Viewpoint

Educational Technology: "I didn't need it why do they?"

By Jill Jemison
University of Vermont School of Medicine

"I didn't need it, why do they?"

That's the line in the sand drawn by many medical school faculty and administrators when it comes to education technology. Whether that sentiment comes from fear, anger, disconnection or ignorance, the effect is the same. Schools are slow to meet the needs and expectations of today's medical students.

Close to 90 percent of U.S. teens ages 12 to 17 use the Internet, compared to less that 70 percent of adults (Pew Internet and Americans Life report, "Teens and Technology," July 2005). According to a 2006 Educause Center for Applied Research 99.9 percent of undergraduates use e-mail, 74 percent use online gaming. And, more importantly, 64 percent agreed or strongly agreed that the use of (information technology) in their courses has improved their learning.

So how do we reconcile these two competing interests? Currently, we don't.

Academic medicine tacitly endorses the Balkanization of education technology. Schools (or in some cases departments within schools) develop pockets of innovation: rich media, interactive media, gaming, simulation, virtual patients, podcasts, videocasts, online testing, interaction tracking, and evaluation tools. It even happens at the core infrastructure level: Some schools offer laptops or tablets; others focus on wired learning spaces; still others build up electronic library resources.

We are already a diverse lot. We are librarians, faculty, CIOs, deans, education technologists. We are only just learning to talk across those discipline lines in meaningful ways and that slows our ability to reach consensus and advocate for change.

This piecemeal approach—of the tech savvy, by the tech savvy, for the tech savvy—contributes to our larger knowledge of what is possible but does little to support the core needs of this coming generation. Not only are students not having their basic information needs met, this approach fails fundamentally to prepare them for the bigger hurdles of life-long learning, information literacy and managing the exponential growth in scientific knowledge.

So where do we go from here? We need to step away from our individual achievements and franchises and commit to a strong, shared agenda.

Engage with senior leadership. We need to make the conversations not about technology but about information and technology literacy for students, staff and faculty. We should also encourage budgeting for innovation. And perhaps we should take a page from the U.S. Department of Education's 2005 National Technology Education Plan and encourage the AAMC to create leadership development programs to help grow a new generation of tech-savvy leaders so that technology decisionmaking pairs with institutional change in all aspects of academic medicine.

Ask the hard questions. Are our technology choices made with an eye toward supporting multiple intelligences and learning styles? Do we advocate for technologies to deepen student understanding and support achievement? Are we critically evaluating our technology choices and expenditures?

Collaborate for change. We need to engage in standards-setting initiatives, support information literacy competencies and share our individual knowledge to promote best practices. We need to actively engage in groups like the GIR and encourage our staff, junior faculty, and other colleagues to play a role. Are we seeking others with whom to collaborate? Are we giving back to our community of practice?

Address the digital divide. As our institutions seek to recruit the best and the brightest, we need to support initiatives that help create these students including broadband access, K-12 technology programs. Can we more effectively support CME activities to help technology adoption among faculty? Is our technology training efficient, effective and compelling?

And what can we as the GIR do? Lead. Encourage standards that will help transform students from tech-savvy netizens to technology literate professionals. Further, the GIR must advocate for education technology infrastructure standards, interoperability and training. In the face of competition for schools' financial resources, the GIR must represent the core needs of students and faculty.

We must be the voice within the AAMC that articulates the value and importance of creating a comprehensive, connected and supported education technology environment for the coming generations of students.

(Note: The GIR educational SIG is exploring the development of a national forum to address these issues.)