Perspective | The debate behind the EdTech debate

One of the great powers of modern technology is its ability to help us forget what things are for. As the theorist Jacques Ellul spelled out in his massive tome The Technological Society, “Our civilization is first and foremost a civilization of means; in the reality of modern life, the means, it would seem, are more important than the ends.” Within a technologically saturated world, questions about “How can we make this more efficient?” take precedence over questions about “What is this for?” Because we forget the “ends” for things, we tend to confuse an expansion of means with the end itself, and eventually the end is simply replaced with the means. 

It is within this context that dozens of articles about the use of technology (especially AI) in education are written every day. Many of these articles are, characteristically enough, focused on the means — grading is faster, lesson plan development is easier, 1:1 tutoring is scalable, and everyone has hours back in their calendar (for now). These articles tend to get ahead of themselves. In considering the role of technology in education, we must first answer the question of what education is for.

So, what is education for? Aristotle said that “the educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead,” suggesting that education is somehow about making us fully alive. St. Augustine claimed that education is for “ordering the loves,” such that we learn to desire the things which are worthy of our desire. For Nelson Mandela, education is “the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world,” suggesting a role for education in preparing individuals for civic life. Similarly, Mary Wollstonecraft suggested that “the end [of education] is…to enable the individual to attain such habits of virtue as will render them independent,” which in her day largely implied liberation from a patriarchal society. 

This is just a snapshot of responses, and yet significant fault lines exist. If you were to ask a sampling of 10 teachers from across a typical public school district, “What is the purpose of education?” you’d likely get 10 related, but very diverse perspectives. Is education for character formation? For expanding our imaginations? For preparation for the duties of civic life? For liberating us from oppressive systems? 

For our own part, we believe education can serve as a mix of the best of all these responses — at times forming our intellect, at times forming our hearts, at times forming us for civic life, at times helping us to see how various institutions have held back our freedoms, and at times teaching us practical skills and knowledge. The emphasis placed on each goal can and should vary considerably depending on the context of education and the individual needs of the student. While there is basically no role for vocational training among fourth graders, there is likely a great role for this among high school seniors. However, those seniors also need time for forming their imagination and character if we’re to do justice to their educational process.  

And yet, we also believe that if it is to be worthy of the name, education must be formative — forming intellects, hearts, imaginations, political consciousnesses, skills and abilities, etc. For this reason, we are suspicious of modern technology’s role in education, as it tends to provide shortcuts to the goal which bypasses the real work otherwise required to reach that goal, and it is that “real work” which formation requires. To write an essay with 80% assistance from ChatGPT is to be formed 20% as much as would have occurred without the device. The math is simple. As we line up and rapidly embrace AI EdTech to educate our children, we worry that this may simply be one more way in which we replace the ends with the means themselves.

But that’s just our go at discerning the ends of education. And yet, our point is not primarily to defend our answer, but rather the importance of asking the question, and to show how one’s answer to that question informs one’s intuition about the role of technology in the classroom.  

So next time you read an article on the great “AI EdTech Debate,” consider whether it addresses that question dead-on, or whether it is merely implied. If the ends are implied, what, exactly, is being implied? 

If Ellul’s insights are correct, the Age of AI is as good of a time as ever to ask the “big questions,” even if it takes a long time to build consensus on them. The opposite of a clear answer to these questions is not mere passivity in accepting AI without a critical eye to what it is being used for, but action that is unknowingly informed by someone else’s (or something else’s) answer to these questions.

If this sounds difficult and time-consuming, consider that when we arrive at an answer to that question (by “we,” we mean every possible unit empowered to make decisions regarding the role technology in education — principles, parent groups, school boards, superintendents, etc.), many other questions are also likely revealed and addressed in the context of this debate: the best student-to-teacher ratio, how to pace the curriculum and weight content standards, the professional development needs of instructors, the appropriate time for recess and leisure at different grade levels, the kinds of partnerships our schools should form with outside companies and colleges, and so on.

As Abraham Lincoln once said, “Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.” Maybe that’s a good ratio for our current debate. For every six hours we talk about the role of technology in education, perhaps it’s best to spend the first four figuring out what the heck education is even for. With a sharp answer to that question in hand, we will be better equipped to tackle the many practical questions in front of us in the Age of the Machine.