The impact of the economic rationale on quality

The economic agenda can also frame and affect issues around quality of learning. One of the primary economic rationales for the use of various technologies is one that might be called "Replace the teacher". This rationale for using learning technologies emerged in the 1950's with the development of highly structured text based materials that used behaviorist approaches to develop specific competencies, for example, reading and mathematics skills.

Competency based approaches are used as the basis for developing increasingly sophisticated learning materials (now often computer-based or multi-media) that learners can work with independently. It is generally agreed that these strategies do not stand alone, but must be complemented by opportunities for interaction to enable people to integrate learning in context through discussion and application.

The "replace the teacher" rationale for using technology

The "replace the teacher" rationale for technology has not disappeared. In fact it has turned up in the final report of the Information Highway Advisory Council, in its reference to the cost of what it terms "The Learning and Training Industry":

Rather than regarding this high proportion of educators as a measure of a country's commitment to social development, as for example, UNESCO does, the IHAC report seems to regard this as a drawback, one that calls for the use of "more efficient" technology based tools:

Outcomes for learners

The cost-cutting rationale will have an impact on quality and equality of learning as long as the "replace the teacher" belief continues to shape how and why technologies are used, despite ample evidence that using learning technologies requires at least as much and usually more time on the part of instructional staff. A heightened awareness of the cost cutting rationale might make it easier to detect, even when it is wrapped in the warm fuzzy clothing of "improved learning".

As experience with previous experiments with learning technologies has demonstrated, relying on technology to "replace the teacher" provides a very limited type of instruction, suitable only for the most independent and self-reliant learners. It does not serve the majority for whom human interaction is a very significant part of learning. Moreover, it is even less appropriate for those who face challenges in re-entering the world of learning, because of learning disabilities or lack of prior education, and for those whose learning context is shaped by cultural differences, gender, or other factors. These people are most in need of accessible and appropriate learning opportunities.

Another outcome of the cost-based rationale for using new learning technologies is that because of the high cost of development of materials, there is increasing pressure to use these materials for more and more learners, whether or not they fit the profile of the learners for whom the materials were originally developed.

In its section on Learning and Training, the IHAC report asserts that "Canada lacks a critical mass of users to sustain a viable domestic learning and training industry." (p. 63), (which seems to runs counter to the reality that Canada has been educating its own citizens, in its own institutions, fairly successfully for the past 100 or so years) and encourages provincial and territorial governments "to develop, with the private sector, full credit courses and to make them available to all Canadians."

This mass-market approach runs counter to the often promoted advantage of the new technologies, that they can be readily developed and customized for particular learners. More importantly, it contradicts one of the basic principles of adult education, that the learner's context and experience must be included in the design of adult learning. This is a particularly critical issue for women learners, who have tended to have to adapt to materials and technologies developed for others, rather than have materials and technologies adapted specifically for them.