A Brief History of Technology-Enabled Learning

Introduction  

What is already known about this topic? 

Technology-enabled learning is a well-known term but the relationship between technology and learning is a rich and contested space  

What this report adds 

An H5P overview of technology-mediated learning from the 1900s to the present  

Providing alternative ways of thinking about technology and learning including learning and orchestration, learning and posthumanism and the nature of research about technology and learning   

Implications for practice or policy 

TEL is a rich space of intellectual inquiry and this recognition provides an opportunity for practitioners to think about their practice with different lenses  

Technology-enabled learning (TEL) is a broad term that is used to describe a teaching and learning process that is supported by technology, either locally (on campus and synchronous) or remotely (off campus and asynchronous). It can include, but is not limited to, Learning Management Systems (LMS), mobile learning applications, virtual and augmented reality, social networking applications, and robotics (Daniela et al., 2018). In the past, TEL has been variously referred to as e-learning, online learning or education, learning technology, computer-assisted or -aided instruction, multimedia learning, virtual learning, and web- or computer-based learning (Bayne, 2015; Regmi & Jones, 2020).   

  These are all fairly recent technologies but according to Bates (2014) the history of TEL can be traced back to forms of communication based on symbol processing (writing) and the oral traditions which are central to many cultures (Nunn & Reid, 2016). In the modern era, the systematic use of technology for teaching and learning is more typically associated with television and radio (Westera, 2010). These media forms were complemented by the development of computer-based learning approaches beginning with Skinner’s ‘teaching machine’ in the 1950s and the University of Illnois’ PLATO ( Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations) in the 1970s.  

  It is fair to say that TEL gained significant momentum during the 1990s with the advent and widespread use of the internet. This enabled new modes of delivery for distance learning, and the development of “web technologies for the distribution of learning content across institutional borders” (Westera, 2010, p. 160). Tochtermann and Granitzer (2008) describe these as asynchronous forms of learning; learning via TEL became more synchronous with the onset of chat and discussion forums (for interactions between learners, or between learners and teachers). It generated new expectations about information access and social connectedness (Westera, 2010). TEL also included new systems and platforms for knowledge transfer, such as LMSs but with limited capacity for interactivity (Westera, 2010). The twenty-first century has seen an increase in computer-based learning, including via smartphones and similar devices. Each of these technologies have come with claims of an “educational revolution”, but not all technologies have met their attendant expectations (Westera, 2010). It might be that the Covid-19 pandemic has been the most significant impetus for rapid, revolutionary change in TEL.  

  What follows is a timeline of TEL which combines learning theories and technologies and is based on the timelines provided by Martin Weller (2020) and Tony Bates (2014). The timeline does not include the oral tradition and written technologies associated with history BCE.  

  A Timeline of the History of Technology-Enabled Learning

Does technology drive the development of theory?  

According to Scanlon (2021), there has been a shift from a technology-centric view of educational technology associated with the 1960s and 1970s to a more sophisticated view of educational technology as a set of tools that mediate the learning process within complex networks of communities. The development of this broader view of educational technology also aligns with the increasing interest in socio-cultural perspectives on teaching and learning informed by conceptual frameworks like Activity Theory, for example.  

  TEL is a decidedly human practice, and the history of TEL demonstrates how various technological developments have impacted teaching and learning experiences. These experiences have shifted from:   

  “…individual toward community learning, from content-driven learning toward process-driven approaches, from isolated media toward integrated use, from presentation media toward interactive media, from learning settings dependent on place and time toward ubiquitous learning, and from fixed tools toward handheld devices.” (Lowyck, 2014, p.3).   

Indeed, this evolution has expanded our understanding of how learning can be delivered and experienced ( Byrne et al., 2016, p. 3) :   

“The benefits of using [TEL] … include overcoming temporal / geographic or physical access barriers; providing searchable content and encouraging interactivity; achieving greater student focus, as learners can have greater control over timing and sequence of learning; and obtaining higher retention and improved student satisfaction.”  

  These findings are echoed in Lai and Bower’s (2020) analysis of systematic reviews in learning technologies and their review points to the continued use of technology to improve learning outcomes and the benefits of using constructivism, social learning approaches, gamification and effective feedback in the design and delivery of digital learning environments.  

Skinner’s ‘Teaching machine’ from https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_690062  

Does technology drive the development of theory? The answer probably depends on the historical lens that is being applied. For example, Behaviourism, pre-dates Skinner’s ‘teaching machine’ (an enactment of behaviourism) and the family of ideas associated with social constructivism, for example, were alive before the networked age which can facilitate the enactment of these ideas in a classroom setting. For these two theories of learning, technology provides the opportunity for theory to be enacted in educational contexts. However, as Weller (2020) argues, the theory of connectivism was perhaps the first learning theory that emerged from the educational affordances of a networked culture. This by itself is an interesting development and raises the possibility of more bi-directional interaction between theory and praxis in the future. As Lowyck (2014) suggests, the nature of this interaction is also a function of the broader needs of society which shape the field from which learning theories and technologies emerge.  

Research in TEL also helps to shape the nature of the interaction between theory and technology in teaching and learning practice. The following section discusses two approaches to the study of TEL that provide differing perspectives on the practice of TEL research.  

How is TEL studied?  

We have provided glimpses into some of the elements that constitute the orthodox story of the history of TEL. From its modest beginnings with basic media forms through to the rise of the internet and the LMS, TEL is sometimes framed as a set of technologies and practices whose trajectory can be characterised as a linear path tending towards progress. There are some assumptions, however, that underpin this orthodox view of TEL (Bayne, 2015) and some of these have been articulated by scholars such as Patel (2015) working in the field of discourse analysis. An analysis of key documents in TEL from 1945 to 2012 reveals a collection of discourses which tend to drive the TEL project: from the discourse of inevitable progress through to ‘problem framing’ from disciplines such as engineering. Patel (2015, p.133) asks:  

“Problem framing [is] argumentation that engineers use to persuade their peers and sponsors that there is a problem that needs solving. This is as part of engineering discourse. But what changes when both technology and learning are constructed as part of the same discourse?”  

  This kind of approach to the history of TEL opens up interesting areas for exploration as it requires us to think with greater clarity about the discourses that frame approaches to TEL practice. As such, a discourse-based approach can add some useful signposts for a critical analysis of the past and future direction of TEL.   

  A very different perspective on TEL studies is informed by models such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Rather than attempting to explore the discourses that drive practice, these approaches explore the barriers or reasons for the adoption of technology in teaching and learning practice. It is, in other words, a completely different discourse. This is an approach to TEL that is rooted in the Theory of Reasoned Action which states that a person’s intentions towards a tool or technology determines their actual behaviour. The TAM built on this insight and it is used to provide predictive insights into the adoption of technologies. According to Granic (2019), out of the three variables in the TAM model, namely, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and attitude toward using, perceived usefulness , is the strongest predictor of the adoption of learning technologies.   

  These two approaches to the exploration of TEL provide very different perspectives on how the scholarship of TEL (and therefore its history) is being shaped. As with all practices, TEL is a contested space but the intellectual richness that underpins the field is often overlooked.  

  With this in mind, we turn to some of the technologies and trends that are shaping the area in the 2020s.  

Current Trends  

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically changed teaching and learning practices throughout 2020 and 2021, and this is unlikely to settle in the coming years. It has foregrounded the need for improved student-centred learning design, and increased student expectations about connectivity, flexibility and versatility.   

For both educators and students, emphasis has been placed on improved capacity for collaboration, the provision of feedback, and data analysis of student use patterns so educators can tailor the student learning experience. Given the rapid pace of change, emphasis must be placed on providing educators with the skills to “transform from traditional teacher to a curator of information and facilitator of learning” (Byrne et al., 2016, p. 3).  

Additionally, there are significant equity issues to consider: students without reliable internet and/or technology access have limited opportunities to participate in TEL. As noted by Li and Lalani, there is a gap “seen across countries and between income brackets within countries” (2020). They continue, “For example, whilst 95% of students in Switzerland, Norway and Austria have a computer to use for their schoolwork, only 34% in Indonesia do” (Li & Lalani, 2020). However, as Van Dijk (2020) reminds us, the ‘digital divide’ should not be seen as a binary division between the ‘haves and have nots’ but rather as a multifaceted space that is a combination of usage and access to digital technologies. There are, therefore, significant research opportunities in this area.  

Future Developments 

Artificial intelligence (AI) is neither a new technology nor is it a novel concept (Mason and Llacuna, 2023, Guan et al. 2020). However, the combination of usable interfaces and algorithms with access to massive data sets has created technologies which are helping to create practices that would not have previously existed. For example, prompt engineering is becoming a practice that is associated with generative AI tools such as Dall-E and ChatGPT and the skills required to use these tools productively will likely become part of the range of skills which are required as generative AI tools become more prevalent in the workplace. The challenge for higher education will be to provide appropriate opportunities to introduce and develop these types of skills and practices in formal educational contexts. Additionally, since all technologies are part of socio-technical networks which combine actors (the university community) and tools to facilitate learning outcomes, the questions of the ethical use of AI are as equally important as the technical considerations of its productive use. An ethics of AI (Waelen, 2022; Nath & Manna, 2023) might provide some signposts for the navigation of the ethical use of AI in higher education.   

The concept of posthumanism raises the bar even higher ( Bayne, S., & Jandrić, P. 2017; Peppler et al. 2020 ) . Posthumanism questions the dualism between humans and nature that has characterised the project of modernity. This has implications for education because if humans are no longer conceived of as the centre of teaching and learning but part of an entangled flow between human and non-human actors, this raises questions about how TEL is practised and how TEL is researched. The ‘entanglement’ between humans and non-human actors in the form of AI, therefore, becomes a pressing question for education. As technologies such as AI become more entangled in the world of teaching and learning, how do we begin to articulate where technologies in the process of learning begin and end? With this question, we are now a world away from the learning subject interacting with Skinner’s ‘teaching machine’ but we are perhaps nearer to the beginning of a new phase in the history of TEL.  

References

Bates, T. (2014).  A short history of educational technology | Tony Bates . Tonybates.ca. https://www.tonybates.ca/2014/12/10/a-short-history-of-educational-technology/  

Bayne, S. (2015). What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning?’, Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), 5–20  

Bayne, S., & Jandrić, P. (2017). From anthropocentric humanism to critical posthumanism in digital educa-tion. Knowledge Cultures, 5(2), 197.  

Byrne, E., Donaldson, L., & Manda-Taylor, L. (2016). The use of technology enhanced learning in health research capacity development: lessons from a cross country research partnership. Global Health 12(19)  

Daniela, L., Visvizi, A., Gutiérrez-Braojos, C., & Lytras, M. D. (2018). Sustainable higher education and Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL). Sustainability, 10  

Granić A. & Marangunić, N. Educational Technology Adoption: A systematic review. Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). 2022;27(7):9725-9744. doi: 10.1007/s10639-022-10951-7. Epub 2022 Apr 5. PMID: 35399780; PMCID: PMC8979725.  

Guan, C., Mou, J., & Jiang, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence innovation in education: a twenty-year data-driven historical analysis. International Journal of Innovation Studies, 4(4), 134–147.  

Lai, J. W. M., & Bower, M. (2020). Evaluation of technology use in education: Findings from a critical analysis of systematic literature reviews. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(3), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12412  

Li, C. & Lalani, F. (2020). The Covid-19 pandemic has changed education forever. This is how. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-covid19-online-digital-learning/  

Lowyck J. (2014). Bridging learning theories and technology-enhanced environments: A critical appraisal of its history. In J. Spector, M. Merrill, J. Elen, M. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. Springer  

Mason, G., & Llacuna, H. (2023). Online Engagement and Teaching Hub. Lf.westernsydney.edu.au. Retrieved November 1 st , 2023 from, https://lf.westernsydney.edu.au/engage/theory/from-the-turing-test-to-chatgpt-the-rise-of-ai-in-education  

Nath, R., Manna, R. From posthumanism to ethics of artificial intelligence. AI & Soc 38 , 185–196 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01274-1  

Nunn, P.D. & Reid, N.J. (2016) Aboriginal Memories of Inundation of the Australian Coast Dating from More than 7000 Years Ago, Australian Geographer, 47:1, 11-47, DOI: 10.1080/00049182.2015.1077539  

Patel, U. (2015). A discourse history of technology enhanced learning research (1945-2012) (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved November 1 st, 2023 from, https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/10453/44208  

Peppler, K., Rowsell, J. and Keune, A. (2020), Editorial: Advancing posthumanist perspectives on technology-rich learning. Br J Educ Technol, 51: 1240-1245. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12979  

Regmi, K. & Jones, L. (2020). A systematic review of the factors – enablers and barriers – affecting e-learning in health sciences education. BMC Medical Education, 20(91)  

Scanlon, E. (2021). Educational Technology Research: Contexts, Complexity and Challenges. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 1. https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.580  

Tochtermann, K. & Granitzer, G. (2008). The long way towards workplace-integrated learning. Eighth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 8–13  

van Dijk, J. (2020). The digital divide. Cambridge, UK ; Medford, MA : Polity Press.  

Waelen, R. Why AI Ethics Is a Critical Theory. Philos. Technol. 35 , 9 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00507-5  

Weller, M. (2020). 25 Years of Ed Tech. Athabasca University Press. https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771993050.01  

Westera, W. (2010). Technology-enhanced learning: review and prospects. Serdica: Journal of Computing, 4, 159–182