Category: Research
Category: Research |
| Teaching and Learning Forum 2014 [ Refereed papers ] |
Angela Jones and Rebecca Bennett
Murdoch University
Email: a.jones@murdoch.edu.au, rebecca.bennett@murdoch.edu.au
In the rush to digitise aspects of higher education to cater to an increasingly diverse and wide-ranging university market, there is a concern that best-practice teaching and learning based on sound pedagogy may be left behind. This paper addresses this concern by offering a conceptual re-imagining of the learning space that reaches beyond a digital/non-digital divide. Our argument posits that imagining online and offline as different learning spaces confuses a necessary pedagogical correlation between learning delivery and learning objective that allows questions of digital (or non-digital) delivery primacy over questions of pedagogical quality. To re-assert the significance of pedagogically driven course structure and design, we invoke Deleuze and Guattari's (1987) image of the non-hierarchical rhizome to de-construct binary thinking and to recognise online and offline as elements of the same pedagogical space. We then discuss Wenger, White and Smith's (2009) Digital Habitat model as a way for teachers to re-construct pedagogically framed learning spaces out of the rhizome that reaches beyond a conceptually problematic online/offline divide.
Technological determinism is evident in education discourses when failure to effectively use technology in the classroom is attributed to government policy, a lack of resources and teachers' attitudes and abilities, but not to the limitations of the technology itself (Jewitt, 2006, p. 1). Teachers, in particular, are placed under repeated scrutiny in discussions about managing literacy in a digital age. Prensky states that "the single biggest problem facing education today is that... instructors... are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language" (2001a, p. 2); Hartley agrees that, "the main thing that needs to change is ... teachers" (2009, p. 30); and Mundy, Kupczynski and Kee suggest that teachers lack "the technological proficiency needed to take advantage of these new technologies, making them unable to bring these technologies into the classroom"(2012, p. 1). In a context where the expertise of academic teaching staff is being questioned regarding their ability to create digitally enhanced course design, we argue for a greater emphasis on conceptual investigations into how teaching and learning might be re-positioned in a digitally networked age.
Our motivation for this research is to re-emphasise the significance of effective non-digital teaching and learning practices, without denying the contributions that digital technologies can make. This is in response to literature that calls for a productive and improved articulation between technology and pedagogy in higher education that considers established scholarly, theoretical and conceptual foundations (Lea, 2013; Gunn & Steel, 2012: Kirkwood & Price, 2013). Our aim is to develop a useful conceptual framework for learner focused best-practice teaching in higher education (Kirkwood & Price, 2013, p. 329) that places digital and non-digital elements under equal pedagogical scrutiny before uploading or downloading course content, activities and materials. We do this to overcome conceptual confusion between delivery modes (online or offline) and expected learning outcomes (the purpose of a course), arguing that the former should always be considered in the context of the latter. To ensure that technology is adapted to suit the topic, rather than altering course topics to suit technology, we suggest a conceptual re-imagining of learning space that reaches beyond the negotiation of a digital/non-digital divide.
Deleuze and Guattari's (1987) non-hierarchical rhizome provides a conceptual alternative to a spatial binary between online and offline that may encourage teachers to devise - and advocate for - pedagogically driven and context sensitive approaches to technology use. The rhizome deconstructs a digital/non-digital dualism, which favours the digital, in higher education discourse. It is not intended to offer a clear direction for effective teaching and learning, but to present an opportunity to reset the conceptual scene from which pedagogically driven course design might (re)emerge. To re-construct effective learning spaces by linking the conceptual to the practical, we model our proposed re-construction of learning spaces on Wenger, White and Smith's (2009) Digital Habitat metaphor. While the 'habitat' reinforces a technological determinist narrative in its use of the 'digital' prefix, the model is sensitive to putting learning agendas first when considering community engagement with technology. Mobilising these two ecological metaphors enables us to suggest a re-drawing of learning spaces that emphasise a purpose-dependent framework. To justify this approach, we address problematic dualisms that support technological determinism in higher education discourse to highlight the continued importance of pedagogy in broader discussions of learning, literacy and space as they manifest today.
A time-future focus, based on a digital-future/non-digital-past dichotomy is reinforced, not only in generational stereotype, but also in the pervasive use of new media prefixes, such as 'digital' and 'e'. Citing Woolgar, Clegg argues that the use of such qualifiers "suggests not only inevitability but the need to catch-up, act, respond" (2011, p. 177). This apparent need to understand literacy and learning as digital constructs is evidenced in the attention given to defining digital literacy/ies (Gilster, 1998; Lankshear & Knobel, 2008; Hartley, 2009; Koltay, 2011; McWilliam, Hartley & Gibson, 2008) and to developing interfaces and strategies for e-learning (Mason & Rennie, 2008; Littlejohn & Pegler 2007). Adding a digital qualifier to broad pedagogical constructs, such as Literacy and Learning, privileges digital over non-digital because of the positioning of digital technology as part of an inevitable future. The digital-future/non-digital past dichotomy, means that effective non-digital teaching and learning practices appear 'out of date'. Thus technological determinism in higher education is, in part, fueled by future-present, forward facing rhetoric. This means approaches to course design based on tested pedagogical insights in non-digital forums appear 'backward' as they appear to be informed by evidence and experiences gathered in an increasingly redundant educational past. To move past the reductionist positioning of digital educational technology as creating the space of the future and, by default, rendering non-digital educational situations in the space of the past, it is important to expose the limitations of a digital/non-digital dualism.
Our argument posits that dualisms regarding technology, space and time in education discourse mask a need for pedagogical justifications for digital technology use in the present. To conceptualise of the digital and the non-digital as representing separate spaces and times hides their mutually dependent structure. Digital technology is not the space of the future, just as non-digital agents are not the space of the past; rather, both are active communication forms in the present. Clegg rejects dichotomous temporal conceptions of academic life, suggesting that the "lived simultaneity" (2010, p. 348) of time needs to be embraced in its complexity. She argues that rather than dividing learning space into a digital future/non-digital past, the cyclical academic calendar influences digital and non-digital aspects of university scholarship alike, as does a shared responsibility for providing spaces where 'slow time' required for focused scholarship might take place.
A digital/non-digital dichotomy is problematic in that it divides university time and space so it favours a technologically determinist future. There is little evidence to suggest that face-to-face communication is becoming an outdated or less preferred teaching method, just as evidence suggests that reading off paper is potentially more effective than reading off a screen (Mangen, Walgermo & Bronnick, 2013). If the purpose of online learning is remembered as being the same as offline learning: to develop skills and knowledge relating to a specific topic under a specific disciplinary banner, then technological determinist claims to the future of higher education confuse a necessary pedagogical correlation between delivery (online or offline) and learning purpose. We suggest that if the digital is de-emphasised in higher education discourse, we can begin to re-imagine educational technologies as available tools with the potential to enhance existing teaching and learning expertise and practice, as opposed to tools that pose a threat to pre-digital skillsets. A conceptual dissolution of the online/offline binary allows for the reassertion of teacher-driven, pedagogy-led university course design where digital technology it seen as equivalent, not superior, to effective non-digital alternatives.
For teachers, the rhizome offers a visual analogy for the space of conception: a space of infinite possibility. Deleuze and Guattari also refer to rhizomatic space as "smooth space" (p. 506), because it is not organized to favour any particular agenda or thought progression. The image of the rhizome flattens learning space so it no longer privileges technology and lays the conceptual foundations for pedagogically driven course-design.
Significant to our rationale for visualising the rhizome is what Deleuze and Guattari refer to as a principle of connection or "point" (1987, p. 7). Like nodes in a network, points are an intrinsic part of a rhizome because they represent intersections between the stem, roots and shoots. In the process of deconstructing dichotomous learning space, rhizomatic points (which we will refer to as nodes) might be imagined as moments when digital and non-digital intersect to achieve a shared learning process. The temporal connotations in use of the adjective 'moment' are also useful for course design in that it implies that nodes have a temporality and thus potential for pause and reflection. Each node of the rhizome might be imagined as a pocket in space and time that could enable a student to meet a course's learning objective, and this node is connected to other possible learning moments (or learning nodes) via multiple pathways.
In this configuration, a learning space that emerges from a rhizome prioritises intersecting learning nodes as significant to the foundational structure. The pathways that connect and intersect at the nodes, allow for a way to conceptualise the role of delivery in teaching and learning. They represent ways to enter and exit specific learning nodes, as well as ways to connect one node to another. Viewing online, offline or blended delivery methods as pathways that connect learning nodes, instead of viewing a particular mode as being crucial to 'learning moments', allows for pedagogy to guide delivery. Rhizomatic learning space encourages the designer to consider the node first and which pathway most efficiently guides a particular cohort of students to engage with the 'learning moments', second. This approach avoids a disproportionate time being focused on navigating various paths without getting anywhere in terms of meeting learning objectives and achieving learning outcomes.
Because it represents a space prior to directional course design, the rhizome does not present a particular knowledge or privilege a particular direction or way of thinking and therefore does not offer a conceptual model for a course. Rather, it offers an anti-dualistic meta-landscape from which clearly directed learning trajectories might be mapped beyond an online/offline divide.
The reminder that a course is driven by purpose, rather than technology, reasserts the significance of pedagogy-led design. However, pedagogic principles need to fit within the practical realities of institutional structures and market mandates that make certain digital technologies compulsory in university courses. Wenger, White and Smith's (2009) digital habitat thesis, aimed at enhancing communities of practice, offers a useful model for pedagogically considered digital and non-digital articulations. Similar to the rhizome, habitats are mapped around nodes "where community and technology intersect" (p. 11). Focusing on intersections emphasises a reciprocal relationship between a community, its individual members and its technology, where they shape each other in mutually determining, rather then technology dominating, relationships (p. 21). Digital habitats offer a practical model for the learning spaces we hope to create, as they are developed around both the learning and digital requirements of a group (p. 38). Wenger, White and Smith refer to community members as a habitat's 'species' and 'place' as the digital locus of the community. A digital habitat is thus created through the configuration of technological tools, platforms and features that aim to meet the needs of the individual members and the interests of the community as a whole. For example, a digital habitat for an online university course about film might have a Facebook fan page, a place to share videos and create a community; a YouTube channel, a place for students to upload their film work; and a learning management system (LMS) discussion forum for formal course work focused conversations. In this digital habitat, the species are the film students and various digital tools create an asynchronously connected space for learning about film. The needs of the species are to be able to connect with their tutor and other film students, to understand assessment tasks and learning requirements and to meet the learning objectives of the course. For the online only iteration, digital technology is an extremely effective medium for facilitating these needs. A digital habitat for an on campus iteration of the same university course, on the other hand, might only use a digital LMS for submitting assignments and accessing missed lectures. Because the on campus community has opportunity for synchronous face-to-face interaction in physical spaces, such as lecture theatres, classrooms and campus grounds, many course requirements do not need to be met online. To offer or mandate online interactions in addition to available face-to-face counterparts may confuse the purpose of the course for an on-campus student, which is to learn about film, not to navigate unnecessary digital interfaces.
Despite Wenger, White and Smith's focus on the creation of a mutually dependent relationship between species (the community members) and place (where members can interact and learn) (2009, p. 38), their emphasis on the digital aspect of communities plays to the spatial distinction between online and offline space we propose to dissolve. This is also an issue with the notion of the term 'blended' learning, which allows the prefix discursive privilege over the more important learning purpose. To reframe courses as habitats for learning, rather than as necessarily 'blended' or 'digital, we view the use of digital technology as just one part of an overall learning habitat, not as the defining factor. Without the 'digital' prefix, the habitat metaphor is useful for designing a learning space that is simultaneously digital and non-digital, as it considers technology use in the context of a larger course environment. Losing the digital qualifier and keeping the ecological metaphor de-emphasises the role of technology to allow all attributes of a learning space to be considered equally - human, material and digital.
A learning habitat's foundations are interconnecting course-specific learning objectives; however, the delivery of these learning objectives will differ depending on the species' various needs in terms of access. This means that what a student needs to access is not dependent on their route of access into the learning habitat. However, Wenger, White and Smith warn that, "learning in communities requires too much cohesion to split over uneven adoption, access or personal preferences with regards to technology" (2009, p. 186). Different cohorts have different resources, different timetables and thus different potential access points. To make too many access points available to one cohort may create confusion, as opposed to providing a cohesive learning experience. To avoid students lingering on the surface, it is important that course designers pay attention to creating learning habitats with clearly marked learning pathways for each sub-species of student: on-campus, off-campus, online-only and blended. Rather than arbitrarily switching technology on and off, students need to be encouraged to move between the nodes that frame their course's pedagogical purpose. In physical university landscapes, students are taught to negotiate and spend specific time in different learning spaces such as lectures, tutorials, laboratories, workshops and seminars. They are provided with timetables, instructors, locations and information on how to 'act' in these spaces. The space-time information that is provided for on-campus study, which is also inherently linked to the university calendar, extends off-campus through digital technology. However, online students will need different instruction as to how to enter, participate in, and move through a course's learning habitat using digital interfaces. In terms of blending, a clear and explicit pedagogical rationale for providing on-campus students with both digital and non-digital access to a learning habitat is needed to ensure that attention is being directed towards - not away from - learning objectives.
Naming the tech-steward role again privileges the role of technology in teaching duties, thus it is perhaps discursively more appropriate to view teachers as learning-stewards. However, at this stage of conception, it is significant that teachers take control over technological aspects of their course. For this early model, to retain a tech-steward label reminds teachers that it is not a question of avoiding technology in order to reassert pedagogy, but that its use must be planned so that it puts pedagogical aims first. When technology allows multiple points of access to course content and activities, it is up to the teacher to act as a steward to guide students through the pathways in the habitat that are likely to be the clearest for their needs. Wenger, White and Smith (2009) note that controlling the borders or the periphery of a learning community is a "necessary part of the learning agenda" (p. 187) and also that it is the steward's role to "keep the technology as simple as possible for the community, while meeting its needs" (p. 132). This could be achieved by explaining these paths in a course guide, video or in physical class depending on the cohort. For example, in a physical lecture some time may be spent explaining to on-campus students when they need to go to the LMS and for what purpose -showing them an appropriate path. Additionally, time might be spent in a computer laboratory with the same cohort of on-campus students, practicing submitting an assignment - stewarding them along the path. Clarity as to what, how, when, where and by whom learning objectives need to be achieved is an intrinsic part of enabling students to negotiate learning habitats. Students should not be left to grapple with questions of how, or which is the 'best way', to access the learning space, nor should they be 'stuck' in the rhizome, trying to work out what they need to learn. It is the role of the teachers as tech steward to consider needs of their cohorts, and make their respective paths for achieving the course learning objectives clear. The tech steward role is significant in challenging technological determinism in that it maintains the centrality of teacher in the creation of learning space.
To alleviate the conceptual confusion that technological determinism in higher education can cause, and to reassert the continued significance of non-digital teachers and teaching methodologies, we have offered a four-point process for re-conceptualising space in university course design. This process for university teachers involves recognising misleading dualisms in education discourse, visualising the rhizome to reach beyond an online/offline divide, creating a learning habitat from the rhizome, and stewarding students through the habitat. Together the rhizome, habitat and tech steward analogies provide a useful framework for deconstructing dichotomies, and reconstructing learning spaces that are both digital and non-digital. This proposed four-step process is presented as a conceptual framework that is still in its infancy and it requires practical and empirical testing in order to refine and develop it further. Even though this model is in its early stages, it is intended to offer a way to re-empower university teachers and effectively engage students in the face of technological determinism in higher education.
Bawden, D. (2008). Origins and concepts of digital literacy. In C. Lankshear & M. Knobel (Eds.), Digital literacies: Concepts, policies and practices (17-32). New York: Peter Lang.
Bawden, D. & Robinson, L. (2009). The dark side of information: Overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 180-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551508095781
Bennett, S., Maton, K. & Kervin, L. (2008). The 'digital natives' debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x
Buckingham, D., Scanlon, M. & Sefton-Green, J. (2001). Selling the digital dream: Marketing educational technology to teachers and parents. In A. Loveless & V. Ellis (Eds), ICT, pedagogy and the curriculum: Subject to change (20-40). London: Routledge.
Clegg, S. (2010). Academic identities re-formed? Contesting technological determinism in accounts of the digital age. Contemporary Social Science, 6(2), 175-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2011.583485
Clegg, S. (2010). Time future - the dominant discourse for higher education. Time & Society, 19(3), 345-364. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961463X10381528
Davies, M. (2012). Can universities survive the digital revolution? Quadrant, December 2012, 58-66. https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2012/12/can-universities-survive-the-digital-revolution/
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minnesota: University of Minnesota.
Garrison, D. & Vaughan, N. (2008). Blended learning in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gilster, P. (1998). Digital literacy. New York: Wiley.
Gunn, C. & Steel, C. (2010). Linking theory to practice in learning technology research. Research in Learning Technology, 20(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.16148
Hall, R. (2013). Educational technology and the enclosure of academic labour inside public higher education. The Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 11(3), 52-82. http://www.jceps.com/PDFs/11-3-03.pdf
Hartley, J. (2009). The uses of digital literacy. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.
Jewitt, C. (2006). Technology, literacy and learning: A multimodal approach. New York: Routledge
Jones, C., Ramanau, R., Cross, S. & Healing, G. (2010). Net generation or digital natives: Is there a distinct new generation entering university? Computers & Education, 54(3), 722-732. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.022
Kennedy, G., Krause, K-L., Judd, T., Churchward, A. & Gray, K. (2008). First year experiences with technology: Are they really digital natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108-122. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/kennedy.html
Keppell, M., Souter, K. & Riddle, M. (Eds.) (2012). Physical and virtual learning spaces in higher education: Concepts for the modern learning environment. IGI Global: Hershey, PA.
Kirkwood, A. (2009). E-learning: you don't always get what you hoped for. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 18(2), 107-121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14759390902992576
Kirkwood, A. & Price, L. (2013). Missing: Evidence of a scholarly approach to teaching and learning with technology in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 327-337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.773419
Kolikant, Y. B. D. (2010). Digital natives, better learners? Students' beliefs about how the Internet influenced their ability to learn. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1384-1391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.04.012
Koltay, T. (2011). The media and the literacies: Media literacy, information literacy, digital literacy. Media, Culture & Society, 33(2), 211-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0163443710393382
Lankshear, C. & Knobel, M. (Eds.). (2008). Digital literacies: Concepts, policies, practices. New York: Peter Lang Press.
Lea, M. R. (2013). Reclaiming literacies: Competing textual practices in a digital higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(1), 106-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.756465
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Littlejohn, A. & Pegler, C. (2007). Preparing for blended e-learning. New York: Routledge.
Mangen, A., Walgermo, B. R. & Bronnick, K. (2013). Reading linear texts on paper versus computer screen: Effects on reading comprehension. International Journal of Educational Research, 58, 61-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.12.002
Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A. & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students' use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429-440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004
Mason, R. & Rennie, F. (2008). E-learning and social networking handbook: Resources for higher education. New York: Routledge.
McGettigan, A. 2012. Who let the dogs out? The privatization of higher education. Radical Philosophy, 174, 22-27. http://www.radicalphilosophy.com/commentary/who-let-the-dogs-out
McWilliam, K., Hartley, J. & Gibson, M. (2008). Introduction: Digital literacy. Media International Australia, 128, 46-48.
Molesworth, M., Scullion, R. & Nixon, E. (Eds.). 2010. The marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer. London: Routledge.
Mundy, M-A., Kupczynski, L., & Kee, R. (2012). Teacher's perceptions of technology use in the schools. SAGE Open, 2(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244012440813
Nelson, K., Courier, M., & Joseph, G. J. (2011). Teaching tip: An investigation of digital literacy needs of students. Journal of Information Systems Education, 22(2), 95-109. http://jise.org/Volume22/22-2/Pdf/Vol22-2%20pg95.pdf
Oblinger, D. & Oblinger, J. (Eds.). (2005). Education the net generation. EDUCAUSE. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/pub7101.pdf
Olapiriyakul, K. & Scher, J. M. (2006). A guide to establishing hybrid learning courses: Employing information technology to create a new learning experience, and a case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(4), 287-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.08.001
Palfrey, J. & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic Books.
Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On The Horizon, 9(5), October 2001, 1-6. http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently? On The Horizon, 9(6), December 2001, 1-6. http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part2.pdf
Sassen, S. (2002). Towards a sociology of information technology. Current Sociology, 50(3), 365-388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011392102050003005
Salaway, G. & Caruso, J. with Nelson, M. (2008). The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology, 2008. Boulder, Co: EDUCAUSE. http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/ecar-study-undergraduate-students-and-information-technology-2008
Schank, R. C. (2000). The virtual university. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 3(1), 9-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/109493100316184
Tapscott, A. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw Hill.
Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J.D. (2009). Digital habitats: Stewarding technology for communities. Portland: CPsquare.
Woltering, V., Herrler, A., Spitzer, K. & Spreckelsen C. (2009). Blended learning positively affects students' satisfaction and the role of the tutor in the problem-based learning process: Results of a mixed-method evaluation. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14(5), 725-738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-009-9154-6
| Please cite as: Jones, A. & Bennett, R. (2014). Dissolving the online-offline divide: Re-conceptualising space in higher education course design. In Transformative, innovative and engaging. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 30-31 January 2014. Perth: The University of Western Australia. http://ctl.curtin.edu.au/professional_development/conferences/tlf/tlf2014/refereed/jones.html |
© Copyright 2014 Angela Jones and Rebecca Bennett. The authors assign to the TL Forum and not for profit educational institutions a non-exclusive licence to reproduce this article for personal use or for institutional teaching and learning purposes, in any format, provided that the article is used and cited in accordance with the usual academic conventions.