Module 2: The Philosophy of Educational Technology: Philosophical Foundations

The articles by Knowlton (1992) and Tufte (2003) point out the importance of educators to be considerate when using technology in the classroom for learning. Knowlton’s portrayal of the teacher hiding behind the overhead projector and Tufte’s representation of the PowerPoint as a totalitarian device show how easy it may be for technology to take over the role of the teacher and limit student interaction. 

I believe these articles direct educators to re-think the method in which technology is used in their classrooms, to reflect upon and be critical of their own philosophy of technology in education, so that learning can be enhanced and not limited by the usage of technology. Considering questions such as those provided by Stephanie Mills (2003) in her list of 78 Reasonable Questions to Ask about Any Technology during the initial planning stages of a technology-integrated lesson would therefore allow educators to safeguard lessons from being dominated by technology. 

Personal experience has also allowed me to realize that when educators are planning to integrate technology into the lesson, it is vital to consider the familiarity level of the students with the particular piece of technology so as to avoid the situation where students spend more time on figuring out how to use the technology as opposed to using the technology to enhance learning of the subject of study. 

In my opinion, perhaps educators who wish to integrate technology into their teaching should not only try to help learners be adept in the usage of technology, but also show them how to be critical of the technology being used, so that technology remains a supplementary tool for learning as opposed to one that is at the center of learning. 

Does educational technology enframe us, as Heidegger cautions? If so, in what way? 

Whether or not technology enframes us as educators depends on how the individual teacher views technology usage for student learning. If the teacher allows a particular technology to be the centre of learning, as portrayed in Knowlton’s (1992) article of the overhead projector, the classroom would be enframed by the technology by developing lessons around the OHP. 

Heidegger (1953, 1997) cautions that the essence of technology enframes one’s understanding of the subject, and suggests that rather than trying to figure out the essence of technology, being constantly reflective of technology would be a better alternative in advancing our understanding of technology’s true essence. 

This implies that educators today should be cognizant of how technology is being used, and at the same time be mindful of how educational technology might enframe the users, so that ultimately the users of technology define what technology is rather than having technology defining who the users are. 

Heidegger’s QCT encourages all educators to reflect upon their own philosophy of ET, so that in defining what one believes in ET, the ever-changing essence of ET can be realized through social interaction.