If you’re one to argue you already know the choppy waters of discussing ideologically bedrock concepts.

Ask an atheist what is wrong with the world and they’ll list all of the reasons that religion has ruined everything. Ask a communist about any negative experience and they’ll trace a line all the way back to those dirty capitalists. Ask a traditionalist about a discreetly banal problem with crosswalks and they’ll quickly point a finger at feminists.

Why do we have this impulse- to mound all of the negativity possible on an opposing ideology? And, by the way, we all do it. The impulse makes sense- it comes from a deep-seeded need to be right. But, not just right- really right; the rightest. It feels good to feel as though you found the thing that explains everything, that solves everything.

This is a common problem when progress is made. In education, both pedagogy and andragogy,  there is a wide move to incorporate technology in the learning process. Proponents of this strategy, which I am, love to point to the promises that such a move could make a reality- engaged learners who have fallen in love with the material that they’re learning; students with perfect recall of the subject matter; a classroom full of Will Huntings without all of the emotional issues.

Detractors will jeer that the upfront costs of this type of transition will surely bankrupt any corporation that embraces these techniques; that the dust of the earth facilitators will be replaced by the help from the Jetsons; and that the learners will be clueless without their computerized crutches.

So, who is right?

No one.

The detractor should realize that the world is changing and that there are technological advantages that we have to embrace in order to stay productive. Dust of the earth facilitators will not be replaced- they’ll be changed- into dust of the digital world coaches that will be able to wield all of their experience to greater effect. And, finally, these corporations will not go bankrupt- at least not because of modernizing their training.

Proponents should realize that technology is not the panacea. Technology does not leap the hurdles of contextualizing information for each individual. It is not a prime mover in incepting motivation into the learner. It does not rewrite code in the learners mind as it can be rewritten for a piece of software.

But, the results will be better. There are going to hurdles to cross in the implementation of new techniques, but at the end of the day, when a learner has access to more thoughtful, better prepared material the learner will reap what the instructional designer has sown.

It’s important to remember that progress is not perfection, just the road to it.

What’s YOUR Vision?