Teaching and learning with technology in higher education: blended and distance education needs ‘joined-up thinking’ rather than technological determinism (A Review of the Article)

The article by Kirkwood (2014) sets out to enlighten us about educational technology being forced into education, as ‘technology led’ rather than focusing on ‘educational goals’ of the teachers students and the learning transactions that take place, in the context of Higher Education (HE). He states that the use needs to be evidenced and researched to substantiate the decisions of managers, making key decisions on tech use with ‘joined up thinking’ accounting for issues of how technology is actually going to be used in education and not bow to the pressure from government, due to the implication of available subsidies.

He suggests that there is a ‘digital divide or inequity’ (access to various technologies and the required infrastructure) not just between young and mature students, but developed and developing economies, plus the more or less affluent in societies. Impacting their access to blended and distance learning.

Kirkwood (2014) states the key issues for decision makers are; does the tech improve the teaching and learning; has its impact been evaluated; is its use in the context relevant; is the institution prepared for its use?

The basic human needs and behaviours, whilst studying must be accommodated especially during online collaborative activities such as the use of web 2.0 and wiki’s, where an individual grade can be affected. Therefore, policies for tech need careful consideration when being introduce.

The determinate of change should be social and not technological determinism. Tech has been considered the driving determinant for inclusion, flexibility, widening participation, improved outcomes and reducing costs. Online courses have had a massive impact, but are transmissive teaching and not transformative.

Teaching as a profession is being eroded by tech and the face to face aspect that support human agency are being lost. Tech advocates imply that the online collaboration produces active learners with web 2.0. However,what results is that the teacher resorts to didactic and teacher lead by having to be overseer and mediator.

For differing learning context he suggests different tech designs are needed dependant on the level, the institutions infrastructure, costs, skills staff and students, whether they are ‘digital natives’ or not. The UK government’s digital inclusion strategy needs to be accounted for too, to avoid social disparities and the digital divide. The drive by government to ensure that tech supposedly enhances the learning experience, can lure some institutions, as it can imply that it is of benefit but not explicitly state how.

The author concludes stating “above all else, educational goals and purposes should take precedence over implicit technological determinism”.

The express purpose of this article, which is a critical literature review, is to argue that ed tech should not be the only determinant driving its use in education blended or distance learning formats.

However, as this is a critical argumentative literature review that in itself suggests a biased view (Dudovskiy 2018) on how ed tech is used. The author suggests that students, teachers and managers are all digitally illiterate in some respect, because he suggested that; mangers are not using evidence before using tech in ‘enhance’ teaching & learning; teachers need training; and only ‘native students’ maybe able to use the tech to enhance their learning. However, the author does not appear to draw on sufficient empirical evidenced to back up these statements and assumptions; some statements are insufficiently referenced and therefore, appear to be his opinion. Although this maybe accepted epistemology of the subject that I am new too and therefore, his assertions may be already widely accepted as the ontology of the subject of blended/distance teaching and learning.

Unfortunately his critical view does explain my experience since becoming a teacher and working in higher education (HE), with students aged 18/19 (so should be ‘digital natives’!). I have used a virtual learning environment (VLE) to enhance my teaching, so students can access my course and uploaded material, links and elibrary, after face to face session, only for none of this to be accessed.

The college where I was teaching, as the author suggest, had a significant amount of ed tech. Laptops could be loaned for use in class rooms, to bank of computers in the library and elibrary plus, external access to Moodle VLE, via a secure web link. Here they could engage in a blog on the course as well as access the course, but chose not to. The students were however, engaged with use of Kahoot! to make quizzes and take part in class.

The ed tech available was fantastic, because the funding for the college was good, due to the area being deprived. This appears to fit with the authors determinism theory, the ed tech is available, so regardless of whether it enhances learning we will be using it! I did not receive training in the use of Moodle I taught myself and tried to engage the students in its use.

I can enjoy using the ed tech and will continue to use it to progress myself and enhance my teaching and learning. However, I am now more aware of the lack of engagement and acknowledge that more time needs to be made free to support the learners to access the course and participate online to enhance their learning. As Kirkwood (2014) suggests there are key issues to blended learning that need to be made explicit and not just implied to fully enhance the teaching and learning. Plus, ensure each course is optimised for online delivery.

References

Dudovskiy, J., (2018), Types of Literature Review. [Online] Avaliable at research-methodology.net/research-methodology/types-literature-review/ Accessed 24-1-19

Kirkwood, A., (2014) Teaching and learning with technology in higher education: blended and distance education needs ‘joined-up thinking’ rather than technological determinism, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 29:3, 206-221, DOI: 10.1080/02680513.2015.1009884

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *