Technology foresight in educational policy and planning

One of the problems that plagues educational and other social policy regarding technology, is that it tends to chase technology in a hopeless game of cat and mouse. Policy is formulated based on currently existing technology (or what is in the sphere of policymaker’s knowledge at that time) and is ill equipped to deal with new technology developments. As a persistent problem in developed areas of the world, this tendency is transmitted to other parts of the world in the form of programs and initiatives meant to stimulate ICT development. In developed parts of the world, there is considerable evidence that policies lead to a knee-jerk reaction on the part of decision makers to limit the use of technology that is not explicitly covered by existing policy. We see this for ex. in the outright banning of cellphones, social networking applications and other technologies in schools even though they have been shown to be effective learning technologies when used right. The rapid rate of technological development and change makes this unviable. What is needed in educational policy-making is technology foresight and longer term planning, i.e. policies that take into account expert views on anticipated or preferred technological developments and are able to accommodate rapidly developing technologies.
The term “technology foresight” is a fairly recent concept that has emerged from the future studies and technology forecasting fields. Irvine and Martin (1984) first used the term to describe a long-term, strategic activity specifically intended to inform policy-making. Since then, and especially throughout the 1990s, there has been significant interest in technology foresight and a number of notable national-level foresight programs, although definitions of the term and the precise nature of the activities tend to vary somewhat. Some use “technology foresight” to describe the interplay between a range of future-oriented activities, including, technology assessment, technology forecasting, and future studies, with lesser emphasis on the actual policy-making process. Many of the case studies presented in the informative Handbook of Technology Foresight (2008) demonstrate this, where the emphasis seems to be more on the foresight generating activity than policy-making processes. Slaughter (1995), however, makes a point of specifically relating technology foresight to decision making, although he is more concerned with technology foresight in organizations than public policy.
There’s a distinct difference between the two uses of the term “technology foresight” described above. First, “technology foresight” is used to describe the product of a range of forecasting methods. Second, “technology foresight” is used to describe a property of the decisions and policies formulated on the basis of the forecasting activities. I have a problem with the first use of the term and it has to do specifically with the word “foresight”. In our everyday language, foresight is not an artifact that can be generated as the first use of the term would seem to suggest. We generally encounter the term “foresight” as a descriptive property of an action, i.e. someone did something with foresight to mean that someone’s actions took future implications and expectations into account. Pertaining to the first instance, and has been pointed out by Miles, Harper, Georghiou, et al (2008, p. 8), “technology foresight” tends to be used as a catchall term for a wide range of future forecasting and assessment activities, and as such, is not especially helpful in clarifying the way that these activities affect policy-making. Hence, I’m more inclined to accept Slaughter’s (1995) formulation of the term “technology foresight” as focused primarily on the use of rigorously and objectively generated future-orientations in decision-making or policy-making activities.
Despite a growing body of literature on technology foresight, and perhaps partly due to the conceptual fuzziness that I’ve described, little attention has been paid to the actual policy-making process, especially how anticipated and preferred futures, generated by technology foresight programs, inform policy-making activities. One very interesting question is how anticipated and preferred futures become significant policy issues? The literature on policy-making fairly consistently emphasizes that for policy action to occur there needs to be a well formulated, broadly accepted, and solvable policy problem. It’s interesting, then, to consider how an anticipated or preferred future, n.b. something not yet in existence, is translated into a critical social policy problem worthy of policy action, ex. new educational policy.
The issue of how anticipated and preferred futures affect policy-making is the topic of my dissertation research, so expect to read a lot about it here on my blog in the coming months. There are a number of countries that have implemented what I would consider foresightful educational policies at the national level with some success, such as for ex., Finland and Singapore. Nevertheless, the methods that have been used to inform the policy-making process and the resulting policies differ in many ways. My plan is to focus on a single country, Finland, instead of doing a multi-country comparison, since I think that this will allow me to get at the issue in more depth.
Here are some links to resources related to technology foresight for those who are interested:
Foresight: The journal of future studies, strategic thinking and policy
Richard Slaughter’s Foresight International
European Foresight web site
European Foresight Monitoring Network (hasn’t been updated for awhile but some good resources on the site)
References:
Georghiou, L., Harper, J. C., Keenan, M., Miles, I. & Popper, R. (2008). The handbook of technology foresight: Concepts and practice. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Irvine, J. & Martin, B. (1984). Foresight in science. London: Frances Pinter.
Miles, I., Harper, J. C., Georghiou, L., Keenan, M. & Popper, R. (2008). The many faces of foresight. In L. Georghiou, J. C. Harper, M. Keenan, I. Miles & R. Popper (Eds.), The handbook of technology foresight: Concepts and practice. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Slaughter, R. A. (1995). The foresight principle: Cultural recovery in the 21st century. London: Adamantine Press.

Posted in Education, ICTs, Leapfrogging development | Leave a comment

Sorry about unpublished comments

I just realized that a number of readers had commented on posts over the past few months and that their comments weren’t published. My system tagged them as spam and I didn’t see them. I get an incredible amount of spam comments to the site. I had decided that my filters were doing a good job and hadn’t bothered to check on the comments. When I finally did (just now) I saw that my filters were doing too good a job. I do apologize and can’t emphasize enough that I welcome and am thankful for all relevant comments. I’ll try to keep an eye on my filters in the future.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Augmented reality and education

Earlier this summer I co-developed and co-led a seminar at the University of Minnesota with Dr. Arthur Harkins about augmented reality and the future of classroom-based education. My presentation is here: “Learning in augmented reality”. Augmented reality is the capability of overlaying data on realtime experiences of our surroundings. There are a couple of videos that demonstrate the concept in the presentation. Augmented reality is a fascinating technology that is rapidly gaining momentum, especially with the proliferation of networked location-aware smartphones like the iPhone and Android phones.

There are two things that I focus on in this presentation. The first is that when we start talking about reality in relation to learning, it raises questions about the nature of reality, whose reality it is, and how an individual relates to any given reality. The second is that learning affects our personal reality, i.e. reality, as a description of our relationship to our surroundings (what I’ve referred to as our “functional reality”), reflects things that we have learned and how we have learned them. So, while augmented reality technology has obvious potential in terms of providing enhanced resources for learning, encouraging learners to use the technology to collaboratively create augmented realities is likely to have far more potential benefit since it allows them to interactively extend and take ownership of their reality (i.e. extending their functional reality) through direct experience.

I have another post that I’m working on (the follow-up article has been posted here) where I’ll go a little deeper into considerations about multiple realities, technology and learning (the part I refer to as “learning as ‘realizing'” in the presentation). That should be up in the next couple of days.

Posted in Education, ICTs, Information Society, Internet, Knowledge development | Leave a comment

Becta’s closing: Loss of an important leader in research

If anyone wants to retain copies of the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency’s (Becta) excellent research and reports, they might think about hurrying over to the website. As a result of cutbacks in the UK, the agency will stop receiving government funds as of the end of this month (May, 2010). Some people have suggested that the agency may attempt to continue running without government funding.
Becta is the UK agency charged with managing procurement for public schools. But it does so much more than that. In recent years Becta has produced a phenomenal amount of high quality research on the use of ICT in education, much of which I have discussed here on this blog. During the last decade Becta research has made important contributions to our understanding of how ICT can, and does, work in education. It has been invaluable to the UK, but also to the global community of ICT and education researchers. Becta reports have been translated into numerous languages immediately on their publication because the agency is known for high quality objective research.
It’s not clear what will happen to Becta once it stops receiving government funding, but it is doubtful that it will have the resources to sustain the type and level of activity that it has become renowned for. It will be sorely missed.

Posted in Education, ICTs, Information Society, Knowledge development | 1 Comment

Mobile carriers in a conundrum as data traffic grows

The Swedish Mobile technology company, Ericsson, reported at the recent CTIA 2010 conference that data traffic has now surpassed voice traffic on mobile networks worldwide. The really surprising thing about this is that this growth occurs despite the rather dismal state of data service on mobile networks. Let’s face it, mobile data capabilities are still, in almost all parts of the world, limited by service, limited by usage quotas, and limited by high costs. The limits imposed by carriers on data service is hardly surprising when you consider that voice is their real cash cow, as the Ericsson presenters stated. It’s a bit of a conundrum for carriers – do they stick with voice, the old-skool cash cow, or do they pursue data, where the growth is. Sounds like it’s time for mobile carriers to start thinking about some real innovation rather than promising me access to college basketball games while I ride the bus.

Posted in Information Society, Leapfrogging development | Leave a comment

Global Information Technology Report 2009-2010

The World Economic Forum has just published its Global Information Technology Report for 2009-2010. There’s some interesting movement on the accompanying Network Readiness Index. A few E. Asian countries are continuing their upward move, most notably Hong Kong and Taiwan. Consequently, some former chart toppers are being pushed down in the list. Most notably Norway and my own native Iceland. At least in the case of Iceland, I know that this is due to a combination of policy changes in Iceland and changes in the way that the index is calculated. Going down to #12 is a rather dramatic drop, though, for a country that peaked at #2 for two years, 2004 & 2005.
Several helpful changes have been made this year in the way the index is presented. Countries are now categorized according to country income groups. The list indicates countries’ places in the overall list and also within their specific income group. For example, we see that the highest ranking upper-middle income (UM) country is Malaysia, which is a full 13 places higher than the next UM country and well above many high income (HI) countries. The highest ranking lower-middle income (LM) country is China and the highest ranking low income (LO) country is Vietnam. Interestingly, Trinidad & Tobago is the lowest ranking HI country at #79 despite a number of projects in recent years to increase access to and use of information and communication technology. The web-based analysis tool also makes it possible to conduct some informative “quick & dirty” analyses.
One of the things that I looked for especially (albeit without conducting any rigorous analysis) was whether there might be any noticeable relationship between aggressive censorship policies and rankings in the index. Other than a few UM countries known to censor internet access ranking quite low, there doesn’t seem to be any significant relationship. In fact, countries known to control access to information appear pretty randomly distributed (just look at China way up there at #37). This might be considered somewhat surprising. It seems to me that free access to information via technology would be a significant factor in determining “network readiness” on a global scale.

Posted in Development, ICTs, Information Society, Internet, Leapfrogging development | Leave a comment