Post-COVID-19 Education: A Case of Technology Driven Change?

Panagiotis Photopoulos

, Ilias Stavrakas

and Dimos Triantis

Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of West Attica, Athens, Greece

Keywords: Technology Driven Change, COVID-19, Digital Education, Blended Learning, Online Learning, Globalised

Education, Face to Face Teaching.

Abstract: The transition from face to face to remote teaching during the COVID-19 health crisis, has been viewed by

privately owned companies, prestigious universities, international organizations and politicians as an

opportunity to promote the digital paradigm in education. A carefully carved rhetoric bundles the reduced

funding of education, the maturity of digital technologies and the experience of remote teaching during the

COVID-19 restrictions to promote the idea of rewiring and rethinking education as a synonym for change.

How will education look like after the COVID-19 crisis? Although an answer to this question cannot be

precise at the moment since it involves different stakeholders, this publication attempts to pinpoint some

aspects of the post-COVID-19 educational landscape as it emerges comparing various texts and sources.

1 INTRODUCTION

Models estimating the transmission of COVID-19

(Contoyiannis et al., 2020; Flaxman et al. 2020), have

raised worries concerning the likeliness of a series of

rolling school closures during a period of 18-24

months following the pandemic announcement.

International organisations like OECD (OECD,

2020a; OECD 2020b), the United Nations (UN,

2020), UNESCO (2020) and the World Bank have

published a number of documents making

recommendations on the immediate re-opening of the

educational institutions. Besides, these documents

include several ideas on the future of education in the

post-COVID-19 era. On the 5th of May 2020, i.e. in

a period when schools and universities were closed

and the number of casualties was rapidly increasing,

the OECD published “Back to school” (OECD,

2020b), while in August 2020 the United Nations

published the “Policy Brief: Education during

COVID-19 and beyond” (UN, 2020). Texts of

international organisations provide a clue on the

future of education. Narratives addressed by experts

and international organisations, become persuasive to

public and policy audiences (Miller, 2004 p.47).

International organisations, government officials,

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7944-666X

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8484-8751

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4219-8687

scientists, business leaders and other transnational

actors, articulate persuasive accounts on various

problems (Jasanoff, 2001; Miller & Edwards, 2001)

including post-COVID-19 education. These accounts

form the basis for understanding and interpreting the

current situation in education and by doing so, make

specific future options look preferable or even

inevitable.

In the recent years there is an increasing number

of environmental, economic and security issues,

which are considered to call for global cooperation.

International organisations like the World Trade

Organisation, the UN and OECD have acquired a

strong voice on issues that traditionally belonged to

the authority of the sovereign state. The authority

crisis and the reduced capacity of states and

governments to respond successfully to major issues

has opened the way for appealing to global policies

(Miller 2004, p. 46-49).

In agreement with the above considerations, in

2012, Andreas Schleicher, the Director for OECD’s

Directorate of Education and Skills, contended that

education is not anymore, an issue of domestic policy

but a global issue. This assertion was based on the

assumptions: a) That education “is not a place but an

activity”, b) The supposed superiority of international

Photopoulos, P., Stavrakas, I. and Triantis, D.

Post-COVID-19 Education: A Case of Technology Driven Change?.

DOI: 10.5220/0010481206030613

In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2021) - Volume 1, pages 603-613

ISBN: 978-989-758-502-9

603

comparisons like PISA (Program for International

Students Assessment) which, “have globalized the

field of education that we usually treated as an affair of

domestic policy” (Schleicher 2012).

2 DOING MORE WITH LESS

Both United States’ (Benson, 2020; Li, A.Y. 2017,

Krug, 2016) and European Universities (EUA 2011;

Kauppi, 2019) are suffering budget cuts since 2008.

Higher Education budgetary cuts have negative

impacts in various aspects of social life (DePillis,

2001). Despite the financial constraints, the number

of full-time students has dramatically increased in the

past few decades. This is partially because as

unemployment levels rise, more people are driven to

education to increase their competitiveness in the

labour market. The combination of the growing

number of students and reduced spending represents

a major concern for maintaining quality in higher

education (EUA, 2011).

Pay stagnation, a consequence of the financial

constraints imposed on Higher Education, affects

negatively the level of job satisfaction (Benson, 2020)

and productivity (DePillis, 2001) of the university

tutors. In the lack of an alternative vision (Kauppi,

2019), some universities have already closed some

offered programs (EUA 2011, p.5) while professors

are trying to accommodate professionalism

(Mintzberg 1979) with the consequences of reduced

funding. For example, the adoption of Computer

Assisted Assessment has been often attributed,

among other reasons, to its cost-effectiveness

(Mandel et. al. 2011; Loewenberger P. & Bull J.

2003; Bull & McKenna, 2004, Topol et. al. 2010).

Online and blended courses have gained accreditation

among researchers and university tutors, not only

because of their flexibility, pedagogy and ease of

access but also for their cost-effectiveness (Abdul

Rahman et al 2020; Vivitsou, 2019; Lieser et al,

2018), while students’ preference on traditional

classroom teaching does not appear to be a strong

factor to influence decisions (World Economic

Forum 2020; Krug, 2016). Budgetary cuts have been

often linked to changes in the public sector.

Following the eruption of the 2008 crisis, researchers

have focused on cutbacks in public sector

organizations, at the national rather than institutional

level (Schmidt, Groeneveld & Van de Walle, 2017).

COVID-19 crisis added more financial insecurity

to the universities. According to a recent publication

of the European University Association (EUA) “it is

foreseeable and of concern that the financial effects

will arrive in the coming years and there will be

austerity measures” (EUA, 2020). Similarly, 10%

budgetary cuts have been proposed for the European

Research Council (Nature, 2020). Moreover, for

public-sector organizations there is considerable

pressure to improve efficiency, by reducing costs,

improving quality, and increase responsiveness to the

clients’ needs (Curtain, 1993: 31). It is expected that,

public funding allocations across Europe will

decrease in the next two to four years (EUA, 2020)

For the universities that rely on student fees, there

are additional pressures because of less international

students’ enrolments, demands for reimbursement for

fees already paid, reluctance among students to pay

fees for online courses and high levels of student dept.

On the basis of this reality, alternative strategic

frameworks have been proposed for “reputed

universities” (Govindarajan V., Srivastava A.,

2020b), to expand their operations worldwide and

offer residential, blended and fully online degrees at

competitive prices.

3 THE VOICE OF THE

INTERNATIONAL

ORGANISATIONS

It was in 1996 when OECD raised the question of how

education would look like in the 21st century. The

Centre of Education Research and Innovation (CERI)

was commissioned to answer this question gathering

best practices and exploring alternative visions of the

school of tomorrow (Ninomiya & Mutch, 2008). On

the basis of this project OECD/CERI (2001) published

“What schools for the future”, which has greatly

influenced international thinking on educational policy

(Facer & Sandford, 2010). The document outlines six

scenarios for future education along three possible

trends: continuation of status-quo, re-schooling and de-

schooling.

Scenario thinking has been employed for years by

companies to cope with changes in the competitive

environment (Schwartz, 1996), but after 2000 it has

also been used by international organizations (OECD,

2001; OECD 2020a; WEF, 2009). The document

reflects the developed countries’ perspective and a

‘Western” world view (Ninomiya & Mutch, 2008).

Expressions like “distilling the infinite range of

possible futures”, “bringing together the big picture”

borrowed from the management jargon convey an

impression of an ideology free enterprise. Such future-

oriented projects have been criticized for reproducing

the ideal of a technology-rich, global knowledge

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

604

economy, where technology enhanced learning is

considered as an essential modernizing feature for

education (Facer & Sandford, 2010).

The dominant paradigm in education is presented

as bureaucratic and adhering to the status-quo

(scenario 1), a rhetoric and reality that generates

discomfort and signals the need for change. Schools

and universities provide their members extensive

autonomy to perform their job. People outside

education e.g. managers and government

representatives, feel uneasy with such an autonomy

and try to impose external control introducing

mechanisms of supervision and standardization, which

usually impede and discourage professionals

(Mintzberg 1979, p.376). Bureaucratic management

undermines the knowledge base of the teachers as they

are asked to confront with detailed syllabuses,

administrative rules and bureaucratic procedures

usually in the name of quality. Additionally, as some

commentators notice, globalization pressures and the

influence of international organisations like the OECD

have increased governments’ intervention in education

and bureaucratic control (Dahlin, 2017, pp. 113-122).

Scenarios are “just stories” that can be discussed

more openly compared to actual policy choices

(OECD, 2020a p. 420). As Paul Schoemaker (1998)

explains, good scenarios connect to key managerial

concerns and therefore reflect particular interests.

Therefore, OECD scenarios propose the range of

probable and desirable futures (OECD 2001, p.76)

and as such, they rather describe the locus of the

futures of education compatible with certain values

and a OECD’s world view. OECD’s scenarios adhere

to the “leader-follower” stereotype where the leader

addresses solutions to long-standing problems, while

the follower stubbornly resists them. These

considerations are in resonance with Christopher

Warren’s description of OECD as an international

organization committed to democratic governance

and adherence to free market principles. OECD,

unlike the United Nations, is not a universal

organization and it is characterized by a clear

economic and political orientation (Warren, 1998).

For OECD the schooling system is characterized

by the following pathogenies: a) “politicized

education”, the classroom/teacher model, permanent

employment of the teachers and strong unions. b)

Teachers’ professionalism (named “craft”

professionalism) c) Much attention focuses on the

curriculum (OECD, 2001).

The factors destabilizing the dominant paradigm,

mentioned in scenarios 2 to 4, include: The

development of a political culture that supports

extended competition; privatization of various forms;

“efficiency” and “quality” become the prominent

criteria; individualization; ICT as a factor of radical

change to organizational structures of teaching and

learning; corporate interest in the learning market;

pressures from international surveys of educational

performance; competition between countries over the

model of education they adopt; high-trust

relationships between authorities, teachers and

employers; other professions involved in teaching-

learning; networking among teachers and more

flexible employment.

“Back to the Future of Education. Four OECD

Scenarios for Schooling” was published in September

2020, and renewed the scenarios on education

(OECD, 2020a). The new scenarios are: 1) Schooling

extended, 2) Education outsourced, 3) Schools as

learning hubs and 4) Learn-as-you-go.

Analysis of policy documents published by the

European Commission and UNESCO, shows that

there is consensus for promoting digital technologies

for learning in order to make education more

affordable and move away from outdated pedagogies

and learning environments (Vivitsou, 2019). The four

scenarios depart from the transition from face-to-face

to remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic

to promote the idea of a total transformation of

education based on technology.

The main characteristic of education as it emerges

out of the four scenarios is the Taylorisation of the

school. Knowledge is transferred from the educated

teacher to the computer network and education

becomes knowledge availability; many countries

operate common curriculum and assessment tools;

education becomes increasingly privatised; the

classroom/teacher model is replaced by the

classroom/individual adult model; there are

economies of scale; less teachers compared to today;

different job content; reduced control by the state and

reduced power for the teachers. Scenarios 1,2 and 3

are the realm of online and blended learning. Scenario

4 relies more heavily on artificial intelligence.

Scenarios 1,2 and 4 imply a more global context

while scenario 3 is more local. The transition from

face-to-face to remote teaching has strongly

influenced OECD’s scenario thinking. Although the

four scenarios reflect strategic objectives of the far

future, it is possible to influence policies of the near

future as well.

Beside OECD more universal organisations like

the UN, UNICEF and UNESCO have undertaken

certain initiatives and published their proposals

regarding return to schools and post-COVID

education. On September 2018 UNICEF announced

a new partnership with the University of Cambridge

Post-COVID-19 Education: A Case of Technology Driven Change?

605

and Microsoft to develop a Learning Passport, a

digital platform that will facilitate learning

opportunities for children and young people within

and across borders. According to the “Learning

Passport Research and Recommendations Report

“the project’s specific aim is to improve the quality of

education for children who, for whatever reason, are

unable to access national education systems

satisfactorily, either temporarily or permanently”

(Cambridge University Press & Cambridge

Assessment 2020). On the 20th of April 2020,

UNICEF (UNICEF 20/4/2020) and Microsoft (2020)

announced that the platform has undergone rapid

expansion to facilitate country-level curriculum for

children and youth whose schools have been forced

to close due to COVID-19. On the 27th of October

2020 Sony Corporation of America announced its

participation and support to the program (Sony,

2020), while on the 28th of the same month UNICEF

announced that science content developed by twig

education and the Imperial College will be available

to Learning Passport users from Jordan, Somalia,

Timor-Leste and Ukraine (UNICEF, 28/10/2020).

“Reimagining education in the post-COVID-19

era” was published by UNICEF in October 2020

(UNICEF, 26/10/2020). The article reminds the

reader “We have the opportunity to move away from

a model of the school of the last century and

reimagine the school of the future. In this school,

learning will be happening not only in the

classrooms”. The article includes the picture of a little

girl holding a big mobile phone. A green-blue web

page is seen on the screen of the mobile phone saying

ESKOLA BA UMA (The school goes home). The

picture has been taken in the open air carrying the

message of “any place any time” learning. No desk,

no pen and paper, no teacher, digital pedagogy is free

of them. The girl smiles happily to the camera. She is

wearing a red T-shirt advertising the National

Development Plan (NDP), which is described by IMF

as “a participative process, involving constituents in

every sector of the economy to identify the problems

they face and to suggest solutions to those problems”

(IMF, 2005). In the background, which is blurred, a

woman is sitting on a stone, under a tree and next to her

a little boy is playing. The girl with the mobile phone

is the central person of the photograph, conveying the

message of student-centred education facilitated by

technology. The article gives out a clear message of

determination “There is no going back”. What is

needed, according to the article, is to leverage the

internet and technology. Education for all, means

internet connections for all. For poor countries, when

there is little or no infrastructure “blended and hybrid

models of education should be explored to accelerate

change in children’s education”. The role of the teacher

is rather diminished in the new educational normal.

4 POINTS OF CONVERGENCE

OECD’s four scenarios describe the locus of the

preferable futures of the globalized, technology

driven school system. Short term considerations

regarding the post-COVID education can be

identified in less futuristic texts such as "Coronavirus

special edition: Back to school, Trends Shaping

Education Spotlights” (OECD 2020b) and “Policy

Brief: Education during COVID-19 and beyond” (UN

2020).

Comparison of these documents brings to the

surface four points of convergence regarding post-

COVID education: a) The need to rethink education

in all its aspects as a rhetoric for a change to come, b)

The need for a new type of teacher c) Over-reliance

on technology signifying a technology driven change

and d) Vague descriptions on how these points join

together to form a techno-educational mix to solve

old existing problems in education.

The importance of technology as a lever for

increasing the “learning opportunities in a manner

never known before” (Jenkins, 2019) is one of the

taken for granted points in many texts of the

international organisations (Vivitsou, 2019). In

response to this, the UN and UNESCO propose to

expand the definition of the right to education to

include connectivity entitlement (UN, 2020;

UNESCO, 2020). The benefits of digital and internet-

based teaching are taken for granted and what is

needed is internet access for all (UNICEF, September

2020).

Subjective views and vague visions replace

evidence to make-up a new reality unknown to the

many. For example, Luthra and Mackenzie (2020)

inform us that “educators around the world have been

talking about the need to rethink how we educate

future generations” and that “technology will

continue to play a key role in educating future

generations” because what generation Z expects is

instant communication and feedback (Luthra,

Mackenzie 2020). There is a widespread optimism of

a successful change to come, as if the experience

gained during the COVID-19 crisis, removed long

standing problems, related to distance teaching.

Research has shown that online students must be

proficient readers exhibit self-direction,

independence and self-discipline (McDonald, Dorn &

McDonald, 2004), while McFarland et al. (2005)

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

606

found that more and more students nowadays seem to

avoid studying. Instant feedback is central in the case

of online learning, although a recent publication

concluded that fast feedback is not enough to satisfy

the students (Landrum et al. 2020). Additionally,

distance education implies psychological isolation,

cultural distance (Stunkel, 1991) and a total

disruption of what is considered to be “students’ life”.

5 “A CHANGE IS GONNA COME”

It was only a few days after the World Health

Organization declared the coronavirus outbreak a

pandemic, when the first articles appeared on various

web pages to point out how the COVID-19 health

crisis could change education (e.g. Luthra, Mackenzie

2020). In a period when students and teachers, at all

levels, were trying hard to find their pace within the

distance teaching endeavor prophetical articles which

underlined how the COVID-19 crisis affects “how we

educate future generations” seemed to put education

on the fast forward.

After May 2020, when Emergency Remote

Teaching had been already widely adopted by

students and educators, the voices commenting on the

post-COVID higher education increased in

frequency: “Universities beware: shifting classes

online so quickly is a double-edged sword” (The

Guardian 20 May 2020a), “No sex, no booze: how the

move online will take all the fun out of university”

(The Guardian 20 May 2020b), “Post-pandemic,

remote learning could be here to stay” (CNBC, 20

May 2020) “The Future of College Is Online, and It’s

Cheaper” (New York Times, 25 May 2020),

“Students like the flexibility: why online universities

are here to stay” (The Guardian 27 May 2020), “We

shouldn't go back to lectures: why future students will

learn online” (The Guardian 3 July 2020), “5 Major

Shifts Needed Post-COVID-19 to Transform

Education” (Center for Digital Education 12 August

2020), “L’enseignement supérieur bascule dans le

monde post-Covid” (Le Monde 14 August 2020). In

the case of Greece, government officials made clear

that synchronous distant teaching, as well as blended,

is going to be part of the post-COVID-19 higher

education reality. Similar views were also promoted

by a number of media (e.g. MEGA,2020; Kathimerini

1 June 2020).

Online teaching advocators consider that after

students and teachers have had a direct experience of

the specific technology, acceptance will be higher and

resistance lower. Such beliefs concerning the

acceptance of remote teaching in the post-COVID

era, are backed by theoretical considerations

developed within the technology acceptance

literature. Technology acceptance models consider

that prior experience of a certain technology is a

factor, exerting a positive influence towards the

acceptance of a technology (Abdullah, Ward &

Ahmed, 2016; Venkatesh, Davis 2000).

6 CRISES AS A TRIGGER FOR

CHANGE

Crises are considered to be opportunities for reform,

creating a state of shock, which facilitates bolder

intervention (Cepiku, Sauvignon 2012). Crises or

other external events are considered to generate the

necessary conditions for change (UNDP, 2006;

Govindarajan, Srivastava, 2020). The COVID-19

crisis has been considered by commentators as an

opportunity for change. “Crises can make innovations

that seemed previously impossible suddenly

inevitable… There will be years of a reckoning that

higher education institutions will go through. Higher

education institutions need reimagining, not just

repairing” (University World News, 2020).

Academic publications have commented on the

changes to come in Higher Education adopting

various perspectives: Govindarajan and Srivastava

(2020) mention that COVID-19 will affect education

provided that remote teaching experiment proves to

be a success. Zimmerman (2020) emphasizes on the

importance of research to show whether online

learning is good or bad for students.

Acceptance of a change is one of the central

questions in planned change management (Nutt and

Backoff, 1997). For most of the management

perspectives, creating and communicating a clear and

meaningful vision, is of paramount importance in

change management. Vision gives direction and

motivation to those experiencing the change (Palmer

et. al. 2014, pp. 172-184). In change management, the

vision promotes the proper way of understanding the

current situation and justifies the promises of the

proposed change. A new vision for change borrows

elements from real life properly selected and

interpreted. This may include crises, poor

performance, reduced budget etc. Change leaders or

other influencers use narrations and stories to frame

the interpretation of the current situation and generate

dissatisfaction with it. Dissatisfaction with the current

situation reduces scepticism and resistance for the

proposed change. Creating a proper vision is one of

the powerful tools for making the acceptance of the

Post-COVID-19 Education: A Case of Technology Driven Change?

607

proposed change the preferable option (Palmer at. al.,

2017 pp. 180-181). This is part of the legitimization

of the change, i.e. the wide acceptance by the

organization or the society that certain actions are

desired and appropriate (Landau et al. 2014).

Such practices have given rise to criticisms

regarding the ideological and ethical nature of several

change programs (Martin et.al. 1988). Change in

Organizations usually involves practices of

incontestable effectiveness but of debatable political

neutrality. As John Kotter, one of the leading figures

in change management comments: “In some

situations, managers also resort to covert attempts to

influence others. Manipulation, in this context,

normally involves the very selective use of

information and the conscious structuring of events”

(Kotter, Schlesinger; 2008).

Change is not easy and in number of cases it may

cause more problems than those supposed to solve.

Change is usually presented as a well-orchestrated

linear management initiative moving through the

well-known unfreeze, change and refreeze steps

(Cummings et al. 2016). Moving from face-to-face to

remote teaching can be considered as a case of change

management (Mishra et al., 2020), but change

management is not always successful.

There is a wide spread optimism that ICTs can

change education providing the opportunity for any

time, any place learning, modernise education, reduce

obstacles to learning for the poor and disadvantaged.

Nonetheless, this is not the first-time technology is

considered as the vehicle for revolutionary changes in

education.

Thirty years ago, the development of electronic

media and computers generated a widespread

optimism on the potential of global networks, which

would make distance irrelevant and provide

educational services to those unable to participate in

traditional campus-based learning (Stunkel, 1991). At

those days, as it happens nowadays, a number of

publications compared student performance in

traditional and computer mediated instruction to

conclude that media are mere vehicles to deliver

instruction and they do not influence student

performance (Whittington, 1987, Stunkel 1991).

Research conducted in the nineties had shown that

videotapes were a more powerful tool for instruction

compared to videoconferences because with the

former the students could pause, review, and take

more detailed notes (Lundin, 1989). Besides,

recommendations on proper combinations of

technologies promised more effective instruction

allowing the teacher to know which students are

keeping up, which ones are bored, and which ones

have questions, and the ability to queue them for

answers (Perkins, 1989).

The points raised in the publications of those days

sound very similar to contemporary ones. Not

surprisingly the terms used by the enthusiasts of those

days remind a lot of today’s vocabulary: Learner

control (Moore, 1988), high learner motivation

(Lundin 1989), learner-centred teaching (Knapper,

1988), new roles for faculty members (Strain, 1987)

and teacher training (Knapper, 1988). Some years

ago, it was believed that massive open online courses

would change the educational landscape, but face-to-

face teaching stood the test once more (Govindarajan

& Srivastava, 2020).

Inclusion of technology in the learning process is

attractive in itself opening the possibility of more

interesting and playful learning but its effectiveness

depends on the skills of the teacher and the attributes

of the students. Although, teacher’s contribution can

in principle be ameliorated by training, the students’

skills cannot be taken for granted (Sarewitz, Nelson,

2008). Factors like social relationships, inherent to

face-to-face teaching, play a pivotal role in accepting

technology driven changes in education. Indeed,

research has shown that lack of direct communication

with teachers and colleagues is the main pitfall of

online teaching (Landrum et al. 2020; Martínez-Caro

& Campuzano-Bolarín, 2011; Knowles & Kerkman,

2007).

7 THE TECHNOLOGICAL FIX

Recent publication of the UN and UNICEF focus on

long standing inadequacies of the educational

systems to consider the COVID-19 crisis as an

opportunity to introduce changes that were

unthinkable before (UN, 2020; UNICEF September

2020). Before the pandemic, 250 million of children

were out of school, 800 million of adults remained

illiterate and 56% of primary school children lacked

basic reading skills. The COVID-19 crisis made this

situation even worse (UN, 2020).

The above-mentioned documents suggest that

technology driven changes, can solve long standing

problems in education. In 2008 Daniel Sarewitz and

Richard Nelson spotted the difference in the

effectiveness of the various technological solutions

comparing vaccines and educational technology, two

artefacts which are dominant in today discussions. As

they notice, technological fixes can be successful if

they obey three rules: Firstly, they must largely

embody the cause-effect relationship connecting the

problem to the solution (Sarewitz and Nelson, 2004)

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

608

in order to be effective. The effectiveness of a vaccine

is independent of the person who gives or receives it,

as well as the setting in which it is given. Unlike

vaccines, books, software, the internet and

communication technologies do not provide the

‘basic go’ of teaching and learning. The effectiveness

of technology mediated teaching is influenced by

many other factors and applying technological

solutions in education does not necessarily lead to

success. As the authors notice, years of research and

application of new technologies in education has

failed to translate to some significant overall

improvement in reading abilities. Secondly, there

must exist clear and unambiguous criteria in order to

assess the effectiveness of a technological fix.

Thirdly, successful technological solutions would

result from an existing standardised technical core.

Unlike vaccines, such an uncontroversial core is not

available in the case of education. Although only few

would disagree on the benefits of incorporating

technology in education, technological solutions in

education do not appear to comply with the

conditions set by Sarewitz and Nelson, at least to a

degree similar to that of other technological solutions

popular today, such as vaccines. Some problems of

our society are amendable to technological fixes,

while others are not. Decisions on technology

investment are difficult in a world of limited

resources and have long lasting implications.

8 CONCLUSIONS

One of the aims of this paper was to explore how texts

of international organisations influence our

understanding of the present and shape our

expectations of the future. OECD, an organization

characterized by a clear economic and political

orientation, has played a pivotal role in addressing

education as global, rather than an affair of domestic

policy. The underlying idea behind the four scenarios

(2020a) is that of a technology driven radical change.

A change that transforms not only education but also

the lives of teachers and students. Scenarios 1,2 and 3

bring to the fore a future of education which shares a

lot with Fordism, while scenario 4 reminds of a fully

digitalized, teacher depleted school. Such ground-

breaking changes signify a turning point in schooling

and make online learning “a politicized term”

(Hodges et al. 2020). Scenario 1 (2001, p.79) refers

to the “Dominance of the classroom/individual

teacher model”. Twenty years later, this has been

changed to “Schools continue to operate under the

classroom/individual adult model” (2020, p.45),

which clearly means that technology is going to

replace the well-educated teacher and other

individuals will be involved in knowledge delivery. A

displacement of teaching professionals and a change

in teaching and learning is apparent throughout the

four scenarios e.g. “A reduced but distinct, well-

trained teaching corps remains in charge of designing

learning content and activities”. In the new learning

environment, the teacher becomes a designer, a

coach, a mentor and a facilitator (Schleicher, 2020),

but this new elevated role concerns only a small

portion of the teachers who are in service today.

Paraphrasing Meyer (1981): Over reliance on

technology will affect teaching, dilute skills, degrade

work and transform social relationships in schools

and universities. Technical and organizational

innovation will displace academic expertise and

administrative staff will supervise the knowledge

delivery system run by computers, in virtual classes,

through networks. Technology will standardize the

design and the content of teaching globally. ICT using

the most recent advantages of information technology

will transfer academic knowledge and skills from the

teachers to sophisticated and complicated

technologies. In effect this will Taylorize education

and reduce its cost. Some teachers will play the role

managers and engineers played in Ford’s lines: they

will set up the learning machine. This will bring new

forms of control in schools and University

departments.

Information and communication technologies will

play a central role in the post-COVID education. It is

a journey to the unknown, where “innovation and

change is important”. The new normal “is not just

possible, it is essential. There is no going back”

(UNICEF, 26/10/2020). These words convey a

message of determination. There is little room for

discussion or compromise, but there is plenty of room

for contribution on decisions made.

Can technology provide a viable solution to

literacy and education? The question is not a new one.

Distance teaching fifty years ago was implemented

via correspondence, posted material for written work,

radio and television programs (Antonowicz,

Soobrayan, 2020). Fifty years of research in the

United States, in the application of new technologies

and development of new methods have not been

translated in improved reading abilities for students

(Sarewitz, Nelson, 2008). The various modalities of

distance learning provide the opportunity for

knowledge availability at any place and any time but

they do not ensure learning. Besides, distance

learning means “psychological isolation, lack of skills

or low self-confidence, alienation from campus

Post-COVID-19 Education: A Case of Technology Driven Change?

609

environments even for those living next door, cultural

distance, and value dissonance with educational

institutions” (Stunkel, 1991). In resonance with the

aforementioned considerations a recent UNICEF

publication (Yankova, 2020) notices that, half of the

students in Bulgaria experienced negative feelings,

such as loneliness, insecurity, irritability and anxiety

due to reduced social contacts during the period of

social distancing. What about the new role of the

teacher? Technology has not always made working

life better or more interesting. Unlike mainstream

management thought changes are not linear neither

planned. Their outcome is a compromise which

hopefully will open the way for taking advantage of

the new technologies in education.

Thirty years ago, Edith Stunkel (1991)

commented on the novel teaching modalities of those

days noticing, that although traditional classroom

instruction evolved in pre-industrial medieval

European countries it still casts a long shadow on

distance education as a second-class form of

instruction. It is still a question how the new

technologies, which can simulate face-to-face

communication, can build upon a successful

paradigm.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees

for their comments and to C. Anastasiadis for helpful

discussions.

REFERENCES

Abdullah, F.; Ward, R.; Ahmed, E., (2016) “Investigating

the influence of the most commonly used external

variables of TAM on students’ Perceived Ease of Use

(PEOU) and Perceived Usefulness (PU) of e-

portfolios”, Comput. Hum. Behav., 63, pp. 75–90

Antonowicz L., Soobrayan P., (2020), “Building Resilient

Education Systems beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic:

Considerations for education decision-makers at

national, local and school levels”, Retrieved form:

https://www.unicef.org/eca/media/13411/file

Benson W., Probst T., Jiang L., Olson K., Graso M., (2020)

“Insecurity in the Ivory Tower: Direct and indirect

effects of pay stagnation and job insecurity on faculty

performance”, Economic and Industrial Democracy,

41(3) 693–708 https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X1

7734297

Bull, J. & McKenna, C., 2004, Blueprint for computer-

assisted assessment, London, Routledge Falmer pp.7-9

Cambridge University Press & Cambridge Assessment.

(2020). “The Learning Passport Research and

Recommendations Report: Summary of Findings”. UK:

Cambridge University Press & Cambridge Assessment.

Retrieved from: cambridgeassessment.org.uk/Images/

577273-the-learning-passport-research-and-recommen

dations-report.pdf

Center for Digital Education 12 August 2020

https://www.govtech.com/education/k-12/Five-Major-

Shifts-Needed-Post-COVID-19-to-Transform-Educati

on.html

Cepiku, D. and A.B. Savignon. 2012. “Governing Cutback

Management. Is there a Global Strategy for Public

Administrations?”, International Journal of Public

Sector Management 25 (6): 428–436.

CNBC, 20 May 2020 https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/20/

post-pandemic-remote-learning-could-be-here-to-stay.

html

Contoyiannis, Y.; Stavrinides, S.G.; P. Hanias, M.;

Kampitakis, M.; Papadopoulos, P.; Picos, R.; M.

Potirakis, S., (2020) “A Universal Physics-Based

Model Describing COVID-19 Dynamics in Europe”,

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, pp. 6525-6543,

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186525

Cummings S., Bridgman T., Brown K., G., (2016),

“Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt

Lewin’s legacy for change management”, Change

Management, 69(1), pp. 33-60 https://doi.org/

10.1177/0018726715577707

Curtain, R. (1993) 'New Job Structures in the Public Sector:

Intent, Process and Outcomes'. In Gardner, M. (ed.)

Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations

in the Public Sector, South Melbourne: Macmillan

Education Australia.

Dahlin, B., (2017) Rudolf Steiner, SpringerBriefs on Key

Thinkers in Education DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-58907-

7_6

Davis F. D., (1989) “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease

of use and user acceptance of information technology”,

MIS Quarterly 13(3), 319–340.

DePillis, E. G., & DePillis, L. G. (2001), “The long-term

impact of university budget cuts: A mathematical

model” Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 33,

851–876 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-7177(00)002

85-5

European University Association (2011), https://eua.eu/

downloads/publications/impact%20of%20the%20econ

omic%20crisis%20on%20european%20universities%

20january%202011.pdf

European University Association (2020) https://eua.eu/

resources/publications/944:public-funding-observatory

-2020-2021.html and “The impact of the Covid-19

crisis on university funding in Europe” (2020) https://

eua.eu/downloads/publications/eua% 20briefing_the%

20impact%20of%20the%20covid-19%20crisis%20on

%20university%20funding%20in%20europe.pdf

Facer K., & Sandford R., (2010) “The next 25 years?: future

scenarios and future directions for education and

technology” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,

26, pp. 74–93 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00337.x

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

610

Flaxman, S., Mishra, S., Gandy, A. et al. (2020)

“Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical

interventions on COVID-19 in Europe” Nature 584, pp.

257–261 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2405-7

Govindarajan V., Srivastava A., (2020) “What the Shift to

Virtual Learning Could Mean for the Future of Higher

Ed”, Harvard Business Review Retrieved from:

https://hbr.org/2020/03/what-the-shift-to-virtual-learn

ing-could-mean-for-the-future-of-higher-ed

Govindarajan V., Srivastava A., (2020b) “A Post-Pandemic

Strategy for U.S. Higher Ed”, Harvard Business Review

Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2020/06/a-post-

pandemic-strategy-for-u-s-higher-ed

Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A.

(2020), “The difference between emergency remote

teaching and online learning” EDUCAUSE Review.

https://er. educause. edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-

between-emergency-remote-teachingandonline-learn

ing.

IMF (2005) Retrieved from: https://www.imf.org/en/

Publications/CR/Issues/2016/12/31/East-Timor-Nation

al-Development-Plan-18437

Jasanoff S., (2001) “Image and Imagination: The

Emergence of Global Environmental Consciousness”,

pp. 309–337 in C. A. Miller and P. N. Edwards (eds)

Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and

Global Environmental Governance, Cambridge MA:

MIT Press.

Javidan, M., Mansour, Dorfman, P.W., Sully de Luque, M.,

and House R.J., (2006) ‘In the eye of the beholder: cross

cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE’,

Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), pp. 67-

90 https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.19873410

Jenkins R., (2019) “The future of learning” Retrieved from:

https://blogs.unicef.org/blog/future-of-learning/

Kathimerini 1 June 2020: https://www.kathimerini.gr/

pages/matter-of-class/1080325/i-ex-apostaseos-ekpaid

eysi-ilthe-gia-na-meinei-sto-elliniko-scholeio/

Kauppi Niilo (2019) “Waiting for Godot? On some of the

obstacles for developing counter-forces in higher

education”, Globalizations, 16(5), pp. 745-750,

DOI:10.1080/14747731.2019.1578100

Knapper, C., (1988), “Lifelong learning and distance

education”, The American Journal of Distance

Learning, 2(1) pp. 63-72

Knowles, E., & Kerkman, D., (2007) “An Investigation of

Attitude and Motivation toward Online Learning”,

Student Motivation, 2, pp. 70–80 DOI:

10.46504/02200708kn

Kotter J.P. and Schlesinger L.A., Choosing Strategies for

Change, Harvard Business Review, July-August 2008,

available online at: https://hbr.org/2008/07/choosing-

strategies-for-change

Krug, K.S., Dickson, K.W., Lessiter, J.A. et al., (2016)

“Student Preference Rates for Predominately Online,

Compressed, or Traditionally Taught University

Courses”, Innov High Educ 41, 255–267 (2016).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-015-9349-0

Landau D., Drori I., Terjesen S., (2014), “Multiple

legitimacy narratives and planned organizational

change”, Human Relations 2014, Vol. 67(11) pp. 1321–

1345 DOI: 10.1177/0018726713517403

Landrum B., Bannister J., Garza G., & Rhame S., (2020)

“A class of one: Students’ satisfaction with online

learning”, Journal of Education for Business, DOI:

10.1080/08832323.2020.1757592

Le Monde 14 August 2020 https://www.lemonde.fr/

campus/article/2020/08/14/l-enseignement-superieur-

bascule-dans-le-monde-post-covid6048926_4401467.

html

Li, A.Y., (2017), “Dramatic Declines in Higher Education

Appropriations: State Conditions for Budget

Punctuations”, Res High Educ 58, 395–429 (2017).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-9432-0

Lieser P, Taf S D and Murphy-Hagan A., (2018), “The

Webinar Integration Tool: A Framework for Promoting

Active Learning in Blended Environments” J. Interact.

Media Educ. no 1.

Loewenberger P. & Bull J. (2003), “Cost-effectiveness

analysis of computer-based assessment”, Research in

Learning Technology Journal, 11(2), pp. 23–45

https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v11i2.11275

Lundin R., (1989), “Teleconferencing: The design and

delivery of educational programs”, Videotape

presentation at Kansas State University, Manhattan,

KS, cited in Stunkel, (1991).

Luthra P., Mackenzie S., (2020) “4 ways COVID-19 could

change how we educate future generations” Retrieved

from: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/4-

ways-covid-19-education-future-generations/

Mandel A., Hörnlein A, Ifland M., Lüneburg E., Deckert J.,

Puppe F., (2011) GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische

Ausbildung, 28(4), ISSN 1860-3572

Martin G., Beaumont P. and Staines H., (1998) “Changing

Corporate Culture: Paradoxes and Tensions in a Local

Authority”, in Mabey, Skinner and Clark (eds.)

Experiencing Human Resource Management, London:

Sage Pubs. pp.73-74

Martínez-Caro E., & Campuzano-Bolarín F., (2011)

“Factors affecting students’ satisfaction in engineering

disciplines: traditional vs. blended approaches”,

European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(5), pp.

473-483, DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2011.619647

McDonald, M., Dorn B., and McDonald G., (2004) "A

Statistical Analysis of Student Performance in Online

Computer Science Courses", Proceedings of the 35th

SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science

Education, Norfolk, Virginia, pp. 71-74

https://doi.org/10.1145/971300.971327

McFarland D., & Hamilton D., (2005) “Factors Affecting

Student Performance and Satisfaction: Online versus

Traditional Course Delivery”, Journal of Computer

Information Systems, 46(2), pp. 25-32

https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2006.11645880

MEGA 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=nGo

J8Am95HY

Meyer, S., (1981) The Five Dollar Day, State University of

New York Press

Microsoft 20/4/2020, Retrieved from: https://news.

microsoft.com/2020/04/19/unicef-and-microsoft-launc

Post-COVID-19 Education: A Case of Technology Driven Change?

611

h-global-learning-platform-to-help-address-covid-19-

education-crisis/#_ftn1

Miller C. A., (2004) “Climate science and making of a

global political order”, pp. 46-66 in Jasanoff (ed.) States

of knowledge. The co-production of science and social

order, New York: Routledge,

Miller, C. A. and Edwards, P. N. (2001) “Introduction: The

Globalization of Climate Science and Climate Politics”,

pp. 1–30 in C. A. Miller and P. N. Edwards (eds)

Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and

Global Environmental Governance, Cambridge MA:

MIT Press

Mintzberg H., (1979) The Structuring of Organizations

Prentice Hall, pp. 352-354

Mishra L., Gupta T., Shree A., (2020) “Online teaching-

learning in higher education during lockdown period of

COVID-19 pandemic”, International Journal of

Educational Research Open, Retrieved from:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100012

Moore, M. G., (1988), “Telecommunications,

internationalism, and distance education” The

American Journal of Distance Learning, 2(1) pp. 1-7

Nature 2020, Vol 585, 17 September 2020,

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02620-x

New York Times, 25 May 2020 https://www.

nytimes.com/2020/05/25/opinion/online-college-coron

avirus.html

Ninomiya A. & Mutch M., (2008) “Visioning scenarios for

schooling for tomorrow”, Journal for International

Cooperation in Education 11(1), pp. 7-21

Nutt, P. C., and Backoff, R. W., (1997) “Crafting vision”,

Journal of Management Inquiry 6(4):308–328.

OECD (2001), “What Schools for the Future? Schooling for

Tomorrow”, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/

10.1787/9789264195004-en.

OECD (2020a), Back to the Future of Education: Four

OECD Scenarios for Schooling, Educational Research

and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris,

https://doi.org/10.1787/178ef527-en.

OECD (2020b), "Coronavirus special edition: Back to

school, Trends Shaping Education Spotlights”, No. 21,

OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/

339780fd-en.

OECD 23/3/2020, “Education responses to covid-19:

Embracing digital learning and online collaboration

Updated 23March 2020”, Retrieved from:

https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/e

ducation-responses-to-covid-19-embracing-digital-lear

ning-and-online-collaboration-d75eb0e8/

Palmer I, Dunford R., Buchanan D. A. (2017) Managing

Organizational Change, A Multiple Perspectives

Approach New York: Mc Graw Hill, 3rd Ed.

Perkins, L. B., (1989), “Interactivity: An important link in

distance education”, Tel-Coms, cited in Stunkel, (1991)

Rahman A., Arifin N., Manaf M., Ahmad M., Mohd Zin N.

A., and Jamaludin M., (2020), J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1496

012012, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1496/1/012012

Sarewitz, D., Nelson, R. (2008) “Three rules for

technological fixes”, Nature 456, pp. 871–872

https://doi.org/10.1038/456871a

Schleicher A., (2012), “Use data to build better schools”

available at:

https://www.ted.com/talks/andreas_schleicher_use_dat

a_to_build_better_schools#t-2029

Schleicher A., (2020) “Schooling in Times of COVID-19”

OECD Forum Virtual Event, 21/9/2020 Retrieved

from: https://www.oecd-forum.org/posts/schooling-in-

times-of-covid-19-highlights-from-the-oecd-forum-vir

tual-roundtable

Schmidt, J.E.T., Groeneveld, S.M. & Van de Walle, S.

(2017) “A change management perspective on public

sector cutback management: towards a framework for

analysis”, Public Management Review, 19(10), pp.

1538-1555, DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1296488

Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1998). Twenty common pitfalls in

scenario planning. In L. Fahey & R. Randall (Eds.),

Learning from the future: Competitive foresight

scenarios (pp. 422-431). New York, NY: John Wiley &

Sons.

Schwartz, P. (1996). The art of the long view: Planning for

the future in an uncertain world, New York, NY:

Currency/Doubleday.

Sony (2020), Retrieved from: https://www.sony.com/con

tent/sony/en/en_us/SCA/company-news/press-releases

/sony-corporation-of-america/2020/sony-corporation-

of-america-joins-with-unicef-to-support-learnin.html

Strain, J., (1987), “The role of faculty member in distance

education”, The American Journal of Distance

Learning, 1(2) pp. 61-65

Stunkel E. MSW, (1991) “The Technological Fix”,

Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 11(4), pp. 1-16,

DOI: 10.1300/J021v11n04_01

The Guardian 20 May 2020a https://www.theguardian.

com/education/2020/may/20/universities-beware-shifti

ng-classes-online-so-quickly-is-a-double-edged-sword

The Guardian 20 May 2020b, https://www.theguardian.

com/education/2020/may/20/no-sex-no-booze-how-the

-move-online-will-take-all-the-fun-out-of-university

The Guardian 27 May 2020 https://www.theguardian.

com/education/2020/may/27/students-like-the-flexibili

ty-why-online-universities-are-here-to-stay

The Guardian 3 July 2020 https://www.

theguardian.com/education/2020/jul/03/we-shouldnt-

go-back-to-lectures-why-future-students-will-learn-

online

The World Bank (2020), “How countries are using edtech

(including online learning, radio, television, texting) to

support access to remote learning during the COVID-

19 pandemic” Retrieved from: https://www.

worldbank.org/en/topic/edutech/brief/how-countries-

are-using-edtech-to-support-remote-learning-during-

the-covid-19-pandemic

Topol, B., Olson, J., & Roeber, E., (2010), “The Cost of

New Higher Quality Assessments: A Comprehensive

Analysis of the Potential Costs for Future State

Assessments”, Stanford, CA: Stanford University,

Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.

twigeducation (2020) Retrieved from: https://twigeducati

on.com/blog/learning-passport-launches-to-learners-

worldwide/

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

612

UN (2020), “Policy Brief: Education during COVID-19 and

beyond” Retrieved from: unsdg.un.org/resources/

policy-brief-education-during-covid-19-and-beyond

UNDP (2006), “Institutional Reform and Change

Management: Managing Change in Public Sector

Organisations”, A UNDP Capacity Development

Resource, available at: https://www.undp.org/content/

dam/aplaws/publication/en/publications/capacity-deve

lopment/institutional-reform-and-change-management

-/Institutional-Reform-cp5.pdf

UNESCO 2017, https://broadbandcommission.org/

Documents/publications/WG-Education-Report2017.

pdf

UNESCO (2020), “Education in a post-COVID world:

Nine ideas for public action”, International

Commission on the Futures of Education 2020 Paris,

UNESCO https://en.unesco.org/news/education-post-

covid-world-nine-ideas-public-action

UNICEF 20/4/2020, Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.

org/press-releases/unicef-and-microsoft-launch-global-

learning-platform-help-address-covid-19-education

UNICEF 26 September 2018 (2018), Retrieved from:

https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unicef-announ

ces-new-partnership-microsoft-address-education-cris

is-affecting

UNICEF September 2020, Retrieved from:

data.unicef.org/topic/education/covid-19/

UNICEF, 26 October 2020. Retrieved from: unicef.org/

timorleste/stories/reimagining-education-post-covid-

19-era

UNICEF, 28/10/2020 Retrieved from: https://www.learn

ingpassport.org/post/twig-education-imperial-college-

join-unicef-s-learning-passport

UNICEF, 7/12/2020, “COVID-19: UNICEF warns of

continued damage to learning and well-being as number

of children affected by school closures soars again”,

Retrieved from: https://www.unicef.org/press-

releases/covid-19-unicef-warns-continued-damage-

learning-and-well-being-number-children

University World News 2020, available at:

https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story

=20200612100902318

Venkatesh V., Davis F. D., (2000) “A Theoretical

Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four

Longitudinal Field Studies”, Management Science

46(2), pp. 186-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/

mnsc.46.2.186.11926

Vivitsou M., (2019), “Digitalisation in Education,

Allusions and References”, Center for Educational

Studies Journal 9(3) Robotisation, Automatisation, the

End of Work and the Future of Education doi:

10.26529/cepsj.706

Warren C., (1998), In the Stream of History: Shaping

Foreign Policy for a New Era, Stanford: Stanford

University Press, 1st Ed. pp. 165-167

Whittington N., (1987) “Is instructional television

educationally effective? A research review”, The

American Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), pp.47-57

World Economic Forum, (2009). The future of the global

financial system. A near term outlook and long-term

scenarios. Geneva, Switzerland: The World Economic

Forum.

World Economic Forum (2020), “Is this what higher

education will look like in 5 years?” Retrieved from:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/higher-

education-online-change-cost-covid-19

Yankova M., (2020), “Rapid Assessment of COVID-19

impact on education in Bulgaria Deepening learning

loss and increasing inequalities” Retrieved from:

https://www.unicef.org/eca/rapid-assessment-covid-19

-impact-education-bulgaria

Zimmerman J., (2020), “Coronavirus and the Great Online

Learning Experiment”, The Chronicle of Higher

Education

Retrieved from: https://www.chronicle.com/

article/coronavirus-and-the-great-online-learning-

experiment/

Post-COVID-19 Education: A Case of Technology Driven Change?

613