| |19 August 2017HIGHERReviewWhen we talk about technological innovations, we talk about investment. However, an increase of investment costs in technology may not necessarily increase in learn-ing effectiveness, or the absence of investments does not necessarily impede learning from transpiring. Although the initial thought of any investor is if the technology is ac-quired precisely for improving learning, it is deemed nec-essary to determine whether indeed it supports learning, if not, we can only conclude that the investment is not well spent. Of course, technology upgrades are not inexpen-sive. In fact, over the last few years, many tech companies are earning billion of dollars from school patrons from both developed and developing countries. These educa-tional tech companies can take the opportunity of the 46 percent active Internet users and 51 percent unique mo-bile users in the world. Likewise, in May 2013 The Harris Poll survey of teachers across the United States, 92 per-cent of them would like to use more EdTech tools in their classrooms than they already do. However, only about 14 percent of them are actually integrating technology into their curriculum. This is a common scenario in which there can be heavy investment in technology but little integration done.Technology that can direct a changeA Learning and Technology Framework (LTF) can be used to define the effectiveness of a particular technology in stu-dent learning. In an acquisition of a technology, its perfor-mance should be measured through a Technology Perfor-mance Questionnaire (TPQ) and can be gauged through the framework to check if the technology has the ability to direct a change. Change in the direction in the LTF may yield to four desirable and an undesirable outcomes. The four outcomes can engage the students and affect learning effectiveness regardless if the technology has low or high performance. In this case, it can be described that a tech-nology, whether it has low performance, it can still affect change in learning, thus, may mean less investment cost. If the gauge shows high performance that affects high engage-ment in learning, then, the investment is successful, howev-er, may mean high costing. The fifth outcome, which is the least, is the technology has high performance but learning remains low and passive. This is obviously the area where investors see the investments as counterproductive. If tech-nology is not used to enhance engaged learning, there is no reason to pay for higher cost of greater functionality.Education Technology Companies and Learning EffectivenessThe outcomes may sound given. However, in dealing with education technology companies, this is the area where they should be focusing in terms of finding ways to innovate. If these companies can show evidence that the innovation be-ing offered will yield to high engagement of students and high learning effectiveness, the "innovation" as depicted in Richardson's article can really provide the sense of the word innovation. I believe that innovation in education technol-ogy must not only be in terms of why it is different from the rest, but it must be inherent to the nature of learning. At the end of the day, the reason for all these technological innovations be it in the curriculum, instruction or physical learning spaces must be directly related on how learning can be effectively utilized by students, no one else. Harold John D. Culala is the Director of Education Technology Center and Associate Professor of Institute of Education, Far Eastern University, Manila, Philippines. He was also an awardee of Outstanding Contribution to Education by World Education Congress.Harold John D. Culala
< Page 9 | Page 11 >