The key argument proposed by this article is that the prevailing “common sense” perspective on the nature of technology that has framed the majority of research in the field of online education has limited the value of that research and, if left unchanged, will limit the fruitfulness future research.
The article observes that researchers have adopted either the reformer’s essentialist view that the technology has innate pedagogical value or they have adopted an instrumentalist perspective of technology as a neutral tool to realise pedagogical aims. This observation has been subsequently cited by (Siân Bayne 2015; Sian Bayne 2015) (Knox 2015) (Robson 2018) amongst others, lending credibility to this idea.
Online education was seen as a convenient solution to a growing crisis within higher education institutions. It promised to relieve the mounting financial pressure to reduce costs and would allow institutions to stay relevant in the postindustrial world. The context of the origins of online education enables the reader to understand the ensuing “evangelical discourse” (Hamilton 2009), surrounding technology in education.
The enthusiasm for the idea that technology would herald revolutionary changes to education has framed a diverse range of research from which a single theme emerges; that technology is beneficial to education. However, there is scant evidence to support the claim that technology has made any significant improvements to education at all, which presents the reader with a uncomfortable paradox.
Even if a particular technology has the potential to realise pedagogical aims it does not mean that those aims will be realised in practice. The essentialist perspective sees only the potential value of technology it doesn’t acknowledge the shortfall between the potential of the technology and the practice of online education. This emphasis on what technology can do rather than what it is doing may shed some light on the “no significant difference” paradox.
Missing from the basic tenets of essentialism and instrumentalism is the ability to recognise the social and historical dimensions of technology. This view is supported by (Siân Bayne 2015) who argues that research into education technology is deprived of its richness and complexity as a result. In trying to assess the pedagogical value of technology researchers should be concerned with not only its use but where it came from, how it was shaped and in that process, what ideas were discarded and what possibilities had yet to be imagined.
Being so far removed from the design process, one can be forgiven for believing that technology simply descends from on high. By shifting the research focus to technology-in-the-making (Latour 1987) we would no longer take for granted the decisions and processes that have gone before. The article suggests that this research shift should take on a constructivist perspective. This perspective, which has dominated research in contemporary technology studies, applies the notion that all users of technology are actors in a socio-technical practice.
Teachers, students, administrators, management, software engineers and tech giants are examples of social actors in a socio-technical interaction within the realm of online education. A constructivist approach to research takes into account the idea that technological design and development is influenced by these social actors and endeavours to understand how the technology has embodied the interests of some parties whilst the interests of others have been excluded.
I am convinced that a constructivist approach which shifts the research focus to the participants and processes that are intrinsic to the development of educational technology would help reduce bias at a design level. But I am unconvinced that bias can be removed all together?
How are the relevant actors in the design process identified? What about groups who have not been included in the design process but are still affected by the technological changes?
How do we address power players within in the design process? Do commercial interests that serve business in the Tech industry carry equal weight to pedagogical concerns in education?
How do we identify individual interests within the process? Do all players participate for the common good of education or are some players more selfishly motivated. Schools may seek to differentiate themselves through a progressive approach to technology, teachers may wish to advance their careers by positioning themselves as technical innovators, who then is advocating for the needs of the students and how does the constructivist approach account for this possible conflict of interest? (Winner 2009)
Hamilton, Edward Cameron. 2009. “The Automatic Student and the Robot Professor: Online Education and the Politics of University Reform.” School of Communication-Simon Fraser University. http://summit.sfu.ca/item/9364.
Winner, Langdon. 2009. “Information Technology and Educational Amnesia.” Policy Futures in Education 7 (6). https://www.langdonwinner.com/other-writings/2017/6/13/information-technology-and-educational-amnesia.
It would be helpful to unpack the two key terms here os essentialism and instrumentalism, especially in relation to your third paragraph on technology as a solution to a perceived crisis in HE. There is a tendency to make a number of assertions In your post that are not supported by relevant citations – that there is a diverse range of research that all claims technology is beneficial to education or that there is scant evidence of such a benefit (which can be cited to Selwyn).
Also, some further clarification on essentialism would be helpful. Essentialism argues that technologies have immutable qualities (essences) that will generate the same effects regardless of the social context – so introducing new technologies will lead to more ‘efficient’ educational practices: that technology determines social (and pedagogical) practices. This assumption suggests that to make education more efficient you should just introduce new technologies and these technologies will force practices to become more efficient or more effective. Selwyn’s analysis of existing research indicates that actually it is pedagogical design and practices that make education more effective not technologies alone. In other words, technologies are not independent of their social or pedagogical contexts as essentialism suggests. Direct reference to the text of the article would perhaps help clarify this in your post.
Also, I don’t think Hamilton & Friesen are arguing that biases can be eliminated but rather that the constructivist approach helps make these biases known and better understood. So a constructivist based approach to researching digital education may identify that some teachers adopt newer technologies as a means of gaining recognition and reward, or how some students maximise their advantages through access to technologies that aren’t available to other students or how the design of learning spaces means some technologies may be better used than others, etc…. Essentialist and instrumentalist approaches to educational technology research may well not surface such issues.
Overall, you have demonstrated a clear understanding of the arguments presented in the text. Your style of writing is effective and the structure of the post works well. To engage more critically with the article, a more detailed unpacking/ interrogation of the key arguments you are interested in would have been helpful (concentrating on one or two key arguments of interest to you as you can’t cover the whole paper in a 700 word post).
Just a note on citations: when an author has two publications in the same year you should add an identifier to the year in the citation and reference, ie, Bayne 2015a and Bayne 2015b.
Hi Pete
Thanks for the feedback. It has been so helpful. Essentialism and Instrumentalism are cropping up left, right and centre at the moment. I have a good basic understanding of the terms but what I’m finding difficult is where they fit into the different perspectives that I’m reading about. Just when I think I’ve got it, it starts slipping through my fingers!
I want a visual map of the different perspectives, theories and themes.
This week my focus is going to be on rereading the core pieces from the previous weeks and try to map out the ideas and make connections. I’m leaning towards addressing the “role of the teacher in an increasingly automated online environment” for my assignment. So I will also try mapping those ideas also.