This paper questions the suitability and accuracy of the term TEL, challenges its apparently uncritical adoption in some educational technology research, and argues for a more careful and critical approach to the use of terminology by researchers and educational institutions. By breaking down the term TEL into its constituent parts, the author explores the underlying assumptions which have led to its adoption and suggests that these involve an oversimplification and misrepresentation of technology itself and the complex interactions between the human and the technological within the field of education. She also argues that an uncritical acceptance of the term TEL may act as an impediment to alternative, more nuanced understandings of the impact of technological change on education.

In the introduction, the author outlines the growing use of the term TEL in the UK by support units, research programmes and postgraduate courses in digital education to name themselves and define their scope, then lists numerous examples of these as evidence of the widespread adoption of TEL. In doing so she appears to be implying not only that the term TEL serves to define and delineate the work of the institutions which use it, but also that the term itself is interpreted in the same way by all institutions. However, no evidence is offered to demonstrate the inferred similarity between, for example, the postgraduate programmes offered by Sheffield Hallam, Huddersfield, Lancaster and Durham. In order to adequately determine the extent to which the term TEL is understood homogeneously by those institutions which advocate its use, a closer inspection and comparative analysis of the content and ethos of the programmes would be required.

While her critique of the discourse of TEL is persuasive, it is disappointing that the author does not propose any alternative terminology which she would consider more fit for purpose and less ideologically loaded. Rather than constituting an oversight on her part, however, this is more likely to be indicative of the inherently problematic nature of formulating terms to refer to highly complex and perpetually evolving areas of research and practice. As Bayne (2015) herself recognises, “naming the complex, febrile relation of education to digital technology has been an often contentious project over the last couple of decades of UK higher education”. Another possible explanation for this contentiousness and also for the variety of terms in currency around the world could be cultural differences in the way in which digital education is conceived and actualised, which may shed light on the curious fact that the term TEL has taken hold in the UK but not the USA, for example.

Ultimately, it is difficult to imagine that any single term for referring to the complex field of digital education could be deemed entirely appropriate and neutral. As Bayne (2015) states, “the language we use to define a field is always performative – it brings it into focus and into being in a particular way, and this focus of and mode of being is always ideologically inflected”. In recognition of this, I agree with the author’s contention that any terminology should be subjected to critical scrutiny before being adopted for use and the choice of terminology should be accompanied by a detailed definition and a strong evidence-based rationale, including reference to its possible limitations, especially when this terminology has the potential to define the scope of an entire research project or programme of academic study.

Another doubt which could be raised in response to this paper is the extent to which critical posthumanist ideas can be productively applied to the field of education. On the one hand, as Friesen (2018) acknowledges, “the challenging and boundary-breaking spirit of posthumanist thought is itself of value for education”. It urges digital education researchers and practitioners to drive the debate forward by resisting reductionist thinking, by critically engaging with the complex ‘entanglement’ of the human, the technological, the cultural, the social, the political. On the other hand, in its criticism of the perceived anthropocentrism of humanist educational thought, and its rejection of the idea of the intentional human subject as distinguishable from and acting upon the material or the non-human object, posthumanism arguably excessively downplays the significance of human agency, choice and responsibility in the shaping of education. I am inclined to agree with Friesen’s (2018) assertion, that to deny that educational environments and practices are fundamentally a human construction runs the risk of obstructing the development of frameworks for addressing practical questions in education and proposing viable alternatives to existing models.

Bayne, S. (2015) What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’?, Learning, Media and Technology, 40(1). Available at: https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.is.ed.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/17439884.2014.915851?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Friesen, N. (2018). Posthumanism = Posteducation: A reply to Siân Bayne’s Posthumanism: A navigation aid for educators. On Education. Journal for Research and Debate, 1(2). Available at: https://www.oneducation.net/no-02-september-2018/reply-posthumanism-posteducation/

Week 4: Critical Analysis of Bayne, S. (2015) What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? / Jemima Collins/An introduction to digital environments for learning (2018/2019)[SEM2] by blogadmin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0