Evidencing Edtech - A Conversation with Prof. Natalia Kucirkova

Welcome to the Future Learning Design Podcast.

That is where we need to be a little bit more careful, especially with startups that often have the mentality that they are reinventing the whole education system and scale very quickly without necessarily looking at what others have done and what mistakes others have made, and also at the literature, you know.

Hi everyone. Thanks for joining me for this episode. My name is Tim Logan and the podcast is brought to you in partnership with Notosh. After my recent conversation in episode 133 with Jared Kounihorva, where he laid out his case as to why the edtech revolution has categorically failed, it was fascinating this week to be able to chat with Natalia Kurczykowa. She takes a more pragmatic stance of working with edtech founders to hold themselves accountable to higher standards of research and impact evaluation. Natalia is the professor of reading and Early Childhood Development at the University of Stavanger in Norway. She researches children's use of media and technologies and is especially interested in children's use of ebooks and literacy apps. Her latest project, Sensory Books, is about reading that engages children's sense of smell. Natalia is also CEO and co-founder of Wicked, which is a global network of specially trained researchers to match scientists with ethical edtech and enable properly evidence-driven edtech projects.

Products.

She's also the author of The Future of the Self: Understanding Personalization in Childhood and Beyond. Hi Natalia.

Hi Tim.

How are you?

I'm good, I'm good.

Good, brilliant. Ah, good. Well, thank you. It's a great pleasure to meet you. It's— I'm really looking forward to having this conversation. Full transparency, let's say, before we start, given your background and amazing work in edtech, I wouldn't say I was an a tech utopian or evangelist. I have definite skepticism around some of the edtech issues and questions that it's raising, particularly now with advanced AI and all of those things. So I'm really hoping we can, you know, explore some of that territory. But perhaps we can start just to give a sense of what your work is. As I've understood, you really kind of have, as an obviously an academic first, early years specialist, but also you've kind of positioned yourself somewhere in the middle of this crazy ecosystem of edtech startups, entrepreneurs, big tech companies, schools, big education organizations, research organizations. There's a huge kind of mix of things going on there and not very much coordination often. And I, you've called, I saw you kind of providing a matchmaking service somehow to, to help people navigate that crazy landscape. So yeah, perhaps you could just start a little, just with a bit of an overview of how do you see that landscape? Of technology in relation to education and where do you see your role in that?

Thanks. That's a nice question, Tim, and I'm very pleased to be part of this podcast. I have to say that the reason I discovered you was because of Professor Alison Clark and her mosaic approach that you covered.

Amazing. I love it. Yeah. Slow pedagogies. Oh, it's brilliant.

Exactly.

Yeah.

And it kind of connects to your question because, you know, Professor Alison Clark and so many other academics have been looking at how we can have meaningful approaches to education. Education, how we can support children's development in innovative ways. And then the technology sort of came and is scaling approaches that are not necessarily always integrating the science of learning. So I guess after I have seen quite a few examples where I wish there was more of an integration with the science of learning, I thought, well, what can be done about it? And this is something that needs a systematic approach. It needs to take the whole sector working together. So I thought that, okay, maybe the network of people that I'm connected to can grow with other networks, and you can sort of build a community of people around a shared vision for better edtech, so better educational technologies. And that is something that we have built on and are growing organically within the social enterprise Wicked.

Yeah, fantastic. And the Wicked is, as I— just so people understand, so it's a social enterprise but also connected to the university? So it's kind of an academic institute.

Well, it's co-funded by the University of Stavanger. So we are based in Norway, although the different EdTech organizations are based in different countries. So we work globally and it's a network of learning scientists and specially trained EdTech researchers. So people who sort of are bilingual in both the EdTech business side and the research side, which is not always easy, you know, combining the two different hats. And the idea is really to make sure that we can have more research-based educational technologies from design to implementation towards validation.

Excellent. Yeah, that's so good. And actually it makes me think of a previous episode I did with Anna and Leila from OECD with the Schools Plus Network. And that part of that, I think again, is trying to answer that question of why is the research and the practice and the theory and, you know, the, and the business not all more joined up and informing each other for the benefit of the learning and the young people ultimately. But often they seem to be working, yeah, not in harmony, but sometimes against each other.

Yeah, no, it's a very valid point. And I guess one way of understanding that challenge has been to say that there is a mismatch between the incentives. So the incentives that edtech founders or developers have Often when they seek investments from VCs and, you know, LPs who are not necessarily caring about impact, then they'll be pushed for return on investment and big scale and growth, which doesn't sit well with education, right? Yeah, exactly. So educational technology is a technology that's a different beast from, say, fintech or healthtech, and we need to build the whole ecosystem differently.

Yeah. Yeah. And I did want to ask you about that because I do, I think that's a huge part of the challenge is the perverse incentives, you know, potentially in somewhat opposing directions. I mean, just related to things like how quickly, you know, an edtech startup will want to or need to get into the market and to start generating revenue. And, you know, you've got all of those incentives around the business. As you said, I liked the idea that it's a language, you kind of learning that language because, you know, that's a reality. You want to do business, you need to be able to survive in that space. It's not philanthropy, it's not charity. It's, you know, you've got to be able to be profitable in some shape or form in that context. But at the same time, you're also relating it to what's best for the young people. And that, you know, that can sound a little bit idealistic often, can't it? I mean, it's just everyone's there for the children. Of course, we're all there for the children and everyone uses that line, but at the same time, fundamentally that is what education is about. And obviously there are disagreements about what's good, but I wonder where do you see the biggest challenges in terms of keeping that focus on the learning and on the impact, really having positive, generative, healthy impacts around learning when some of those incentives might be pulling in different directions?

That's such a good question. I mean, I don't have the answer, but one of the sort of suggestions that I heard and that resonate with me is that We need to align the strong focus on return on investment in the edtech space with the focus on return on education or return on learning and return on community. So developing impact metrics around the success of edtech that are aligned more with the broader educational goals, and that means looking at aspects such as the UNESCO SDGs, you know, thinking about the bigger picture that EdTech can be addressing, but that is a sector-level challenge, right? It's something that really needs to bring together several stakeholders working together. So not only the investors and EdTech founders, very often they're sort of portrayed in these very negative colors, but it is also the people who are making purchasing decisions, you know, like procurement teams, knowing what to look for and what to incentivize. As we are downloading different apps for our children, you know, also us as parents and teachers, we all need to work together with a joint language around impact.

Yeah, that's interesting. So there's, there's a couple of things that I'd love to pick up on. There's the timescale thing, which I think is an interesting one. So like your, your idea of, I like that return on community or, you know, those broader, because we know that, you know, the neoliberal economics is very, very good at externalizing all of these other things that it doesn't really want to care about. It just wants to focus on the profit, right? And so So I really like that idea of how do we factor in some of these other value sets that we might, we care about. But also there's that point about the timeline because I think sometimes we particularly with the tech, there's a timescale around technology that is so fast and getting faster, right? You know, all of the jokes about AI and how, you know, just quickly it's moving and it's almost like faster is just better, right? And I wonder if like, is there something there around, have you seen any, I don't know, good examples where maybe investors are allowing for a slower growth or a slower kind of implementation so that yes, they might still be getting the return, but also just they're allowing some space and taking some, allowing time for it to, to that return to come over a longer period, which may allow more learning to happen. I don't know.

Yeah, I mean, time is really crucial factor here because, you know, in education, especially in educational investments, if you don't have the long-term vision, then you are probably not the right investor for this space because You misunderstood that learning is an ongoing process and things will be developing. And one thing that works in a specific context for a specific student is unlikely to scale to millions with the exactly same solution, right? So it's a different type of incentivizing the, the impact piece. And I guess one reason that we are seeing this this mismatch between the expectation of what edtech could be doing and what currently a lot of the solutions are not doing is due to the fact that we had this huge acceleration of the technology, right? So it was so much focused on how to accelerate access to technology from the start so that everyone has a laptop, everyone has access to the internet, and everyone has a specific app And we ended up with a situation where you have the big players who own a lot of that market and who sort of dictate their own terms. And then it's really not technology on our terms, as UNESCO said in their report very clearly last year. So to turn that situation around is a huge undertaking where I think we really need to bring the big tech to the table.

Yeah, that's, I mean, that's fascinating. And I mean, that's, I have to say, that's where my cynicism also kicks in because of things like the 21st Century Skills Coalition with all of the big tech companies. And you know, there's been, there's such a deep profit motivation in those big tech companies, obviously by definition, right? And that perhaps, you know, this is a cynical framing of it, I guess, but the, the perhaps the whole language around 21st century skills has been generated in order to create the next generation of consumers in our young people, because then we're getting Microsoft laptops into the schools or we're getting Apple devices. And you know, it's just, you just then end up inculcating these young people into this relationship with a commodity and with a company through that whole narrative around the types of skills that need to be learned for the future. So it's an incredibly complex issue, I think. But I, yeah, I do get a bit cynical when I So let's be positive about it. As you say, bringing the big tech companies to the table to have those conversations clearly has to be a big part of the what's happening. They've got such huge, huge influence, I guess, on the sector.

Yeah, I think it's partly because they hold the infrastructure now. So if you look at Google Chromebooks and how many schools they are, and if you think about Microsoft Suite that comes with Teams and that comes with a new Reading Coach and the OpenAI partnerships and all that. It's hard to resist it because it becomes so much part of the everyday and it facilitates a lot of the processes that correspond to the needs that schools have in terms of teacher shortage and so on. It becomes more and more difficult to resist the narrative that is put forward by these big tech, right?

Yeah, absolutely. And I wonder, I also wanted to pick up on what you're saying about information because I think it's, as you said, for parents, it's so difficult to navigate. I mean, you know, as a parent myself thinking about device access for my children and all of those kinds of things. And then as an educator, it's so difficult to find information and understand that because there's so much of it and there's so much counter-narrative, narrative about what we should be trusting in relation to reliable sources. So I suppose, I mean, is that part of the role of Wicked as you are working to try and help people navigate some of that information landscape?

That's a good question. I guess specifically in WiCID, we are just trying to join forces with others who are part of this so-called EdTech evidence movement, where greater emphasis is placed on thoughtful documentation of evidence of different companies. I mean, there is a lot of interest in different badging and certification of EdTech so that it makes it easier for parents and teachers to select different technologies. But unfortunately, if you leave it to the neoliberal economy, then you might end up with a system where evidence and research can be simply commissioned by companies that may not have the best intentions and by researchers who might not have the best intentions. Same for certifications and different badges. So ideally there would be organizations that Transparently can communicate together with the companies about what is it that is necessary for evidence, work with them to develop this sort of evidence mindset so that they understand that research is an ongoing process. It's not something where you just tick off a box or put a badge on your website and you are done.

Yeah.

You know, and to transparently share not only what works, but also what doesn't work. You know, it's the, the skeptic in me is sort of awakened when I hear only about positive research of a company and never any sort of negative results. So I think it's, as a sector, needs a lot of professional development in research, but also I think we need to turn the mirror back to the researchers so that we don't sit in our ivory towers and only complain how bad the technology is, but also try to do something about it. Yeah. So it's a two-way street, right?

Yeah.

Bring the two together.

No, it's true. And I think that's a really good point because there is that, in a way, it's easier to sit on the sidelines and criticize, right? It's much more difficult to collaborate, get your hands dirty, and actually try and help to, you know, make that reality of the bit, the market that is moving in the way that it moves, making that better. So yeah, that's a really good point. I mean, that word evidence is definitely something I wanted to ask you about because it is everywhere, isn't it? I mean, you know, you must see it everywhere in your work. I see it everywhere just across education that everything's evidence-based now. It's almost like it's a mandatory statement on everything just to show that we've done our due diligence, we've researched this, and we can claim legitimately that this has an evidence base. But we all know there are many ways or many different strengths of what that evidence might be. So maybe could you just say a little bit about what do you understand by almost the different levels or strengths of that word evidence? Like what could it look like if it was really robust, like genuinely robust? And, and then also what does it look like when some people are actually just claiming to be evidence-based, but it's very flimsy and superficial?

Yeah, that's a nice way of sort of articulating to think about it as the bad evidence and the good evidence. I guess one concept that colleagues and I borrowed from the learning sciences was around the weight of evidence. So, you know, thinking about how rigorous a study was. To count as a proof of something, that it works. And in there, there are actually established procedures for how to evaluate the weight of evidence. You know, you can be looking at effect sizes, you can be looking at the internal and external validity of a study. Was the research question phrased in a way that it could be answered with these specific methodologies? Was there any bias? What was the attrition rate? How was the randomization done? So there are many questions, almost like a checklist you can have to find out how good the evidence is, you know, how strong is the evidence. I guess the question that emerges then is, who says so? You know, is it just a qualified researcher, or could it be teachers who also have their view on evidence? How do you combine the two viewpoints? And indeed, how do you include the children's voices into this? Because if we only sort of leave the decision-making around evidence to researchers, you can quickly end up with a very hierarchical model where you have some voices that really need to be included in that process. So yeah, it's not that easy to answer that question.

It's not, is it? It's a big nest of all sorts because, I mean, just in what you're saying there, you've got culture differently, you know, different biases towards particular places in which that research was done. So you've got kind of cultural dynamics, you've got contextual, very specific contextual dynamics. And, you know, like what you're saying there about kind of teacher expertise and really taking that seriously in the evidencing process, because they're ultimately the use— the people using these platforms or pieces of software or apps or whatever devices, they understand in their context how is this working. And it's so easy to just blame the teachers for not using it correctly, or, you know, but actually that's what those tools, those devices, etc., should be serving the praxis of the teacher, right? You know, the theory-informed practical action of that teacher in the classroom, not the other way around. And so there's an interesting piece there about how do we really take the teacher's perspective on it seriously because they understand the context they're working in, which is different to the school down the road, which is different to the You know, the home educator in another country, or, you know, there's so many different possible places where these things are being used. Yeah, it's a complex topic. I wondered, I mean, also what's the role of independent verification in that? So, you know, who, I mean, the first thing to say is all of this stuff that we're talking about takes time. So that kind of comes back to our point about just it not being rushed. Because as soon as there's a time constraint, you're going to move quickly through these and, you know, not take them as seriously as you could in terms of that process of gathering the evidence and analyzing the evidence. But you've also got this impartiality. And as we've said, the kind of vested interests of the tech company, of course, they're going to want the evidence to show that the thing works. And so what's the role for independent verification somehow? Like, for example, who would do that? And in a way that is, again, like you said, not commodifiable and you can't just kind of game that system with just a bunch of money buying certification or whatever.

Yeah, I think it also needs some discussion around how we define the independence as well, you know, because if you think about the whole evaluation being based on, say, independent auditing where we are sort of verifying at the quality according to some, say, shared criteria that we all agree on, then I guess we can also agree on that we want to have the reassurance that the people carrying out these reviews were not paid to do positive reviews, but that they, you know, they are critical thinkers and they do properly. I would say though, and very much based on my own experience, that if we push too much down the line of you are the bad guy and here are these independent auditors who are going to prove how bad you are, that is not going to change the status quo that we are seeing in the system now. Yeah. So to me, having a dialogue with the companies and sort of transparently sharing that, look, this is what you are not doing very well, this is what you can, can do about it, like, you know, constructive feedback that works much better. In terms of trying to elevate the good work that is being done and improving on it. Because very often it's about incremental changes, you know, unless you get like this big technology that is completely new, say generative AI, that is a transformation and then the follow-up technologies will be adding these small incremental additions. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's important that we encourage both the companies and people working with the different companies to think about the verification of their evidence as something that is part of an ongoing process of building their evidence portfolio. And that is not something that can be verified once, but rather is something that's— it should be an open book, right? Something where everyone can have access to and see what is happening and contribute some pieces of evidence, perhaps discuss some pieces of evidence. And arguably, if you have that sort of community approach, then it will be a technology that's aligned with the community needs and preferences. So to me, that is the preferred way to go.

Yeah, that, no, that's a fascinating idea. Some kind of open democratic process where, yeah, you've got transparency and sharing of, as you say, the things that are working as well as the things that aren't working and where things are growing. But I guess the, yeah. Again, the market incentives don't encourage that kind of approach, do they, in terms of, you know, keeping secrets and patenting and corporate espionage and all of those things?

Yeah, yeah. And you know, the thing is, we all make mistakes, but the question is, what do you make about the mistakes, right? But if we build this culture that people have these heightened expectations and we only report the best results all the time, then it's not going to encourage the transparency.

Yeah. Absolutely. And I suppose almost at the kind of meta level, you've got this, you're trapped in somewhat of a measurement paradigm anyway, right? Because you can only evidence based on, or in that paradigm, you can only evidence based on what is possible to measure. And what is possible to measure is, is only a very narrow slice of the things that are going on in learning, right? So as you said, these kind of returns on community. Or these returns on these much, much larger, more generative topics. It's very difficult to do that if we are using this, we're trying to really lean into this much more rigorous and kind of strong evidence base that very much prioritizes or demands a very particular and narrow articulation of the thing that you're looking for, the outcome you're looking for, how it's gonna be measured, how we'll know when it's changed. You know, all of that much more objective in inverted commas. Framing really traps us somehow in, in, in a particular narrative, I think. Yeah.

Although I think one little thing that I would perhaps encourage us to think about is that we don't necessarily need to define evidence in quantitative terms. You know, the science of learning is advocating very much for methodological plurality. So including both qualitative and quantitative studies when understanding how something works. So rather than thinking that evidence means a number, evidence can mean also, say, a very good series of interviews that were conducted with teachers in the classroom and that have been deeply analyzed, reflected upon, and interpreted with a strong theoretical framework, right? So there are criteria for weight of evidence also in qualitative research. And there are, of course, many, many peer-reviewed studies on how to run rigorous qualitative research. So I guess the more we discuss this need for multiple pieces of evidence that are necessary in a portfolio, the more we include the voices of other members of the community as well.

Yeah, no, that's, that's a really good point. And actually it relates probably to the, I wanted to ask you about that idea of kind of more standardized assessments versus more unique impact-based assessments that a particular edtech company might do. Because in a way we are talking a bit more about the standardized models of, you know, these kind of larger quantitative definitions of what evidence is in some ways. And, you know, I don't know all of the names, but you know, the the big organizations that would provide the standards for the industry that you would have to adhere to as an ATEC company. But as you're saying there, the qualitative aspect brings in this other way of doing it, which is much more unique and personalized to the specific company, product, experience, context, all of those things.

Yeah, I guess the way I think about is that when it comes to impact reporting and impact development, people often talk about impact metrics, right? Now, these, these metrics can be standardized in the sense that it's the same thing we measure in each company, or they can be individualized to the company. So say that we have a literacy app and we'll be looking at children's increase in reading. So we can use a standardized measure, which is the same measure that, for example, PISA uses when they run their reading comprehension test. Or you develop a measure that is only applicable, only usable with this specific reading platform.

Yeah.

So you handpick a measure that works for that, right? So then you are looking at standardized versus non-standardized measures, and both will be looking at the proof that the technology works. And I guess the difficulty is that if you have these handpicked measures that are only available for a specific technology, then it's very hard to compare them with anything because you don't really have the benchmark other than the technology itself. So the more consolidation we can see in the field happening, the better for aligning these different metrics and really establishing some benchmarks that can allow us to make bigger claims about how the technology works or doesn't work. So hopefully that is something we will be seeing more and more.

Yeah. Interesting. It always— Dylan Williams' phrase about everything works somewhere and nothing works everywhere always rings in my ears. You know, it's like there's always proof that something, you know, it will work somewhere, but nothing's gonna work everywhere. So there's, there's, there's, there's gotta be a role for, yeah, really looking at context. I mean, I've been having lots of conversations really recently about, about context and how do we genuinely take that seriously and how does technology take context seriously, because that's one of, I think for me, that's one of the reasons I'm so skeptical about technology is that it's, it's a weaponized version of decontextualizing in some ways, right? It's like, it's a perfect way of taking information just out of context and moving it around the world in seconds. And you know, it's, it's such an interesting device for that, which is a, yeah.

No, it's, it's a funny way how you phrase it, but you know, it's interesting for me as I'm sort of looking behind the scenes of many different organizations and how they formulate their impact statements and all that, that very often it is right at the beginning stages of the logic modeling where there are some missing bits, you know, like assumptions being made about this huge impact on the entire world, bit like you were saying, you know, that you were able to helicopter a solution to anywhere in the world and it will work. I guess that is where we need to be a little bit more careful, especially with startups that often have the mentality that they are reinventing the whole education system with their app or solution and scale very quickly without necessarily looking deeply at what others have done and what mistakes others have made. And, and also at the literature, you know, with my researcher hat, I'm really pushing for more research-based theories of change or logic models. I mean, it sounds very simple, right? You just sort of have this assumption that here is your input and that will be the output, and over time we will have this impact. But very few companies actually anchor that in some published research papers that they read and understood, right? So if we sort of nurture more of that criticality and, I guess, desire to engage with published work, then hopefully that can be another way of addressing the problem.

Yeah. Yeah, it's true. It, it's so difficult for me because I think when I hear you talking about logic models and input output impact, it's so kind of resonant of this very linear Newtonian way of living and being. And that I think has caused so many problems. Obviously it's done amazing, amazing good in the world in terms of systematic approaches, technology solutions to many, many problems, but it's also done a huge amount of damage. And I, that's one of the really kind of big problems and questions I have around technologies because it's, it's fundamentally based on that kind of logic model almost by definition. And, and how do we find a different logic model that might be more generative to community and planet and, you know, all of those important things.

Yeah, I guess part of me agrees with you and part disagrees. And the disagreeing part is that When you're sort of tracing these different assumptions of something that it can work, or that, you know, we have this hypothesis that it could work, the linearity doesn't need to be there. You know, very often when Wicked Researchers produce logic models with the companies, we end up with different cycles and 3D models. You know, that is a good theory of change in my definition, in the sense that you really look at what was done before, and that allows you then to see the many connections there rather than to think about one path that either, either succeeds or fails, right?

Yeah.

So maybe there is also some work to be done in terms of understanding together with the companies how we can embed research more clearly into their models right from the start. Because often technologies are built and then researchers are called in a bit ad hoc, you know, can you just sort of endorse my product or tell me one thing and that will sort of fix it. So this sort of ongoing dialogue is important. And it's funny because, so how quickly we saw that, uh, you know, AI was integrated into so many technologies, but somehow we struggled to integrate so quickly science into the technologies, right? Yeah. So working with more accelerators and different venture studios and people who can nurture the new generation of edtechs, that might be one way of— yeah, no, that's good pipeline.

Yeah, absolutely. And, and that's what I was going to say actually, I wonder, is there a role for not just scientific or, for example, educational research, but actually broader, more like values-based research or human research from the humanities about what it means to be human and how do we, you know, how do we augment? And it sounds quite disconnected and maybe it does, maybe, you know, someone working in an edtech company would think, well, that's got nothing to do with the thing that we're doing here. But that's my challenge with it is I think it's got everything to do with what they're doing there, because those tools become the means by which we navigate the world, or we, you know, we develop our skills in the world. And it's a huge part of that, but it's somehow, I don't know how to connect that into the conversation would be an interesting question.

I totally agree. And you really speak to my heart here because, you know, as a scholar, I've been writing so much about the relationality within technology and that, you know, human is at the center, the child is always at the center. So how do we design with that kind of idea in mind. And it's hard to have that kind of understanding of the world, if you like, or the sort of value system in you, and then be thrown into this very high-paced investor-focused impact modeling, right? So how do you marry the two? Yeah, I have chosen to sort of try to find a balance between the two, but I know that it's not easy for many people. They tend to go either one way or the other. And often if you try to find a balance, you end up having a conflict there or a conflict there, right?

Sure.

But I think many of the developers feel the same way that, you know, they want to create good and there is a whole set of studies and technologies, tech for good or tech for humanity.

Of course.

Different kinds of thinking.

No, I really appreciate that because I think, I mean, it's, you know, it's very easy to caricature the edtech entrepreneur as a kind of profit-oriented sociopath, right? I mean, it's, this is not what, you know, it's not what's going on, right? There's good people trying to genuinely develop solutions for learning and education as they see it. I think for me, obviously there are some less honorable intentions mixed in with there as well, but I, I think the, the larger question is almost, there are such inbuilt assumptions about But like, as you were saying that, you know, the things around what it means to be a self and a person and a human in this, you know, in the face of AI and all these things that those are some of the questions that I think we need to kind of keep bringing to the surface so that people become a little bit more aware of some of the assumptions and biases they're just holding as a product of, for example, going through a, you know, a Eurocentric Western education or, or whatever it might be. But, you know, we, we develop a whole bunch of assumptions there that I think need, quite a lot of them need to be challenged right now because things are heading in interesting, challenging ways for our species.

You are so right. And you know, I think it's absolutely fine to resist a lot of this digitization happening. You know, we really don't need to replace every single activity with a digital activity. There is a lot that can be done without technologies and that is how it should be and it should remain. So I'm with you on this one.

Yeah. Look, can I just, I mean, I'd love to just finish just by asking you, because you've written this amazing book called The Future of the Self: Understanding Personalization in Childhood and Beyond. And as an early years specialist, I mean, you know, this, this kind of almost, you know, the kind of romantic in me, there's nothing purer than the very young children in relation to learning and education. It's really where they're just learning how to be in the world, right? And it's there's something very important happening there. And then obviously then you bring technology in and how early are you bringing technology in and all those kinds of questions. I just wanted to finish by asking you, this is a big question, I know, so feel free to take it in whatever direction, but we've talked a lot about the processes, I suppose, around the edtech ecosystem, but actually like substantively, what do you think about the role of and the impact of technology on learning? For young people in terms of health and mental health. And actually, you know, for example, my previous guest on the podcast, Jared Koenig Horvath, is absolutely damning that the edtech revolution has completely failed and there's no evidence that it supports learning. In fact, it harms learning. And you know, this is a very particular perspective, but I just, yeah, I would love to finish just asking you about that. Where do you think there is, let's say, robust evidence to suggest that there are some advantages for the technology in learning?

Oh, that's a big question.

It is, right? I'm sorry.

You made several points as you were asking it, so my head is buzzing with possible answers. A quick one on the note of the lack of evidence is that, you know, there are many reports showing that. So it's not only your previous guest, it is really the case that most popular technologies that are out there are not evidence-based, and very often they have neutral or negative impact. So the question is, how can we mobilize the pockets of good evidence, use it as a model for turning the situation around? And that has been the motivation behind my work with digital books, for example. So using digital books with young children where they can add value. So we've been looking at contexts where you have families who are on the move, whether it is because of various health reasons, could be a war or conflict reason.

Yeah.

How can the accessibility of the technology in terms of diversity of content that you can offer digitally, how can that be made better and better? But the sort of other part of your question was a little bit about where are we heading with this and what does it mean for young children. And in the book, I was trying to send a word of caution that you've been alluding to earlier in terms of You know, this is such an accelerated time that we live in. A lot of decision-making is based on data, and we push for data in young children's lives more and more. With every single picture you take of your child, that's data that is going somewhere. So I guess not advocating for just sort of stopping and jumping off the bandwagon, but rather thinking carefully about what we all do with technology. So Yeah. Modeling good practice as parents, teachers, developers, researchers. I think it's very important and I hope it's the sort of community approach that can move the needle in the edtech space.

Yeah, no, that's great. And it, there seems to be a wave of more and more schools just going flat out banning technology in the classroom. And that's, so that's an interesting, I mean, not everywhere obviously, but there is, I've noticed a few instances where that's happening more and more, mobile phones or laptops or just getting it out of the classroom. I wonder, what's your views on that?

I mean, it's that kind of black and white thinking that is not, in my view, always helpful because, you know, extremes might not always lead to an optimal solution long term. So I'm personally not in favor of banning technologies, but rather making sure that we think about situations where they are most helpful and managing their use together with children. So developing their own criticality around it. That said, there will be situations where it's better not to have the technology, and I believe if it's done in conversation with the young people, many of them are very discerned users. So, you know, adults should be having conversations with them so that it's really technology on their terms, on the children's terms as well.

That's great. And that's, I mean, that's a really good place to finish because I think we can sometimes get drawn into a place where we don't take their views seriously because we think they're not capable of making sensible or informed decisions about the way, or healthy decisions about the way they use the technology. Because I think there's a nuance there that you are also trying to model about understanding and mature decision-making and all of those things, which it's very difficult to do when you've just removed them from the picture, removed the devices, not the children.

That's right. That's right. Yes.

Beautiful. Thank you, Natalia. Such an interesting conversation. I'd really recommend people go and read your book because I think that the personalization piece, which we haven't really talked about, but there's so much in there, I think is really fascinating about the way things are going, becoming more and more personalized. And what does that mean for our identities and our sense of self? I think there's a huge amount of amazing stuff there, which, yeah, maybe in future time we'll talk about again, but thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Tim. I appreciate it. Thank you.

We hope you've enjoyed this episode. Please feel free to continue the dialogues with our guests, with us on our blog or on social media, or within your own networks.