Word processors (as evidenced by this viral tweet) are a PERFECT example of edtech that people choose based on a complex convergence of, yes, functionality, AND *perceived* functionality (esp. w/in peer networks), financial constraint, and FEELINGS. Want to dig in more? (1/x) https://twitter.com/JakeAnbinder/status/1390352898916290569

This thread is filled w/arguments about functionality alone: GDocs is free, more accessible on mobile, & has nearly identical basic features (e.g. the ability to compose, share, "track changes," etc). But enveloped w/ those function arguments are arguments about values (2/x)

The biggest value at tension is w/ flexibility: the GDocs defenders make the case that GDocs gives users more options, both for composing & sharing (true!). The MS Word defenders make the case that Word offers more precise & sophisticated formatting (also true!) (3/x).

As educators, then, we have to think about these value choices at play when we're assigning students to us edtech (and yes, word processors are edtech). What does restricting certain files, software, or devices say about our values? (4/x)

Further, what are the risks & rewards of edtech choices? Google, by the way, is not a neutral choice. Privacy concerns GALORE with Google remain, even w/in ed licenses on campuses. Unfortunately, free & ubiquitous = extractive in ways we can't always see immediately (5/x)

No easy answers here, except I think it's worth talking w/ your students (heck, your colleagues & your peers too for that matter) when you ask them to use edtech. Ask about the needs of people w/ whom you're sharing digital work. Avoid assumptions about tools. (6/x)

Also, there's a LONG and fascinating history w/ instructor dissatisfaction over word processors. Naomi Baron (2000): "They complained that the essays they received that had been prepared on word-processors were often inferior to those produced on typewriters" (p. 213). (7/x)

So, we also need to think about how tech changes (e.g. from desktop-based to cloud-based) may make us make claims/statements about the quality of the work when, really, it's about the convergence between our material practices and tacit values/feelings about work (8/x).