Irish Educational Technology
Policy
Ireland’s educational technology industry must be considered in light of its educational institutions. In-industry and academic research is determined by stakeholders’ answers to the historic debates of educational policy: what is the purpose of schooling; what is the nature of learning; what are teachers’ roles? Innovation in education must and historically has struggled with these debates. Cohen, David K. “Educational Technology, Policy, and Practice.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 9, no. 2 (June 1, 1987): 153–70. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737009002153. Similarly, Ireland’s Department of Education and Sciences (DES) has, historically, struggled to arrive at an evaluation and conception of educational technology aligned with educational practice and pedagogy. The DES’ construction of educational technology, throughout its history, has evolved from a primarily economically motivated concept to one situated within existing education theory and necessarily aligned with it.
In 1998, the DES published the first among a string of policies outlining the role of educational technologies in schools: “Schools I.T. 2000: A Policy Framework for the New Millennium” (“Schools I.T.”). Ireland Department of Education and Science. “Schools I.T. 2000: A Policy Framework for the New Millennium.” Stationary Office, 1997. https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/24665/6bb0ea96e5944d12a39a0fe44ef14c61.pdf. The policy construes educational technology as a catalyst in Ireland’s goal to remain economically competitive in the then-revolutionary information society. The DES claims, “The need to integrate technology into teaching and learning right across the curriculum is a major national challenge that must be met in the interests of Ireland’s future economic well being”. Ibid., § 1.1 (emphasis mine). The integration of educational technology is explicitly situated in terms of Ireland’s economy—the demands of its industries and workforce. Though the purpose of schooling is implied to be the production of a competitive workforce, it is also implied to be the production of a fully-realized citizen. Ireland’s economic well-being is threatened not merely by global, capitalist competition but by the coming information society. The DES motivates their response to the information society in two ways: first by positioning Ireland as “catching-up” in an international ranking of preparedness for the information society; Ibid. §2.1. second, by pointing to the dangers of the information society. In 1994, the European Council, an executive body of the European Union, published what is colloquially known as the “Bangemann Report”. The Bangemann Group. “Europe and the Global Information Society: Recommendations of the High-Level Group on the Information Society to the Corfu European Council.” Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1994. http://aei.pitt.edu/1199/. The report outlined the benefits of the coming information age and, immediately important, its danger:
The main risk [of the information society] lies in the creation of a two-tier society of have and have-nots, in which only a part of the population has access to the new technology, is comfortable using it and can fully enjoy its benefits.
Ibid. pg. 11.
The influence of the Bangemann Report in “Schools I.T.” is clear: the DES explicitly refers to the report and comments on the danger posed by the “digital divide” of a two-tiered society. Ireland Department of Education and Science. “Schools I.T. 2000: A Policy Framework for the New Millennium.”, § 2.4 The DES’ integration of educational technology, then, is constructed as an issue of self-actualization, equality, and equity. It is then appropriate the DES names such integration and the prevention of a digitally divided society as a “social” benefit and perhaps the impetus for claiming such technologies’ main benefit to be computer literacy and motivation. Ibid., § 2.4, 3.1. However, these considerations are not substitutes for that of educational technology’s role in educational practice.
At the policy level, Ireland’s economic rationale for educational technology clouds its considerations for educational practice. “Schools I.T.” considers the benefits classroom technology may have on students’ computer literacy and motivation, Ibid., § 2.4, §3.1. but these considerations are made from the perspective of educational technology as catalyst. Rather, the policy implies the mere provision of technology and its structure results in its purported benefits in spite of the initial goal to “integrate technology into teaching and learning right across the curriculum”. Ibid., §1.1. This lack of pedagogical clarity is evident in the policy’s emphasis on the mere provision of technological infrastructure and the absence of any emphasis on technologies’ integration in curricula and practice. It is therefore concluded that, in “Schools I.T. 2000”, the normative character of the DES’ conception of educational technology consisted in economics, neglecting the role practice has in its integration. Educational technology is “good” not for its pedagogic value but its alignment with Irish economic policy.
It must be noted the act of constructing educational technology as an economic or social tool does not preclude considerations of its effect on practice. In 1996, two years before “Schools I.T. 2000”, the United States Department of Education (USDES) began the “Technological Literacy Challenge”: a $2 billion commitment to ensuring technological literacy among American children. “Getting America’s Students Ready for the 21st Century: Meeting the Technology Literacy Challenge. A Report to the Nation on Technology and Education,” June 1996. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED398899. As in Ireland’s policy, there exists an economic character spurred by the coming information society’s new demands on countries’ workforces. The policy document opens, “Our children’s future, the future economic health of the nation, and the competence of America’s future workforce depend on our meeting this challenge”. Ibid., pg. 9. The normative claim between Ireland and the United States is clear: educational technology is good insofar as it produces a competent workforce. Yet, the latter is far more articulate in the substantive impacts of educational technology on learning, instruction, and assessment. The USDES exemplifies simulation programs and, in different terms, the impact of procedural rhetoric, the deploying of formative assessments as computer-adaptive testing, and new, digital representations of information facilitating learner-centered environments. Ibid., pgs. 18–23. Thus, a second clause may be appended to the USDES’ evaluation of educational technology: it is good insofar as it produces a competent workforce and, necessarily, is aligned with practice. As of 1998, then, the U.S.’ direction of future research and innovation points towards an alignment of technology with practice; in Ireland, it only points to provision in infrastructure.
Ten years after publishing “Schools I.T. 2000”, the DES published “Investing Effectively in Information and Communications Technology in Schools, 2008–2013” (“Investing Effectively”). Ireland Department of Education and Science. “Investing Effectively in Information and Communications Technology in Schools, 2008-2013: The Report of the Minister’s Strategy Group.” Stationary Office, 2008. https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/24498/3eeea2be517f4f5993218609d09a8825.pdf. Contrasted with its predecessor, “Investing Effectively” demonstrates the start of Ireland’s pedagogical maturation with regards to educational technology. The DES observes children, “engage in informal learning across a continuum of digital activity in ingenious and impressive ways” and construct “ICT-enabled styles” of learning such that the, “very nature of learning is changing”.Ibid., pg. 2. Here, the virtues of educational technology are derived from its alignment with the learners’ way of reading, thinking, and knowing. The primary impetus for educational technology is not its purported economic benefits but instead its benefits to the learner and, incidentally, practice. The implied value identified in this new evaluation of educational technology is its affording of new ways to align educational practice with learners’ minds. Further, the DES takes pains to distinguish itself from “Schools I.T. 2000”, observing “Investing Effectively” represents a shift away from the mere provision of technological infrastructure and towards the ways in which learners may use technology and prepare for life-long learning.Ibid., pgs. 1–13.
While “Investing Effectively” represents the introduction of pedagogic norms in Ireland’s conception of educational technology, economic supremacy continues to be a strong rationale for it. Plainly, the DES states Ireland’s “enviable economic growth” can only continue by preparing its students for the “evolving knowledge society” or, with greater transparency, “to contribute to [Ireland’s] continued economic success”.Ibid., pgs. 2, 12. This iteration of Ireland’s economic rationale departs from the rhetoric of an international race to prepare for the information society, but it remains situated in the ever-evolving demands the global information economy imposes on the workforce. However, the DES’ continued linking of educational technologies with economic development does not detract from the significant progression “Investing Effectively” represents. Irish educational technology, at this stage, has a sophisticated, dual-normative character whose implied direction of research and innovation points towards the alignment of practice and in-industry demands.
“Investing Effectively”‘s trend of pedagogical maturation is continued in the DES’ latest iteration of educational technology policy: “Digital Strategy for Schools to 2027” (“Digital Strategy”). Ireland Department of Education. “Digital Strategy for Schools to 2027.” Stationary Office, 2022. https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/221285/6fc98405-d345-41a3-a770-c97e1a4479d3.pdf. The DES makes clear their commitment to aligning educational technologies with practice rather than economic imperatives by stating, “At the core of the strategy is the continued approach of pedagogy first technology second, where the use of technology… does more than merely replicate traditional practices.” Ibid., pg. 22. When contrasted with initial policy, it becomes clear the central standard by which the DES evaluates educational technology, the central norm, is its effect on practice. The economic benefits of such technologies are relegated to afterthoughts—happenstances of innovative practice. This new normative character is further implied in the degree with which the DES articulates the benefits of educational technology: they construct it as a tool offering students multiple means of engagement, representation, and expression, potent opportunities for active, self-directed learning, and platforms for new, formative assessments. Ibid., pgs. 28, 23, 40. Furthermore, the contrast between the current and previous policies is further evidenced in “Baseline Report: Towards a Successor Digital Strategy for Schools to 2027”, a report related to “Digital Strategy”. Within it, the DES explicitly rejects the catalytic characterization of educational technology constructed in “Schools I.T. 2000”: educational technology, they state, is not “necessarily a driver or catalyst for change” nor does it imply the “development of innovative teaching practices”. Butler, Deirdre, and Leahy Margaret. “Baseline Report: Towards a Successor Digital Strategy for Schools to 2027.” Stationary Office, 2022. https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/221291/2bf1c705-9aae-4356-a6b1-b0ef37fbf5a4.pdf, pg. 38. The DES’ conception of educational technology is wholly situated in the educational sciences rather than economic imperatives.
At this stage, the DES’ conception and evaluation of educational technology is not only well-aligned with the values of educational science but also with those of the USDES. The USDES’ latest iteration of educational technology policy is found in “Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education”, and it bears many parallels to the DES’.United States Office of Educational Technology. “Reimagining the Role of Technology in Education: 2017 National Education Technology Plan Update.” United States Department of Education, January 2017. https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf. Like the DES, the USDES continues to motivate educational technology from an economic rationale, conceiving of it as a necessity if U.S. learners are to “remain competitive in the global economy”,Ibid., pg. 8. but the motivation is ultimately secondary to the pedagogical affordances of such technologies. For example, the USDES rejects the catalytic perspective of educational technology in declaring “Technology alone does not transform learning; rather, technology helps enable transformative learning.”Ibid., pg. 42. Critically, the USDES does not state technology alone enables transformative learning, instead implying technology aligned with practice does so. Further, the USDES builds upon the digital divide observed in the Bangemann Report and Ireland’s initial policies by constructing a “digital-use divide”: a division between students who “use technology in ways that transform their learning” and those who merely use it to “complete the same activates but with an electronic device”.Ibid., pg. 7. By some measure, it appears EU rhetoric regarding technology and its social implications has reverberated to the U.S. and, implicitly, situates Ireland ahead of the U.S. in those terms. These parallels between the U.S. and DES not only evidence the common, economic motivation between the two countries but demonstrate such motivations do not preclude an educational or learner-centered evaluation of educational technologies.
Throughout its brief history, educational technology policy in Ireland demonstrates a gradual maturation in terms of the norms deployed to evaluate such technologies. As evidenced in the text of “Schools I.T.”, the DES first evaluated educational technology primarily by its economic affordances and largely neglected its relationship with educational practice. Contrasts with the USDES’ policy implies the economic rationale was a product of the countries’ economic response to the information society but does not itself preclude considerations of pedagogy. However, subsequent and recent policies, such as “Investing Effectively” and “Digital Strategy”, demonstrate the DES now evaluates educational technologies primarily by their relationship with sound practice and rejects the catalytic construction of educational technology they initially held. In short, Ireland, as represented by the DES, regards educational technology as a tool whose effective use implies alignment with practice and the demands of the global knowledge economy.