Toward Understanding the Practice and Potential of Educational Technologies on Our Campuses: Should We Be Skeptics First?

  • Krista GlazewskiEmail author


Our campuses and professions reflect a seemingly endless stream of initiatives to consider how faculty might integrate technology into instruction, and many have engaged such opportunities. However, there is a reason to engage skepticism when we consider the role of technology in our institutions. I argue that technology cannot be both the goal of the learning environment and the actor for catalyzing change in higher education. Furthermore, I highlight a tendency to make bad investments in our technology initiatives and suggest there are more important questions to be asking; rather than how we use technology, we should place emphasis on what we need from technology. I present three distinctive examples that represent innovative and pedagogically coherent uses of technology.


Educational technologies Pedagogy Learning Academic technologies STEM education Medical education History education 


  1. Craig, K. (2017). Analog tools in digital history classrooms: An activity-theory case study of learning opportunities in digital humanities. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(1).
  2. Educational Technology in the 21st Century. (1995). 104th Cong. (Testimony of Seymour Papert).Google Scholar
  3. Garrison, D. R., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7(2), 95–105. Scholar
  4. Gerjets, P. H., & Hesse, F. W. (2004). When are powerful learning environments effective? The role of learner activities and of students’ conceptions of educational technology. International Journal of Educational Research, 41(6), 445–465. Scholar
  5. Halikias, D., & Reeves, R. V. (2017). Ladders, labs, or laggards? Which public universities contribute most. Washington, DC. Retrieved from
  6. Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 23–48. Scholar
  7. Hutchins, R. (1967, August 6). The machines run education. San Francisco Sunday Examiner and Chronicle. San Francisco.Google Scholar
  8. Joly, K. (2007, June). A second life for higher education? University Business Magazine. Retrieved from
  9. L’Amoreaux, C., & Lester, J. (2007). Preface. In D. Livingstone & J. Kemp (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2007 Second Life education workshop, part of the Second Life Community Convention (p. iii). Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  10. Lajoie, S. P., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Wiseman, J. G., Chan, L. K., Lu, J., Khurana, C., et al. (2014). Using online digital tools and video to support international problem-based learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 8(2), 6–18. Scholar
  11. Neill, G. W. (1968). Individually prescribed instruction, Education USA Special Report. Washington, DC: National School Public Relations Association.Google Scholar
  12. New Media Consortium. (2017). Horizon Report Higher Education Edition 2017. Reading. isbn: 978-0-9977215-7-7.Google Scholar
  13. New Mexico State University Student Affairs. (2017). NMSU Undergraduate Admissions. Retrieved July 15, 2017, from
  14. Papert, S. (1972). Teaching children thinking. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 9(5), 245–255. Scholar
  15. Papert, S. (1981). Computers and computer cultures. Creative Computing, 7(3), 82–92. Scholar
  16. Preszler, R. W. (2009). Replacing lecture with peer-led workshops improves student learning. CBE Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 182–192. Scholar
  17. Rogers, D. L. (2000). A paradigm shift: Technology integration for higher education in the new millennium. Educational Technology Review, 1(13), 19–33.Google Scholar
  18. Ross, S. M., Morrison, G. R., & Lowther, D. L. (2010). Educational technology research past and present: Balancing rigor and relevance to impact school learning. Contemporary Educational Technology, 1(1), 17–35. Scholar
  19. Selwyn, N. (2011). Editorial: In praise of pessimism-the need for negativity in educational technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 713–718. Scholar
  20. Shuster, M., & Preszler, R. (2014). Introductory biology course reform: A tale of two courses. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), 1–30. Scholar
  21. Suppes, P. (1966). The uses of computers in science. Scientific American, 215(3), 161–166. Scholar
  22. Suppes, P. (1969). Computer technology and the future of education. In R. C. Atkinson & W. A. Wilson (Eds.), Computer-assisted instruction: A book of readings (Vol. 85, pp. 41–47). New York: Academic Press. Retrieved from
  23. Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28. Scholar
  24. Veletsianos, G., & Moe, R. (2017, April). The rise of educational technology as a sociocultural and ideological phenomenon. Educause Review. Retrieved from
  25. Wecker, M. (2014, April). What ever happened to second life? Chronicle Vitae. Retrieved from
  26. Young, J. R. (2010, October). Academics discuss mass migration from second life. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations