Networked and Global Learning

Arisaka (2001)

The future development of educational technology will not be determined by the technology itself, states Feenberg, but rather the politics within the educational community and national political trends. In taking a dialogic approach, he stresses educational technology of an advanced society should be shaped by educational dialogue rather than the production-oriented logic of automation.

According to Feenberg (1991), critical theory explains how technology is embedded in society through ‘technological code’ that is dialectical, contextual, aesthetic, and humanly, socially, and ecologically responsible.

In summary, Feenberg (2002; 5) calls for a profound democratic transformation of technologies, asking “can we conceive an industrial society based on democratic participation in which individual freedom is not market freedom and in which social responsibility is not exercised through coercive regulation?” He argues a good society should support the personal freedom of its members enabling them to participate effectively in a range of public activities. This can be manifest in democratizing technological design; pursuing a ‘democratic rationalization’ where actors participate in the technological design processes. For Illich (1973), ‘tools of conviviality’ produce a democratic and convivial society in which individuals communicate, debate, participate in social and political life, and help make decisions. Convivial tools free individuals from dependency and cultivate autonomy and sociality.

Don Ihde (1990)

E-learning literature increasingly perceives the role of the tutor as facilitator (Salmon, 2004), whilst in a connectivist learning environment, it may become further marginalised or even obsolesced (Siemens, 2004). This emphasis on informal and autonomous learning and student engagement with experts outside their formal educational institutions also recalls Illich’s (1970) community webs. Critical educators such as Freire and Feenberg are critical of the diminishing of critical engagement by the tutor and believe it is essential that teachers continue to have a directive role.

Friesen (2008) explores three myths pertinent to current e-learning literature: Knowledge Economy Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime Learning Technology drives Educational Change

Kellner stresses that multiple literacies, such as media, computer, and information literacies are required in response to emergent technologies and cultural conditions to empower students to participate in the expanding high-tech culture and networked society.

Karlsson (2002) however, suggests so called web literacies should be recognised and studied merely as print literacies that appear on the web. Feenberg (2002) reminds us arguments emerging around new educational technologies are nothing new. He suggests writing was one of the first (narrow bandwidth) educational technologies, and describes how Plato denounced writing as destructive to the dialogic relationship between teacher and student evident in spoken discourse. (Noble (1997) points out the irony in Plato using written text to critique writing, suggesting that similarly, the majority of current attacks on web-based media circulate online.)

What originated as a hastily-conceived title for a conference presentation has since become a catch-all term for a range of ‘ontologically non–compatible’ elements (Allen, 2008). In an attempt to conceptualize the meaning of Web 2.0, Allen identifies four key components: Technological implementations that prioritise the manipulation and presentation of data through the interaction of both human and computer agents. An Economic model. Using the Web to put people and data together in meaningful exchanges for financial gain. Users are perceived as active participants, engaged in creating, maintaining and expanding Web content. The politics of Web 2.0 are expressed in traditional democratic terms, which emphasises freedom of choice and the empowerment of individuals.

Under a critical perspective, the democratic forms of media consumption and production of Web 2.0 are challenged by the underlying “dictates of a neo-liberal socio–political hegemony” (Jarrett, 2008), as evidenced in the exploitation of user–generated content by major corporations (Petersen, 2008). As Silver (2008) reminds us, “when corporations say community they mean commerce, and when they say aggregation they mean advertising.” Scholz (2008) contends the Web remains largely the domain of “professional elites that define what enters the public discourse,” In addition, social conditions inherent in Web 2.0 practices such as personalization (Zimmer, 2008) and participatory surveillance (Albrechtslund, 2008) require a rethinking of traditional notions of identity, privacy and social hierarchies. As educationalists demonstrate an increasing determination to tap into the apparent technological and sociological affordances of Web 2.0, these are issues that cannot be ignored.

This marginal standing is reflected in the tendency for educational technology academics to be located often within ‘support’ units and divisions, such as cross-faculty ‘Teaching & Learning Divisions’ or departmental ‘E-Learning Units’. Physically as well as intellectually, then, the field of technology and education is often found to be operating on the peripheries of academe

In short, we need to accept that academic work in the area of technology and education is currently falling short of what should now be a significant and substantial area of contemporary education scholarship.

Instead, the academic study of technology and education should be developing as much along the lines of critical social science as it does in the guise of a cognitive learning science.

attempting to move “outside the assumptions and practices of the existing order and struggling to make categories, assumptions and practices of everyday life problematic”.

As Sonia Livingstone (2012) puts it, this problematizing of technology and education usually pursues three basic lines of inquiry: What is really going on? How can this be explained? How could things be otherwise? As these questions imply, a critical approach also involves speaking up for, and on behalf of, those voices usually marginalized in discussions of what technology and education ‘is’ and ‘sh

What to do about digital technology?’ remains a high-profile

As Alison Hearn has argued, contemporary higher education is now predicated around ambitions to produce human capital rather than critical thinkers; and to foster creativity, innovation and knowledge rather than critical thinking.

This stems, at least in part, from the fundamental desire amongst most educational technologists to improve education through the implementation of digital technology. For many academics, then, technology and education is approached as an inherently ‘positive project’. Indeed, I suspect that most people working in this area are driven to some degree by an underlying belief that digital technologies are capable of improving learning and/or education in some way

I would argue that any academic who is working in the area of technology and education should feel obliged to be critical, or at least justify why they have chosen not to be critical

Promoting digital ownership is different than assigning work in publicly accessible spaces.

For instance, public assignments tap into fears of public embarrassment

ut the assignments must be framed by a conversation about audience and the way the ‘domain’ represents the author to that audience.

Although there is little conclusive evidence to support some of the more outrageous claims being made, there is at least a distinct possibility that while information is everywhere, knowledge is declining and technology is to blame.

So perhaps what is more important is not whether technology is making us stupid but if educational systems need to shift from teaching us what to think, to showing us how to think

In terms of what this means for education, psychologist Robert Bjork and his team at UCLA have been investigating what they call “desirable difficulties”. A desirable difficulty is a feature of a learning situation that is deliberately made more challenging to enhance learning.

Kahneman’s research on dual process theory suggests we mostly rely on what he calls “system one” thinking. That is thinking that is fast, efficient, mostly automated, and very good at detecting patterns, relying on short cuts or heuristics wherever possible. “System two”, on the other hand, requires slow, deliberate thought and is much more taxing of cognitive resources. System two is where the heavy lifting is done.

From observations on PLENK it seems that for networked learning to be successful, people need to have the ability to direct their own learning and to have a level of critical literacies that will ensure they are confident at negotiating the Web in order to engage, participate, and get involved with learning activities.

People also have to be confident and competent in using the different tools in order to engage in meaningful interaction. It takes time for people to feel competent and comfortable to learn in an autonomous fashion, and there are critical literacies, such as collaboration, creativity, and a flexible mindset, that are prerequisites for active learning in a changing and complex learning environment without the provision of too much organized guidance by facilitators