Towards ‘non-stupid’ optimism

In a thought-provoking paper for UNESCO’s Futures of Education initiative, Keri Facer and Neil Selwyn provide a critical perspective on the role of digital technologies in education. Drawing from 40 years of research and experience, they offer valuable insights for policymakers, educators, and edtech innovators.

Key takeaways from the past 40 years

1. Digital technology alone doesn’t transform education

2. Technology doesn’t automatically improve learning outcomes

3. Tech solutions often fail to address educational inequalities

4. Digital tools frequently increase, rather than reduce, teacher workload

5. Edtech implementations often have unintended consequences

6. The impact of technology in education is highly context-specific

Beware the siren song of the ‘techno-fix’

Facer and Selwyn caution us to “look beyond the charismatic allure of the ‘techno-fix.’” This resonates because the shiny new solution is often the most tempting—especially for those inclined towards a solutionist mindset. But despite its appeal, the idea that technology can simply solve complex educational challenges is flawed. “Technological solutionism” frequently ignores the deeper social, economic, and cultural factors that influence educational outcomes.

Emerging technologies and their promises

The paper discusses three emerging forms of educational technology:

1. Post-COVID reconfigurations of face-to-face schooling (e.g., blended learning)

2. Individualized learning systems driven by data analytics

3. AI-driven technologies for automated decision-making in education

While these technologies promise increased efficiency, precision, and insights, the authors caution against uncritical adoption.

Key challenges for the future

1. Exacerbation of social inequalities: How can we design technologies that address, rather than amplify, existing disparities?

2. Threats to education as a community function: How do we balance the benefits of personalized learning with the collective, social aspects of education?

3. Deprofessionalization of teaching: How can we ensure that technology enhances, rather than replaces, the role of expert teachers?

4. Environmental sustainability: How can we address the significant energy and resource demands of digital education?

Towards ‘non-stupid’ optimism

Facer and Selwyn advocate for what they call a “non-stupid” optimism. This approach acknowledges both the possibilities and limitations of technology in education. It’s a call for a more mature and informed relationship with edtech, recognizing the lessons of the past while keeping a clear-eyed view of the future. In essence, they urge us to:

• address the root causes of educational challenges rather than chasing quick technological fixes

• design technologies that prioritize equity, community, and sustainability

• view technology as a complement to—not a replacement for—skilled teachers and social learning experiences

By learning from past missteps and thoughtfully addressing future challenges, we can work towards more effective, equitable, and sustainable integration of technology in education.

The above are my notes on the paper:
Facer, K., & Selwyn, N. (2021). Digital Technology and the Futures of Education: Towards ‘Non-Stupid’ Optimism. UNESCO. (Facer and Selwyn attribute the term, “non-stupid optimisim” to the educational researcher and academic, Erica McWilliam.)