Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL), has to date, been limited by perspectives employed by various research studies in the field. As we have seen in the Hamilton and Freisen’s (2013) article, essentialism and instrumentalism are critiqued as problematic because they pass over the social aspect of learning. We see the same tendency on Bayne’s article (2015) where is highlighted the fact that relation between education and tech tools are not well defined. Definition of technology is poorly and leads to a digital “black box”. I found interesting that in the forum it has been a conversation about what is considered technology, and how should be described. Clearly there is on going issue when defining technology.
Both articles claim for more critical understanding of TEL. Assuming that technology develops and evolves in response to a social and educational needs. Education, is also about the social context and experience, like Baynes points out (p. 10). It is an outcome and enjoyment of, networks and relationships (p. 11). We don’t necessarily want or need to ‘remove human limitations’ (p. 13).
For Bayne is important to define “enhancement”, what is the real meaning? I found this very important and the key question. First of all we need a definition agreement, if not discussion is quite useless. I found common to start a discussion where the subject of the discussion is not well defined and people have different understanding. What do we mean when we are talking of enhancement education? Making it better? what’s better? Better as a definition of making easier for more people? or faster? more equitable? better in terms that everyone can achieve similar goals?
From a Transhumanist perspective we can understand better as a synonym of improving the human body and brain. We could just upload a system to our brain or maybe take a pill and be able to speak another language in a few seconds. Or at least have more potential in our brain to learn everything we can faster. That is another question for me, Is “enhancement” the obtaining the max potentially of our brain? or is adding an extra plus of capacity?
I want to think that the main of education is not getting a particularly result. Of course, there are exams, tests, degree and titles, but this is another story. I like to think that the main goal of education is learning, that is the goal by itself. Each individual has their own path and riches their own learning achievements. I want to think that education is more than just having some knowledge and specific skill, otherwise is pure instrumental view, isn’t it?
As it has been raised in the forum and also the collaboration session, maybe we need more real world examples in order to make a clear idea. I have tried to think in real world exemples, but my mind goes directly to movies and books, I actually found that there is a wikipedia page dedicate to Transhumanist literature )
Enchancment means better performance? Are these the correct questions? We should be discussing about good/bad or better? As Bayen pointed there is a need to go farther, where transhumanism search for making humans and humanity better and more dominant, critical posthumanism asks us to think again about what is problematic in essentialising and what it means to be human and how we understand the world.
————
Hamilton, C.E. & Friesen, N. (2013). Online Education: A Science and Technology Studies Perspective. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 39 (2): 1 – 21
Bayne, S. (2015). What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1), pp. 5-20.
Peach, H.G. Jr & Bieber, J.P. (2015). Faculty and Online Education as a Mechanism of Power. Distance Learning.
‘What do we mean when we are talking of enhancement education? Making it better? what’s better? Better as a definition of making easier for more people? or faster? more equitable? better in terms that everyone can achieve similar goals?’
Absolutely. I think there’s great value in Bayne’s article here in the way that it stops us in our tracks and forces us to really question much of the language that takes place in the discussion around digital education (and education more generally). I would add ‘best practice’ to this, which kind of assumes a single set of correct approaches, when surely this will be heavily dependent on a particular context. Another example (and I stand guilty of having used this!) is to talk about the ‘affordances’ of a particular technology, where a resource it is seen to realise a set of outcomes in a quite instrumentalist way.
‘I want to think that the main of education is not getting a particularly result. Of course, there are exams, tests, degree and titles, but this is another story. I like to think that the main goal of education is learning, that is the goal by itself. Each individual has their own path and riches their own learning achievements. I want to think that education is more than just having some knowledge and specific skill, otherwise is pure instrumental view, isn’t it?’
Ha! You’ve answered one of the questions I posted underneath your previous post where I asked what education is, if it isn’t about training graduates for the workplace. As you say, education can accommodate a range of different conceptualisations and purposes. If we take our IDEL group as an example, I expect we would find a range of motivations for enrolling on the course: career advancement, a desire to think critically about the relationship between education and technology, general inquisitiveness and desire to learn. I expect there will be others besides.