharan, Romero, & Wüthrich, 2019), this approach to estimating impact is problematic.

A very similar intervention delivered after school hours, however, had sizeable effects on learners’ basic skills. Chiplunkar, Dhar, and Nagesh (2020) evaluated an initiative in Chennai (the capital city of the state of Tamil Nadu, India) delivered by the same organization as above that combined short videos that explained key concepts in math and science with worksheets, facilitator-led instruction, small groups for peer-to-peer learning, and occasional career counseling and guidance for grade 9 students. These lessons took place after school for one hour, five times a week. After 10 months, it had large effects on learners’ achievement as measured by tests of basic skills in math and reading, but no effect on a standardized high-stakes test in grade 10 or socio-emotional skills (e.g., teamwork, decisionmaking, and communication).

Drawing general lessons from this body of research is challenging for at least two reasons. First, all of the studies above have evaluated the impact of prerecorded lessons combined with several other components (e.g., hardware, print materials, or other activities). Therefore, it is possible that the effects found are due to these additional components, rather than to the recordings themselves, or to the interaction between the two (see Muralidharan, 2017 for a discussion of the challenges of interpreting “bundled” interventions). Second, while these studies evaluate some type of prerecorded lessons, none examines the content of such lessons. Thus, it seems entirely plausible that the direction and magnitude of the effects depends largely on the quality of the recordings (e.g., the expertise of the educator recording it, the amount of preparation that went into planning the recording, and its alignment with best teaching practices).

These studies also raise three important questions worth exploring in future research. One of them is why none of the interventions discussed above had effects on high-stakes exams, even if their materials are typically mapped onto the official curriculum. It is possible that the official curricula are simply too challenging for learners in these settings, who are several grade levels behind expectations and who often need to reinforce basic skills (see Pritchett & Beatty, 2015). Another question is whether these interventions have long-term effects on teaching practices. It seems plausible that, if these interventions are deployed in contexts with low teaching quality, educators may learn something from watching the videos or listening to the recordings with learners. Yet another question is whether these interventions make it easier for schools to deliver instruction to learners whose native language is other than the official medium of instruction.

Distance education

Technology can also allow learners living in remote areas to access education. The evidence on these initiatives is encouraging. For example, Johnston and Ksoll (2017) evaluated a program that broadcasted live instruction via satellite to rural primary school students in the Volta and Greater Accra regions of Ghana. For this purpose, the program also equipped classrooms with the technology needed to connect to a studio in Accra, including solar panels, a satellite modem, a projector, a webcam, microphones, and a computer with interactive software. After two years, the intervention improved the numeracy scores of students in grades 2 through 4, and some foundational literacy tasks, but it had no effect on attendance or classroom time devoted to instruction, as captured by school visits. The authors interpreted these results as suggesting that the gains in achievement may be due to improving the quality of instruction that children received (as opposed to increased instructional time). Naik, Chitre, Bhalla, and Rajan (2019) evaluated a similar program in the Indian state of Karnataka and also found positive effects on learning outcomes, but it is not clear whether those effects are due to the program or due to differences in the groups of students they compared to estimate the impact of the initiative.

In one context (Mexico), this type of distance education had positive long-term effects. Navarro-Sola (2019) took advantage of the staggered rollout of the telesecundarias (i.e., middle schools with lessons broadcasted through satellite TV) in 1968 to estimate its impact. The policy had short-term effects on students’ enrollment in school: For every telesecundaria per 50 children, 10 students enrolled in middle school and two pursued further education. It also had a long-term influence on the educational and employment trajectory of its graduates. Each additional year of education induced by the policy increased average income by nearly 18 percent. This effect was attributable to more graduates entering the labor force and shifting from agriculture and the informal sector. Similarly, Fabregas (2019) leveraged a later expansion of this policy in 1993 and found that each additional telesecundaria per 1,000 adolescents led to an average increase of 0.2 years of education, and a decline in fertility for women, but no conclusive evidence of long-term effects on labor market outcomes.

It is crucial to interpret these results keeping in mind the settings where the interventions were implemented. As we mention above, part of the reason why they have proven effective is that the “counterfactual” conditions for learning (i.e., what would have happened to learners in the absence of such programs) was either to not have access to schooling or to be exposed to low-quality instruction. School systems interested in taking up similar interventions should assess the extent to which their learners (or parts of their learner population) find themselves in similar conditions to the subjects of the studies above. This illustrates the importance of assessing the needs of a system before reviewing the evidence.

Preloaded hardware

Technology also seems well positioned to disseminate educational materials. Specifically, hardware (e.g., desktop computers, laptops, or tablets) could also help deliver educational software (e.g., word processing, reference texts, and/or games). In theory, these materials could not only undergo a quality assurance review (e.g., by curriculum specialists and educators), but also draw on the interactions with learners for adjustments (e.g., identifying areas needing reinforcement) and enable interactions between learners and educators.

In practice, however, most initiatives that have provided learners with free computers, laptops, and netbooks do not leverage any of the opportunities mentioned above. Instead, they install a standard set of educational materials and hope that learners find them helpful enough to take them up on their own. Students rarely do so, and instead use the laptops for recreational purposes—often, to the detriment of their learning (see, e.g., Malamud & Pop-Eleches, 2011). In fact, free netbook initiatives have not only consistently failed to improve academic achievement in math or language (e.g., Cristia et al., 2017), but they have had no impact on learners’ general computer skills (e.g., Beuermann et al., 2015). Some of these initiatives have had small impacts on cognitive skills, but the mechanisms through which those effects occurred remains unclear.

To our knowledge, the only successful deployment of a free laptop initiative was one in which a team of researchers equipped the computers with remedial software. Mo et al. (2013) evaluated a version of the One Laptop per Child (OLPC) program for grade 3 students in migrant schools in Beijing, China in which the laptops were loaded with a remedial software mapped onto the national curriculum for math (similar to the software products that we discuss under “practice exercises” below). After nine months, the program improved math achievement by 0.17 SDs and computer skills by 0.33 SDs. If a school system decides to invest in free laptops, this study suggests that the quality of the software on the laptops is crucial.

To date, however, the evidence suggests that children do not learn more from interacting with laptops than they do from textbooks. For example, Bando, Gallego, Gertler, and Romero (2016) compared the effect of free laptop and textbook provision in 271 elementary schools in disadvantaged areas of Honduras. After seven months, students in grades 3 and 6 who had received the laptops performed on par with those who had received the textbooks in math and language. Further, even if textbooks essentially become obsolete at the end of each school year, whereas laptops can be reloaded with new materials for each year, the costs of laptop provision (not just the hardware, but also the technical assistance, Internet, and training associated with it) are not yet low enough to make them a more cost-effective way of delivering content to learners.

Evidence on the provision of tablets equipped with software is encouraging but limited. For example, de Hoop et al. (2020) evaluated a composite intervention for first grade students in Zambia’s Eastern Province that combined infrastructure (electricity via solar power), hardware (projectors and tablets), and educational materials (lesson plans for educators and interactive lessons for learners, both loaded onto the tablets and mapped onto the official Zambian curriculum). After 14 months, the intervention had improved student early-grade reading by 0.4 SDs, oral vocabulary scores by 0.25 SDs, and early-grade math by 0.22 SDs. It also improved students’ achievement by 0.16 on a locally developed assessment. The multifaceted nature of the program, however, makes it challenging to identify the components that are driving the positive effects. Pitchford (2015) evaluated an intervention that provided tablets equipped with educational “apps,” to be used for 30 minutes per day for two months to develop early math skills among students in grades 1 through 3 in Lilongwe, Malawi. The evaluation found positive impacts in math achievement, but the main study limitation is that it was conducted in a single school.

Facilitating differentiated instruction

Another way in which technology may improve educational outcomes is by facilitating the delivery of differentiated or individualized instruction. Most developing countries massively expanded access to schooling in recent decades by building new schools and making education more affordable, both by defraying direct costs, as well as compensating for opportunity costs (Duflo, 2001; World Bank, 2018). These initiatives have not only rapidly increased the number of learners enrolled in school, but have also increased the variability in learner’ preparation for schooling. Consequently, a large number of learners perform well below grade-based curricular expectations (see, e.g., Duflo, Dupas, & Kremer, 2011; Pritchett & Beatty, 2015). These learners are unlikely to get much from “one-size-fits-all” instruction, in which a single educator delivers instruction deemed appropriate for the middle (or top) of the achievement distribution (Banerjee & Duflo, 2011). Technology could potentially help these learners by providing them with: (a) instruction and opportunities for practice that adjust to the level and pace of preparation of each individual (known as “computer-adaptive learning” (CAL)); or (b) live, one-on-one tutoring.

Computer-adaptive learning

One of the main comparative advantages of technology is its ability to diagnose students’ initial learning levels and assign students to instruction and exercises of appropriate difficulty. No individual educator—no matter how talented—can be expected to provide individualized instruction to all learners in his/her class simultaneously . In this respect, technology is uniquely positioned to complement traditional teaching. This use of technology could help learners master basic skills and help them get more out of schooling.

Although many software products evaluated in recent years have been categorized as CAL, many rely on a relatively coarse level of differentiation at an initial stage (e.g., a diagnostic test) without further differentiation. We discuss these initiatives under the category of “increasing opportunities for practice” below. CAL initiatives complement an initial diagnostic with dynamic adaptation (i.e., at each response or set of responses from learners) to adjust both the initial level of difficulty and rate at which it increases or decreases, depending on whether learners’ responses are correct or incorrect.

Existing evidence on this specific type of programs is highly promising. Most famously, Banerjee et al. (2007) evaluated CAL software in Vadodara, in the Indian state of Gujarat, in which grade 4 students were offered two hours of shared computer time per week before and after school, during which they played games that involved solving math problems. The level of difficulty of such problems adjusted based on students’ answers. This program improved math achievement by 0.35 and 0.47 SDs after one and two years of implementation, respectively. Consistent with the promise of personalized learning, the software improved achievement for all students. In fact, one year after the end of the program, students assigned to the program still performed 0.1 SDs better than those assigned to a business as usual condition. More recently, Muralidharan, et al. (2019) evaluated a “blended learning” initiative in which students in grades 4 through 9 in Delhi, India received 45 minutes of interaction with CAL software for math and language, and 45 minutes of small group instruction before or after going to school. After only 4.5 months, the program improved achievement by 0.37 SDs in math and 0.23 SDs in Hindi. While all learners benefited from the program in absolute terms, the lowest performing learners benefited the most in relative terms, since they were learning very little in school.

We see two important limitations from this body of research. First, to our knowledge, none of these initiatives has been evaluated when implemented during the school day. Therefore, it is not possible to distinguish the effect of the adaptive software from that of additional instructional time. Second, given that most of these programs were facilitated by local instructors, attempts to distinguish the effect of the software from that of the instructors has been mostly based on noncausal evidence. A frontier challenge in this body of research is to understand whether CAL software can increase the effectiveness of school-based instruction by substituting part of the regularly scheduled time for math and language instruction.

Live one-on-one tutoring

Recent improvements in the speed and quality of videoconferencing, as well as in the connectivity of remote areas, have enabled yet another way in which technology can help personalization: live (i.e., real-time) one-on-one tutoring. While the evidence on in-person tutoring is scarce in developing countries, existing studies suggest that this approach works best when it is used to personalize instruction (see, e.g., Banerjee et al., 2007; Banerji, Berry, & Shotland, 2015; Cabezas, Cuesta, & Gallego, 2011).

There are almost no studies on the impact of online tutoring—possibly, due to the lack of hardware and Internet connectivity in low- and middle-income countries. One exception is Chemin and Oledan (2020)’s recent evaluation of an online tutoring program for grade 6 students in Kianyaga, Kenya to learn English from volunteers from a Canadian university via Skype ( videoconferencing software) for one hour per week after school. After 10 months, program beneficiaries performed 0.22 SDs better in a test of oral comprehension, improved their comfort using technology for learning, and became more willing to engage in cross-cultural communication. Importantly, while the tutoring sessions used the official English textbooks and sought in part to help learners with their homework, tutors were trained on several strategies to teach to each learner’s individual level of preparation, focusing on basic skills if necessary. To our knowledge, similar initiatives within a country have not yet been rigorously evaluated.

Expanding opportunities for practice

A third way in which technology may improve the quality of education is by providing learners with additional opportunities for practice. In many developing countries, lesson time is primarily devoted to lectures, in which the educator explains the topic and the learners passively copy explanations from the blackboard. This setup leaves little time for in-class practice. Consequently, learners who did not understand the explanation of the material during lecture struggle when they have to solve homework assignments on their own. Technology could potentially address this problem by allowing learners to review topics at their own pace.

Practice exercises

Technology can help learners get more out of traditional instruction by providing them with opportunities to implement what they learn in class. This approach could, in theory, allow some learners to anchor their understanding of the material through trial and error (i.e., by realizing what they may not have understood correctly during lecture and by getting better acquainted with special cases not covered in-depth in class).

Existing evidence on practice exercises reflects both the promise and the limitations of this use of technology in developing countries. For example, Lai et al. (2013) evaluated a program in Shaanxi, China where students in grades 3 and 5 were required to attend two 40-minute remedial sessions per week in which they first watched videos that reviewed the material that had been introduced in their math lessons that week and then played games to practice the skills introduced in the video. After four months, the intervention improved math achievement by 0.12 SDs. Many other evaluations of comparable interventions have found similar small-to-moderate results (see, e.g., Lai, Luo, Zhang, Huang, & Rozelle, 2015; Lai et al., 2012; Mo et al., 2015; Pitchford, 2015). These effects, however, have been consistently smaller than those of initiatives that adjust the difficulty of the material based on students’ performance (e.g., Banerjee et al., 2007; Muralidharan, et al., 2019). We hypothesize that these programs do little for learners who perform several grade levels behind curricular expectations, and who would benefit more from a review of foundational concepts from earlier grades.

We see two important limitations from this research. First, most initiatives that have been evaluated thus far combine instructional videos with practice exercises, so it is hard to know whether their effects are driven by the former or the latter. In fact, the program in China described above allowed learners to ask their peers whenever they did not understand a difficult concept, so it potentially also captured the effect of peer-to-peer collaboration. To our knowledge, no studies have addressed this gap in the evidence.

Second, most of these programs are implemented before or after school, so we cannot distinguish the effect of additional instructional time from that of the actual opportunity for practice. The importance of this question was first highlighted by Linden (2008), who compared two delivery mechanisms for game-based remedial math software for students in grades 2 and 3 in a network of schools run by a nonprofit organization in Gujarat, India: one in which students interacted with the software during the school day and another one in which students interacted with the software before or after school (in both cases, for three hours per day). After a year, the first version of the program had negatively impacted students’ math achievement by 0.57 SDs and the second one had a null effect. This study suggested that computer-assisted learning is a poor substitute for regular instruction when it is of high quality, as was the case in this well-functioning private network of schools.

In recent years, several studies have sought to remedy this shortcoming. Mo et al. (2014) were among the first to evaluate practice exercises delivered during the school day. They evaluated an initiative in Shaanxi, China in which students in grades 3 and 5 were required to interact with the software similar to the one in Lai et al. (2013) for two 40-minute sessions per week. The main limitation of this study, however, is that the program was delivered during regularly scheduled computer lessons, so it could not determine the impact of substituting regular math instruction. Similarly, Mo et al. (2020) evaluated a self-paced and a teacher-directed version of a similar program for English for grade 5 students in Qinghai, China. Yet, the key shortcoming of this study is that the teacher-directed version added several components that may also influence achievement, such as increased opportunities for teachers to provide students with personalized assistance when they struggled with the material. Ma, Fairlie, Loyalka, and Rozelle (2020) compared the effectiveness of additional time-delivered remedial instruction for students in grades 4 to 6 in Shaanxi, China through either computer-assisted software or using workbooks. This study indicates whether additional instructional time is more effective when using technology, but it does not address the question of whether school systems may improve the productivity of instructional time during the school day by substituting educator-led with computer-assisted instruction.

Increasing learner engagement

Another way in which technology may improve education is by increasing learners’ engagement with the material. In many school systems, regular “chalk and talk” instruction prioritizes time for educators’ exposition over opportunities for learners to ask clarifying questions and/or contribute to class discussions. This, combined with the fact that many developing-country classrooms include a very large number of learners (see, e.g., Angrist & Lavy, 1999; Duflo, Dupas, & Kremer, 2015), may partially explain why the majority of those students are several grade levels behind curricular expectations (e.g., Muralidharan, et al., 2019; Muralidharan & Zieleniak, 2014; Pritchett & Beatty, 2015). Technology could potentially address these challenges by: (a) using video tutorials for self-paced learning and (b) presenting exercises as games and/or gamifying practice.

Video tutorials

Technology can potentially increase learner effort and understanding of the material by finding new and more engaging ways to deliver it. Video tutorials designed for self-paced learning—as opposed to videos for whole class instruction, which we discuss under the category of “prerecorded lessons” above—can increase learner effort in multiple ways, including: allowing learners to focus on topics with which they need more help, letting them correct errors and misconceptions on their own, and making the material appealing through visual aids. They can increase understanding by breaking the material into smaller units and tackling common misconceptions.

In spite of the popularity of instructional videos, there is relatively little evidence on their effectiveness. Yet, two recent evaluations of different versions of the Khan Academy portal, which mainly relies on instructional videos, offer some insight into their impact. First, Ferman, Finamor, and Lima (2019) evaluated an initiative in 157 public primary and middle schools in five cities in Brazil in which the teachers of students in grades 5 and 9 were taken to the computer lab to learn math from the platform for 50 minutes per week. The authors found that, while the intervention slightly improved learners’ attitudes toward math, these changes did not translate into better performance in this subject. The authors hypothesized that this could be due to the reduction of teacher-led math instruction.

More recently, Büchel, Jakob, Kühnhanss, Steffen, and Brunetti (2020) evaluated an after-school, offline delivery of the Khan Academy portal in grades 3 through 6 in 302 primary schools in Morazán, El Salvador. Students in this study received 90 minutes per week of additional math instruction (effectively nearly doubling total math instruction per week) through teacher-led regular lessons, teacher-assisted Khan Academy lessons, or similar lessons assisted by technical supervisors with no content expertise. (Importantly, the first group provided differentiated instruction, which is not the norm in Salvadorian schools). All three groups outperformed both schools without any additional lessons and classrooms without additional lessons in the same schools as the program. The teacher-assisted Khan Academy lessons performed 0.24 SDs better, the supervisor-led lessons 0.22 SDs better, and the teacher-led regular lessons 0.15 SDs better, but the authors could not determine whether the effects across versions were different.

Together, these studies suggest that instructional videos work best when provided as a complement to, rather than as a substitute for, regular instruction. Yet, the main limitation of these studies is the multifaceted nature of the Khan Academy portal, which also includes other components found to positively improve learner achievement, such as differentiated instruction by students’ learning levels. While the software does not provide the type of personalization discussed above, learners are asked to take a placement test and, based on their score, educators assign them different work. Therefore, it is not clear from these studies whether the effects from Khan Academy are driven by its instructional videos or to the software’s ability to provide differentiated activities when combined with placement tests.

Games and gamification

Technology can also increase learner engagement by presenting exercises as games and/or by encouraging learner to play and compete with others (e.g., using leaderboards and rewards)—an approach known as “gamification.” Both approaches can increase learner motivation and effort by presenting learners with entertaining opportunities for practice and by leveraging peers as commitment devices.

There are very few studies on the effects of games and gamification in low- and middle-income countries. Recently, Araya, Arias Ortiz, Bottan, and Cristia (2019) evaluated an initiative in which grade 4 students in Santiago, Chile were required to participate in two 90-minute sessions per week during the school day with instructional math software featuring individual and group competitions (e.g., tracking each learner’s standing in his/her class and tournaments between sections). After nine months, the program led to improvements of 0.27 SDs in the national student assessment in math (it had no spillover effects on reading). However, it had mixed effects on non-academic outcomes. Specifically, the program increased learners’ willingness to use computers to learn math, but, at the same time, increased their anxiety toward math and negatively impacted learners’ willingness to collaborate with peers. Finally, given that one of the weekly sessions replaced regular math instruction and the other one represented additional math instructional time, it is not clear whether the academic effects of the program are driven by the software or the additional time devoted to learning math.

The prognosis:

How can school systems adopt interventions that match their needs.

Here are five specific and sequential guidelines for decisionmakers to realize the potential of education technology to accelerate student learning.

1. Take stock of how your current schools, educators, and learners are engaging with technology .

Carry out a short in-school survey to understand the current practices and potential barriers to adoption of technology (we have included suggested survey instruments in the Appendices); use this information in your decisionmaking process. For example, we learned from conversations with current and former ministers of education from various developing regions that a common limitation to technology use is regulations that hold school leaders accountable for damages to or losses of devices. Another common barrier is lack of access to electricity and Internet, or even the availability of sufficient outlets for charging devices in classrooms. Understanding basic infrastructure and regulatory limitations to the use of education technology is a first necessary step. But addressing these limitations will not guarantee that introducing or expanding technology use will accelerate learning. The next steps are thus necessary.

“In Africa, the biggest limit is connectivity. Fiber is expensive, and we don’t have it everywhere. The continent is creating a digital divide between cities, where there is fiber, and the rural areas. The [Ghanaian] administration put in schools offline/online technologies with books, assessment tools, and open source materials. In deploying this, we are finding that again, teachers are unfamiliar with it. And existing policies prohibit students to bring their own tablets or cell phones. The easiest way to do it would have been to let everyone bring their own device. But policies are against it.” H.E. Matthew Prempeh, Minister of Education of Ghana, on the need to understand the local context.

2. Consider how the introduction of technology may affect the interactions among learners, educators, and content .

Our review of the evidence indicates that technology may accelerate student learning when it is used to scale up access to quality content, facilitate differentiated instruction, increase opportunities for practice, or when it increases learner engagement. For example, will adding electronic whiteboards to classrooms facilitate access to more quality content or differentiated instruction? Or will these expensive boards be used in the same way as the old chalkboards? Will providing one device (laptop or tablet) to each learner facilitate access to more and better content, or offer students more opportunities to practice and learn? Solely introducing technology in classrooms without additional changes is unlikely to lead to improved learning and may be quite costly. If you cannot clearly identify how the interactions among the three key components of the instructional core (educators, learners, and content) may change after the introduction of technology, then it is probably not a good idea to make the investment. See Appendix A for guidance on the types of questions to ask.

3. Once decisionmakers have a clear idea of how education technology can help accelerate student learning in a specific context, it is important to define clear objectives and goals and establish ways to regularly assess progress and make course corrections in a timely manner .

For instance, is the education technology expected to ensure that learners in early grades excel in foundational skills—basic literacy and numeracy—by age 10? If so, will the technology provide quality reading and math materials, ample opportunities to practice, and engaging materials such as videos or games? Will educators be empowered to use these materials in new ways? And how will progress be measured and adjusted?

4. How this kind of reform is approached can matter immensely for its success.

It is easy to nod to issues of “implementation,” but that needs to be more than rhetorical. Keep in mind that good use of education technology requires thinking about how it will affect learners, educators, and parents. After all, giving learners digital devices will make no difference if they get broken, are stolen, or go unused. Classroom technologies only matter if educators feel comfortable putting them to work. Since good technology is generally about complementing or amplifying what educators and learners already do, it is almost always a mistake to mandate programs from on high. It is vital that technology be adopted with the input of educators and families and with attention to how it will be used. If technology goes unused or if educators use it ineffectually, the results will disappoint—no matter the virtuosity of the technology. Indeed, unused education technology can be an unnecessary expenditure for cash-strapped education systems. This is why surveying context, listening to voices in the field, examining how technology is used, and planning for course correction is essential.

5. It is essential to communicate with a range of stakeholders, including educators, school leaders, parents, and learners .

Technology can feel alien in schools, confuse parents and (especially) older educators, or become an alluring distraction. Good communication can help address all of these risks. Taking care to listen to educators and families can help ensure that programs are informed by their needs and concerns. At the same time, deliberately and consistently explaining what technology is and is not supposed to do, how it can be most effectively used, and the ways in which it can make it more likely that programs work as intended. For instance, if teachers fear that technology is intended to reduce the need for educators, they will tend to be hostile; if they believe that it is intended to assist them in their work, they will be more receptive. Absent effective communication, it is easy for programs to “fail” not because of the technology but because of how it was used. In short, past experience in rolling out education programs indicates that it is as important to have a strong intervention design as it is to have a solid plan to socialize it among stakeholders.

Beyond reopening: A leapfrog moment to transform education?

On September 14, the Center for Universal Education (CUE) will host a webinar to discuss strategies, including around the effective use of education technology, for ensuring resilient schools in the long term and to launch a new education technology playbook “Realizing the promise: How can education technology improve learning for all?”

file-pdf Full Playbook – Realizing the promise: How can education technology improve learning for all? file-pdf References file-pdf Appendix A – Instruments to assess availability and use of technology file-pdf Appendix B – List of reviewed studies file-pdf Appendix C – How may technology affect interactions among students, teachers, and content?

About the Authors

Alejandro j. ganimian, emiliana vegas, frederick m. hess.

Media Relations
Terms and Conditions
Privacy Policy

IMAGES

Teachers vs Technology debate Essay Example
Debate on “Should Computers Replace Teachers” Essay Example
X9172 Essay
Technology vs. Teachers by Esther M. Santana Gómez
Technology vs. Teachers by Justin Babcock on Prezi
≫ The Essential Characteristics of Teachers Using Technology in

COMMENTS

Choosing between teachers and technology | Brookings
In short, let technology do what it does best so that teachers can focus on the teaching activities for which their human expertise is most needed.
Will technology replace teachers? No, but ... - World Bank Blogs
While many policymakers, education officials and parents (and even many teachers themselves) may profess a belief in the 'digital native hypothesis' -- that young people somehow instinctively understand technology and know how to use it in ways that their elders don't -- there is a big difference between being able e.g. to quickly figure out ...
Is technology good or bad for learning? - Brookings
This piece covers what the research actually says, some outstanding questions, and how to approach the use of technology in learning environments to maximize opportunities for learning and ...
Can Technology Replace Teachers? - Education Week
Developers and proponents of virtual education, however, are now seeing arguments over the use of their technology to replace teachers sprout across the country.
Technology cannot replace teachers’ role in class - Elets
Teachers versus technology is an ongoing battle. Technology plays a supporting role, but it’s the teacher who brings it all together. Technology is certainly changing the way students learn, but it cannot be termed as a replacement for teachers.
Technology vs Teachers: Can technology replace ... - Kognity
While many teachers are excited by technology and interested in the ways in which they can use it to enhance their teaching, others are concerned by its rapid development and wonder whether they themselves could eventually be replaced.
Teachers vs. Technology: The Synergy of New Transformation
Technology can be a great add-on to the existing education system, helping connect students and teachers from anywhere, while also providing useful technological tools in the arsenal. ‍ Do we need technology, though?
Will technology make teachers obsolete? | British Council
Advances in technology offer the potential to expand access to education, but will online learning ever replace the need for teachers? Students in the Wade Deacon High School Senior Debating Society in Widnes, Cheshire, consider both sides of the issue.
Realizing the promise: How can education technology improve ...
Here are five specific and sequential guidelines for decisionmakers to realize the potential of education technology to accelerate student learning. 1. Take stock of how your current schools ...
Technology and its use in Education: Present Roles and Future ...
Abstract: (Purpose) This article describes two current trends in Educational Technology: distributed learning and electronic databases. (Findings) Topics addressed in this paper include: (1) distributed learning as a means of professional development; (2) distributed learning for.