Reflections on the Digital Dimension Block: Holistically Seeking the Connections

            The digital dimension block within the Pedagogical Issues and Perspectives in Higher Education unit of the Master’s in Open and Networked Higher Education, has taken me on a journey through a number of valid issues related to digitally mediated education.  These issues have foregrounded the need to integrate technological competences with subject content, to create a holistic education that seeks to go beyond simplified dichotomous perspectives and to also develop such perspectives about online education that are holistic in themselves.

Photo by Jeremy Bishop on Unsplash

In my blog post titled ‘For the Love of Education: Of People and Machines’, the notions of pedagogy and digital technologies were explored and seen to feed into each other, without one gaining supremacy over the other; rather, a digitally-mediated educational context such as that pertaining to open and networked education, would call for discourse/s that is/are not deterministic in nature and one/s which does/do not ignore context (Fawns, 2022; Oliver, 2011).  In brief, neither technologies nor pedagogies are inherently good or bad unless one considers the context and values informing their use.  Utilising digital platforms such as Teams or Zoom or collaborative pedagogies does not automatically entail better student engagement or educational success (Oliver, 2011), nor are the physical classroom or transmissive pedagogies by default outdated educational experiences.  Education is a complex reality and as such, a holistic outlook would favour this complex reality by throwing light on all the factors that make it up and multiple perspectives that may inform it.  “Technology, users and social context all matter, and all partially determine activity.” (Winner, 1980, as cited in Fawns, 2022, p. 713) 

In this sense, explorations of the digital dimension in this learning journey have highlighted how this dimension, in and of itself, does not come in a vacuum.  Digital technologies embed pedagogies or are embedded by pedagogies, both are entangled, both are paramount in the educational journey, both gain momentum in the relationality involved, not least in the way they are played out by the human factor, that is educators and learners alike.  Critical thought is again foregrounded by breaking up any assumptions that may become normative and fixed.  I echo here Houlden and Veletsianos’s claim that “scholars’ understanding of flexibility in online learning has been hampered by an implicit assumption that all online learners participate in and experience education in similar ways” (2019, p. 1005).  Case in point was a particular synchronous session in research methods, which informed by a transmissive pedagogy via a teleconferencing platform, proved to me as a learner with regards to a specific learning activity more useful in gaining insight into the particular subject content than my attempts at self-directed learning.  Rapanta et al. (2021, p. 734) refer to a kind of flexibility that utilises “a greater variety of courses, in different modalities and implementing different methods”.  There can be such a vast array of idiosyncrasies in the educational journey, whether in terms of learning activities, tools used and no less in the humans populating the context, that no hard and fast rule can, or should, apply. 

A second vital subject area explored in the digital dimension block was that related to cybercime and cybersecurity, reflections on which were provided in the blog post titled ‘Playing with Fire or Playing it Safe: Insights into Cybercrime and Higher Education’.  A deeper understanding has been gained about what crime in the digital realm constitutes and the real repercussions entailed in the physical world.  As simultaneously learner and educator, here I engaged in issues which significantly struck a chord, such as those related to privacy and surveillance.  On reflection, we are oftentimes unknowingly providing a significant amount of information, whether it is personal data or a log of activities via the virtual learning environment (VLE).  Two important issues arise with regards to this.  Firstly, all stakeholders involved in higher educational institutions (HEIs) should have the common aim of promoting increased awareness, knowledge and skills in the prevention of cyberthreats (Bandara et al., 2014, p. 732) – an informed workforce can only make the educational journey a more holistic one.  Secondly, improving on these skills can empower educators to be better educators overall.  As per Dron’s idea, “[e]ducation is always enacted through technology, and teachers cannot avoid learning to use it” (2021, as cited in Fawns, 2022, p. 715).  Having a behind-the-scenes knowledge of that same technology, becomes part and parcel of the educator’s occupation and can lead the way for exemplary digital citizenship on the part of students, especially since leading by example is always the best option.  As an educator, it has become increasingly important on a personal as well as professional level that I become aware of any issues related to the digital realm, and I take these with me along with the subject content that I actually teach. 

In the third blog post navigating the digital dimension, titled ‘A Moral Compass: Considerations on Ethics in Higher Education’, explorations ranged from issues of appropriate online behaviour and netiquette to an online education that ethically strives for equity and equality.  This is an ulterior layer in the development of a holistic education that combines the use of technology with subject content.  Educators and learners involved in open and networked education cannot do so unless with an awareness of the permanency of online content (McQuade III, 2007) and therefore an understanding of the need for caution in posting publicly in online forums.  On another level, to what extent is online education ethical in its inclusivity and accessibility?  As described by Guardia, in designing learning activities that “place the students at the centre of the learning process asking them to combine self-regulation, autonomy, creativity, collaboration, communication and other generic skills” (Rapanta et al., 2021, p. 731), to all good intents and purposes, there are suggested expectations of a kind of learner that can actually engage in an online context.  This may be excluding other learners (Bayne et al., 2020, p. 92; Oliver, 2015), who may not possess such “personal preconditions” (Otto and Kerres, 2022, p. 59), not to mention the expectation of having other digital and literacy skills or the financial means to access online education, including owning the necessary digital devices (Bayne et al., 2020, p. 91), or the required internet quality (Kahu et al., 2014, p. 536).    For these and other reasons, ethical considerations as posed by the digital dimension, gain added significance in pursuing a more holistic educational journey.  This recalls Gravett et al.’s considerations of education provision that is morally right, by putting forward their idea of “pedagogies of mattering [that] can foster more caring and ethical ways of working with students by encouraging us to notice our institutions and learning spaces anew” (2021, p. 13).  This would entail that even novel spaces such as those afforded by online education, should be ongoingly reconsidered.

            In conclusion, the digital dimension block, with its focus on digital issues, has taken forward the relationality of these aspects to other factors constituting education.  This seems to attempt at the cognition of education as more of a whole than its separate parts, much in the same way that Koehler et al. (2013), convey the Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, wherein “[d]ifferent kinds of knowledge are considered in combination rather than individually” (as cited in Fawns, 2022, p. 720). As an educator, I believe that a holistic approach to education can help me reach a whole new level. An increased awareness and understanding of the digital dimension in online education can propel us into seeking the connections and bridging the gaps.

References:

Bandara, I., Ioras, F., & Maher, K. (2014). Cyber Security Concerns In E-Learning Education. ICERI2014 Conference, 728–734.

Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., Lamb, J., Macleod, H., O’Shea, C., Ross, J., Sheail, P. & Sinclair, C. (2020). The Manifesto for Teaching Online. The MIT Press.

Fawns, T. (2022). An Entangled Pedagogy: Looking Beyond the Pedagogy-Technology Dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education, 2022(4), 711-728. An Entangled Pedagogy: Looking Beyond the Pedagogy—Technology Dichotomy | SpringerLink

Gravett, K., Taylor C. A. and Fairchild, N. (2021). Pedagogies of mattering: re-conceptualising relational pedagogies in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education. DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2021.1989580.

Houlden, S. and Veletsianos, G. (2019).  A posthumanist critique of flexible online learning and its “anytime anyplace” claims.  British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (3), 1005–1018.  DOI:10.1111/bjet.12779

Kahu, E. R., Stephens, C., Zepke, N. and Leach, L. (2014). Space and time to engage: mature-aged distance students learn to fit study into their lives. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33 (4), 523-540. DOI:10.1080/02601370.2014.884177

McQuade III, S. C. (2007, January 5). We Must Educate Young People About Cybercrime Before They Start College. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/we-must-educate-young-people-about-cybercrime-before-they-start-college/#annotations:6cJTcsXTEe2xScdn6ciIGg

Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: some alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2011(27), 373-384. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00406.x

Oliver, M. (2015). From openness to permeability: reframing open education in terms of positive liberty in the enactment of academic practices. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(3), 365-384. DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2015.1029940

Otto, D., & Kerres, M. (2022). Deconstructing the virtues of openness and its contribution to Bildung in the digital age. In: D. Kergel, J. Garsdahl, M. Paulsen, & B. Heidkamp-Kergel (Eds.), Bildung in the Digital Age (pp. 47-63): Routledge.

Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guardia, L. and Koole, M. (2021). Balancing Technology, Pedagogy and the New Normal: Post-pandemic Challenges for Higher Education. Postdigital Science and Education, 2021(3), 715-742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00249-1

 

 

A Moral Compass: Considerations on Ethics in Higher Education

The ubiquitous use of digital media has pervaded our lives with a gamut of public opinion coming from everywhere and anywhere, especially thanks to the increasing use of social media platforms and forums of all kinds.  Our thoughts and ideas, no longer confined within the human mind nor within a limited physical space, gain rapid and easy exposure in a virtual setting.  Consider the myriad daily posts on facebook walls, the tweets on twitter, the reviews and comments made on endless sites, or the reply-to-all emails sent.  Humanity has created for itself, alongside its bodily movements, a trailing digital footprint. 

Photo by krakenimages on Unsplash

Scerri (2013, as cited in Gloor et al., 2020, p. 254) describes emailing activity “as a virtual extension of the users’ workplace” and McQuade III (2007) makes mention of “the permanency of content posted on the Internet".  Shea (1994) aptly reminds us about our online communications that “chances are they're stored somewhere where you have no control over them. In other words, there's a good chance they can come back to haunt you”.  With these two key factors in mind, it becomes evident, that people’s behaviour online needs to be guided by adequate ethical principles and values, no less and in parallel to what would be expected in real life, perhaps even more so, given the permanent nature of online content.  Going forward, this would be paramount in educational contexts, such as in open and networked higher education, wherein it is key that the journey is truly educational not only in the subject matter chosen, but also in the behaviour of all stakeholders involved virtually.

If we take the definition of networked learning to be that of an education “involv[ing] processes of collaborative, co-operative and collective inquiry, knowledge-creation and knowledgeable action, underpinned by trusting relationships, motivated by a sense of shared challenge and enabled by convivial technologies” (NLEC, 2020, p. 319), netiquette and ethical considerations become vital in guiding users’ online activity.   Netiquette, a word coined out of internet and etiquette, is described by Berkley’s Information Security Office (n.d.) as “informal standards of conduct” that are to be observed by internet users, avoiding inadequate behaviour ranging from flaming to chain mail or spamming, the latter described by Dennis (2023) as “one of the most significant forms of cybercrime”.  Ethical considerations are paramount at every level, from the micro to the macro levels of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).  HEIs need to have rules and guidelines in place that are clear for all, covering such issues as “anonymity, privacy and confidentiality of the information shared, legal issues…[so as] for people to be treated not only fairly and objectively, but also respectfully” (Paris et al., 2013, p. 302). If the use of digital technologies in education is meant to provide a truly convivial space, it is only ethical that all the people involved strive against the “potential adverse effects and risks such as privacy, bullying, addiction, misinformation and others” (Romero-Hall, 2021, p. 2268) that may be entailed by such digital technologies.  After all, Shea’s (1994) number one rule reminds us to metaphorically look beyond the physical screen and remember that it is with other humans that we are liaising in our online connections.

Following considerations on the ethical behaviour informing our networked connections, it must be mentioned that ethical considerations go beyond these expectations and should also take up issues that effect in practice education that is mediated by digital technologies.  Ethical considerations are brought forth by such realities as for instance those perpetrated by the digital divide.  Rogers (2001, p. 98) defines the latter as the worldwide yet uneven spread of the internet, whereby “the considerable benefits of the internet only accrue to certain, already advantaged individuals, leaving other individuals relatively more disadvantaged”.  Ding (2020, as cited in Romero-Hall, p. 2274) goes beyond access issues to include digital divide aspects such as “affordability, usage, social resources and skills, infrastructure, and literacy skills”.  In a previous blog post (Keepingan Open Mind – Opening up Open Education) I had already considered the multiple facets of open and networked education, which albeit striving for equity, may create barriers such as those of access and skills.  Educators who had never done online teaching before the Covid years, experienced this first hand in Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT) as “it sharply revealed socioeconomic gaps, prejudicing all those students who lacked sufficient bandwidth, whose families lacked enough devices for everyone to use [and] who were unable to find appropriate study spaces at home” (Rapanta et al., 2021, p. 721).  Gainous et al. (2016) make an additional interesting point in mentioning internet filtering policies such as those utilised by certain countries in Latin America, “in which state-authored regulations have been used to control access, limit what citizens can share, or encourage self-censorship” (as cited in Romero-Hall, 2021, p. 2275).  There must additionally be considerations of access with regards to certain disabilities.  For instance, Paris et al. (2013), in their case study relating to government services provided via social media, mention “the accessibility guidelines for all videos and podcasts, ensuring for example that they all had a transcript associated with them” (p. 310).  These become key ethical considerations in promoting education mediated by digital technologies if equity is one of its objectives.

In conclusion, this blog explores an additional layer in the exploration of open and networked higher education – the ethical side of things.  Apart from promoting ethical behaviour in users’ online communications, there should be ethical considerations with regards to equity issues that may arise due to such realities as the digital divide or internet filtering policies in certain countries.  As an educator, I will continue to believe in the importance of education, not only for learners but also concurrently for all stakeholders involved, and most especially for educators themselves.  This, I believe, enables instructors to “educate learners on issues that could arise when engaging in activities using these [digital] platforms” (Krutka et al., 2019, as cited in Romero-Hall, 2021, p. 2276).  Ethical considerations call for further ICT knowledge and skills integration of various genres and at all levels in HEIs, so that HE can set the example for the community at large in the way forward to being digital citizens. 

References:

Berkeley Information Security Office. (n.d.). Netiquette and Ethics. UC Berkeley. Netiquette and Ethics | Information Security Office (berkeley.edu)

Dennis, M. A. (2023, March 6). cybercrime. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/cybercrime

Gloor, P., Fronzetti Colladon, A., & Grippa, F. (2020). The digital footprint of innovators: Using email to detect the most creative people in your organization. Journal of Business Research, 114(2020), 254-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.025

McQuade III, S. C. (2007, January 5). We Must Educate Young People About Cybercrime Before They Start College. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/we-must-educate-young-people-about-cybercrime-before-they-start-college/#annotations:6cJTcsXTEe2xScdn6ciIGg

Networked Learning Editorial Collective (NLEC). (2020). Networked Learning: Inviting Redefinition. Postdigital Science and Education 3, 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00167-8

Paris, C., Colineau, N., Nepal, S., Bista, S. K., and Beschorner, G. (2013). Ethical considerations in an online community: the balancing act. Ethics and Information Technology (2013) 15:301–316. DOI 10.1007/s10676-013-9315-4.

Rapanta, C., Botturi, L., Goodyear, P., Guàrdia, L., & Koole, M. (2021). Balancing Technology, Pedagogy and the New Normal: Post-pandemic Challenges for Higher Education. Postdigital Science and Education, 3(3), 715-742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-021-00249-1.

Rogers, E. (2001). The Digital Divide. Convergence (London, England), 7(4), 96-111.

Romero-Hall, E. (2021). Current initiatives, barriers, and opportunities for networked learning in Latin America. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(4), 2267-2283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-09965-8

Shea, V. (1994). Netiquette. Albion Books. Educom Review (educause.edu)

Playing with Fire or Playing it Safe: Insights into Cybercrime and Higher Education

                 The increasing use of digital technologies in every aspect of our lives has brought about an increase in cybercrime, which is by no means an invisible fallacy, but real criminal activities effected digitally and with real consequences in the physical world.  To be considered are the real dangers posed by such games as the blue whale challenge (Rossow, 2018) or the feelings of sadness, anger and depression suffered by victims of cyberbulling (McQuade III, 2007).  In a bid to educate the masses, the Police department in Malta has been engaging in televised exposure about internet safety.  Terms such as cyberoffence, cyberstalking or cyberbullying and other terminology that are oftentimes mentioned in relation to cybercrime, including harassment and online threats, identity theft and violation of privacy, piracy, academic dishonesty, trafficking in child pornography and intellectual property (Dennis, 2023; McQuade III, 2007), have become the order of the day.  With the permeation of digital technologies in the educational field, a discussion of improving digital literacies will by default entail an increased awareness of the challenges and risks posed by the digital, not least the various forms of cybercrime that may affect academic institutions.

Photo by FLY:D on Unsplash

            As students and educators make increasing use of the internet for sourcing information for research and educational purposes as well as for everyday engagement via emails, forums, wikis, social media platforms, learning management systems (LMSs) and virtual learning environments (VLEs), a significant amount of data, “some of which might be personal, protected or confidential in nature, is then continuously exposed to security threats because e-Learning systems are open, distributed and interconnected” (Bandara et al., 2014, p. 728).  Such security threats may target the huge repositories of personal information that are held by higher education (HE) institutions about their staff and student populations as well as research data (Al-Alawi et al., 2020).  As such higher education nowadays must have cybersecurity measures in place that clarify how such information is being stored and adequately protect the said information.  Since certain information must necessarily be submitted to the educational institution, then it is the latter’s responsibility to ensure that they process such information securely and ethically.  Oftentimes we submit such information subject to terms and conditions that are put forward in tiny script and difficult wording; another step to get through in the process, but what exactly are we subscribing to when we insert that minor tick on the screen?  It is perhaps also the responsibility of the HE institution to provide clear and accurate guidelines about cybersecurity measures utilised and in so doing, increase awareness and educate all users, especially in view of the fact that “questions remain about whether existing cybersecurity systems are appropriately implemented to protect their assets, and to what extent various security provisions are commonly used” (Back and LaPrade, 2020, p. 26).  The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides a legal framework regulating the processing of data; however, the document is long and not exactly the kind of bedtime read that many of us would look forward to.  On a positive note, it is beneficial that instructors and students are increasingly aware of data protection issues.  As Bandara et al. (2014, p. 732) aptly state, “[p]rinciples, heads of schools/departments, all the academic staff and the IT support group in the Higher Education establishment should be clear about their own responsibilities and stay alert to the emerging and evolving threats and risks to data users”.

            In addition to the above, HE plays a vital role in putting forward cybercrime related knowledge and awareness since pedagogical activities are ongoingly mediated to one extent or another by digital technologies.  Evolution of digital literacies entails the need for such knowledge.  In the same way that it would be unthinkable for a pilot to fly a plane without knowledge of its safety features, it should be unthinkable that we navigate the digital without exploring issues of safety in this realm.  As such, HE institutions should encourage research related to cybercrime within academic organisations (especially in contexts where there is a gap in the knowledge) (Back & LaPrade, 2020, p. 26), promote computer literacy by embedding it in its syllabi, provide ongoing training to their teaching staff so that they in turn can be knowledgeable and supportive in their activities with students, as well as engage in related outreach programs that would benefit society at large (McQuade III, 2007).  The Internet itself provides endless and very useful sources of information about the subject at hand which educators and students alike could easily access.  Consider such an article as the one by McCabe (2023) which offers some valuable safety tips, but what a more holistic experience would HE be, if in dealing with a variety of subject areas, educators were simultaneously to promote an awareness of cybercrime and cybersecurity issues.  As McQuade III (2007) queries, “Where is it documented, after all, that cybersafety and cyberethics cannot be covered in English, history, health, or mathematics courses?”  Not to mention, that in using the myriad digital technologies throughout the educational journey, instructors and students alike should be aware of the reality of surveillance.  Every written email, every shared post and every digitally submitted assignment, is documented and stored, with little or no knowledge on the part of users as to how such information is being studied and used.  Whilst not denying the fruitfulness of collaboration enabled by digital technologies, “computer networks are enabling surveillance and control of individuals and society” (Harasim, 2017, p. 108).  We should be concerned about what we know about the repercussions of this, if at all.

              In sum, it would seem that all stakeholders involved in HE have a vested interest in promoting increased awareness of cybercrime and cybersecurity issues in education, not least because of all the information that is collected by the institutions themselves as well as that which is ongoingly shared in the educational process.  For this reason, pedagogies must necessarily concern themselves with the very means that ubiquitously inform the educational journey.  HE institutions should take the lead in promoting good habits by offering clarity enabled via adequate training and information sessions to their staff.  McQuade III (2007) insightfully mentions that “[e]ducators rightfully worry about another topic being heaped onto their pile of things to teach, especially when many of them are themselves unfamiliar with computer technology and the danger it poses”.  In truth however, this can be an opportunity for empowering teachers in their uptake of technology-enhanced education, so that in turn it is the students that can be equally empowered.  Is not this after all the primary concern of education?

References:

Al-Alawi, A. I., Mehrotra, A. & Abdulrahman Al-Bassam, S. (2020). Cybersecurity: Cybercrime Prevention in Higher Learning Institutions. Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339665070_Cybersecurity_Cybercrime_Prevention_in_Higher_Learning_Institutions

Back, S. & LaPrade, J. (2020). Cyber-situational crime prevention and the breadth of cybercrimes among higher education institutions. International Journal of Cybersecurity Intelligence and Cybercrime, 3(2), 25-47. https://www.doi.org/10.52306/RGWS2555

Bandara, I., Ioras, F., & Maher, K. (2014). Cyber Security Concerns In E-Learning Education. ICERI2014 Conference, 728–734.

Dennis, M. A. (2023, March 6). cybercrime. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/cybercrime

Harasim, L. (2017). Learning Theory and Online Technologies. Second Edition. Routledge.

McCabe, G. (2023, January 9). 11 tips to stay safe online. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/advice/11-tips-stay-safe-online

McQuade III, S. C. (2007, January 5). We Must Educate Young People About Cybercrime Before They Start College. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/we-must-educate-young-people-about-cybercrime-before-they-start-college/#annotations:6cJTcsXTEe2xScdn6ciIGg.

Rossow, A. (2018, February 28). Cyberbullying Taken to a Whole New Level: Enter The ‘Blue Whale Challenge. Forbes. Cyberbullying Taken To A Whole New Level: Enter The 'Blue Whale Challenge' (forbes.com)
 

For the Love of Education: Of People and Machines

The digital has permeated our lives to such an extent, that oftentimes we stand unaware of the implications that this may have on our most mundane of activities.  In the educational discourse however, it becomes increasingly necessary to take a reflective stance when it comes to the inclusion of the digital, especially since the ultimate purpose of education is quite simply, to be truly educational.  In a post-digital world, I here adopt Jandric et al.’s (2018) definition of the post-digital with reference to the way pedagogical approaches in education may be considered when they become mediated by digital technologies.  We could strive for:

a ‘holding-to-account’ of the digital that seeks to look beyond the promises of instrumental efficiencies, not to call for their end, but rather to establish a critical understanding of the very real influence of these technologies as they increasingly pervade social life. (p. 895)

This has not been less so in the educational field, especially with the shift in practices marked by Web 2.0 technologies, changing the internet from a flat repository of information to a dynamic space allowing users to participate, collaborate and create content themselves (Conole, 2013, pp. 50-51; Nations, 2022; O’Reilly, 2005).  In view of this, it makes sense that Harasim (2017, p. 111) calls for the need of “a theory or strategy to assist teachers and guide the pedgogical transformations required”.

Photo by Possessed Photography on Unsplash

A deterministic discourse assuming that digital technologies are inherently beneficial to teaching and learning would be naïve.  Such discourse taking forward the idea that digital technologies automatically enhance education, “on the assumption that it will cause improvements in learning outcomes and teaching efficiency” (Cuban, 2002, as cited in Oliver, 2011, p. 376), should be critically evaluated.  Delivering a synchronous session via Teams or Zoom does not necessarily improve the educational experience, unless the session is designed thoughtfully in advance with considerations of purpose and the specifics of subject content and cohort amongst others.  Suffice to recall here Bayne et al.’s description of “the flat spaces of videoconferencing environments, which tend to replicate classroom practice in their foregrounding of content and teacher over student participation” (2020, p. 9).   On the other hand, educational approaches and methods that completely ignore the existence of the digital means, would not befit the 21^st century, since the digital is currently such an ingrained part of our social landscape.  Could we, in taking forward online education, disregard the usefulness of such videoconferencing platforms as Teams and Zoom in connecting users across time and space?  The undoing of certain boundaries is a positive that cannot be ignored. 

Fawns (2022) rightfully discusses the possibilities of an entangled pedagogy, one which is not biased in favour of either one or the other of the above stances.  It is not a technology-first or a pedagogy-first perspective, rather offering the perception that:

“Actual educational activity is always a complex entanglement of factors, iteratively and mutually shaping each other…[in] an entangled view…pedagogy is constituted not just by methods and technology, but also the purposes, contexts and values of teachers, students and other stakeholders” (p. 714).

This brings in the importance of purposes, contexts and values, which are vital in the way they inform the pedagogies and technologies that are opted for in the educational journey.

            I will relate the latter to the use of plagiarism detection software such as Turnitin, or AI tools such as the more recent ChatGPT.  Amongst a number of benefits mentioned, the first caption which features on the Turnitin website, is: “Empower students to do their best, original work”.  In relation to ChatGPT, OpenAI opens their site with the following statement: “Creating safe artificial general intelligence that benefits all of humanity”.  The overarching aims of both digital technologies claim various positives.  In contrast, Turnitin however can also be viewed as a software that foregrounds an element of mistrust in the relationship between students and educators (Wright, 2022).  With regards to ChatGPT, recent informal discussions amongst lecturers at the institute where I work, focused on the tool exacerbating cheating and plagiarism.  All insights are valuable, but even more valuable are the values that are being promoted in education.  If we fear so much the misuse of certain tools such as ChatGPT, I ask therefore whether education is doing enough in fostering learners who do not feel the need to cheat and plagiarise.  To what extent are tools such as Turnitin necessary?  Really and truly, a quotation that is cited, as well as references will appear as a percentage of copying on Turnitin, and therefore academic judgement remains the prerogative of the human in this case. 

If the ultimate aim of education is that of fostering a love for learning, and not for the mere acquisition of qualifications to enhance employability, we should trust that the process is enabling trustworthy learners who, as John Warner claims, have the genuine aim of educating themselves (Alexander, 2022).  Therefore, education should be fostering students that feel compelled to have their own say, especially in higher education, without resorting to AI-generated content.   This, in relation to Jandric et al.’s definition stated earlier in the introduction, requires a holding-to-account of not solely the digital, but of the pedagogy and the digital technologies utilised, vis-a-vis the purposes, contexts and values.  If education explains and encourages good practices, I feel it is the time to enquire into why and how this may (or may not) be enough.  With this in mind, I hope that the technology remains at the service of the human, trusting that the latter has better agency, much as in the example of Turnitin above.  In pursuing the uses of the digital in terms of educational purposes, the human should never be reduced to another piece of technology, because as Siemens (2015) states:

So much of learning involves decision making, developing meta-cognitive skills, exploring, finding passion, taking peripheral paths.  Automation treats the person as an object to which things are done.  There is no reason to think, no reason to go through the valuable confusion process of learning, no need to be a human.  Simply consume. Simply consume.  Click and be knowledgeable. (as cited in Harasim, 2017, p. 103)

I hope that education continues to foster critical minds that would be able to make sound critiques of AI-generated content such as that produced by ChatGPT, and not accept it blindly at face value, whilst also taking it up for all the good that it may offer; critical minds that find solutions to the barriers that may hinder accessibility and inclusivity in open education, whilst extending the open education project; critical minds that can prosper by the possibilities enabled by the digital.  “[T]he internet revolution has the potential to emphasize, extend and leverage our mental capabilities” (Harasim, 2017, p. 113).

References:

Alexander, B. [Bryan Alexander]. (2022, Dec 16). What might ChatGPT mean for Higher Education? [video]. Youtube. What might ChatGPT mean for higher education? - YouTube

Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., Lamb, J., Macleod, H., O’Shea, C., Ross, J., Sheail, P. & Sinclair, C. (2020). The Manifesto for Teaching Online. The MIT Press.

Conole, G. (2013). Designing for Learning in an Open World. Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-8517-0

Fawns, T. (2022). An Entangled Pedagogy: Looking Beyond the Pedagogy-Technology Dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education, 2022(4), 711-728. An Entangled Pedagogy: Looking Beyond the Pedagogy—Technology Dichotomy | SpringerLink

Harasim, L. (2017). Learning Theory and Online Technologies. Second Edition. Routledge.

Nations, D. (2022). What is Web 2.0? The internet revolution that placed humans into the internet. Lifewire – Tech for Humans. https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-web-2-0-p2-3486624

Oliver, M. (2011). Technological determinism in educational technology research: some alternative ways of thinking about the relationship between learning and technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2011(27), 373-384. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00406.x

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. O’Reilly. What Is Web 2.0 - O'Reilly Media (oreilly.com)

Wright, J. D. (2022). TEACHING AT PITT. Turnitin pros, cons and best practices. University of Pittsburgh. TEACHING AT PITT: Turnitin pros, cons and best practices | University Times | University of Pittsburgh

A Spectrum of Possibilities…Inside and Outside the Peripheries, and Everything in Between

“Writing is working: being worked; questioning (in) the between (letting oneself be questioned) of same and of other without which nothing lives; undoing death’s work by willing the togetherness of one-another…A course that multiplies transformations by the thousands.”

(Helene Cixous, 1994, p. 43)

 

About twenty years ago, I encountered Cixous’s writings during my under-graduate degree in English.  Cixous (1994) talks of differences and of inhabiting those differences and moving through them (pp. 35-45).  The subjects which were covered during the ‘Open and Networked Higher Education’ unit in this Master’s in Open and Networked Higher Education programme, brought to mind these differences, the relevance in the diversity of possibilities and the need to keep on moving from one to the other without getting stuck in one place.  This is an exploration of the journey of the 21^st century in higher education – all that it has been, all that it is, all that it is trying to be and all that it cannot as yet, envisage itself to be.

Photo by Hulki Okan Tabak on Unsplash

The 6 separate blocks in the MONHE program have taken me through various considerations of the way the digital world has revolutionized education, the spaces where and the times when education can take place, the modalities whereby it can be carried out, educators’ and learners’ roles, the learning theories and approaches that inform the educational process, issues of hybridity and the concepts of networked learning and open education.  In this blog post I seek to synthesize some of the main issues that have been brought to the fore.

First and foremost, I have explored the flexibility afforded to education by the mediation of digital technologies.  In a world which continuously connects us to the digital realm, we have extensive knowledge at the tip of our fingertips, myriad educational apps, blended learning that can occur on-site or off-site or recorded lessons that we access in our own time. This has led to an awareness that education does not have to be synchronous and face-to-face at all times.  The Covid years have definitely brought some issues to light, but it is now time to explore all the possibilities, because we want to, rather than because we have to.  In this context, self-directed learning has all the potential to be discovered.  Learners are empowered in their educational journey by flexibly working individually or collaboratively, without the constraints of time and place.  The walls of the physical classroom have come down, literally and figuratively, to allow an open space of educational discovery, including the physical spaces which we use at home, in libraries, on campus or in our cars, to access that other space which has gained significance – the digital space.  Bayne et al. say it best when they claim that “we are the campus” (2020, p. xxix).  The physical classroom is by no means dead, but it is complemented, problematized and/or appreciated by the very fact that other spaces have come into existence, none at the cost of another.  Also because, the digital space may still replicate other hierarchies whether in teaching approach (Bayne et al., 2020, p. 9) or novel hierarchies propagated by the platforms used (Tubaro, 2016).  

  In hindsight, when I first read about us being the campus, I realize that my first understanding was that we, the human beings, are the campus.  I have now extended my understanding of the phrase as encompassing other non-human elements via the exploration of sociomateriality.  Indeed, we as human are not alone in creating networked learning, and the campus has come to constitute a vast array of elements, both human and non-human.  We alone, as human beings, could never actualize novel educational environments without everything else that makes education possible, whether it is the digital spaces and connections, the texts required, or the forums and networks involved.  “Unpredictable novel possibilities and patterns are always emerging.” (Fenwick, 2015, p. 84) The human being is decentred, but not less important, within a wider spectrum of elements that are equally subjects.  This leads me to the next significant point – educators’ and learners’ roles in today’s HE.

The didactic approaches which were once so prevalent in the classroom context, informed by behaviourist and cognitive approaches to learning, are giving way to a more horizontal educational approach, as exemplified by constructivist and collaborativist approaches (Harasim, 2017, p. 14).  The objective reality that was in the hands of the educator to transmit, has given way to the subjective realities that are experienced and shared by a community of learners.  The hierarchies inherent to “the banking concept of education” (Freire, 1996, p. 53) are coming undone as we realize everybody’s potential, whether learners or educators, to contribute to the learning journey (Cutajar, 2018, p. 91; Freire, 1996), and to the knowledge commons that are prevalent in this day and age.  Picciano (2017) proposes an integrated model for online learning which takes onboard the various learning theories, recalling that no one theory is exhaustive or uniquely correct; better viewed as useful or not in diverse contexts (Ormrod, 1999, p. 7).  Digital technologies have lent themselves well to exploring this horizontal method of doing education, where the educator has become increasingly decentred.  Should we foresee a future where the educator is dismissed completely from the educational context?  Cutajar (2019) delineates the importance of both transmissive and participative pedagogies; Bayne et al. endorse the “highly professionalised” (2020, p. 28) nature of the teacher’s role which is not to be replaced by digital technologies; Biesta extols the educator and their aptitude at offering “the gift of teaching” (2013, p. 457); Damsa and De Lange think of the instructor as facilitating the selection of spaces, tools and tasks “that are acknowledged to be conducive to learning” (2019, p. 10).  No, the educator is not dead, but dichotomies are.  If anything, educators are transformed, much like learners who are themselves a hybrid space allowing for constant fluid transformation (Eyal and Gil, 2022, pp. 18-21).  Considering and questioning all the parts are key.  There are probably more parts than we can ever possibly see and not a simple matter of binary oppositions.   

The deconstruction of binary oppositions was one of the Oliver’s (2015) main discussion points in taking up the issue of open education, which is informed by multiplicities rather than dichotomies.  The idea of open is problematized and not simply viewed as the positive side to the closed.  Open education, which is meant to enhance access, inclusivity, and diversity within education, is oftentimes marked by barriers that undermine those very values it tries to promote.  So, whilst open education may be open for some, it may close off education for others if they do not have the necessary digital skills (Bates, 2019, p. 568; McGill, 2014), the digital technologies (Bayne et al., 2020, p. 91) or other “personal preconditions” (Otto and Kerres, 2022, p. 59) which may be required to access such education.  Widening the access to knowledge is paramount in opening up education, but as Otto and Kerres denote, if that knowledge belongs to Westernized traditions, then it is not a fair representation of the world, and may constitute a new kind of imperialism (2022, p. 52).  I discussed above the flexibility of access with relation to space, but as Oliver mentions, the physical institutions may not be the only circumscribed spaces (2015, p. 370); for some, the home may be equally limiting.  As Bayne et al. briefly state, “[o]penness is neither neutral nor natural” (2022, p. 82).  The term hybrid has also been put into question, going beyond its denoting simple binaries of online/offsite or synchronous/asynchronous educational activity.  Hybrid educational spaces can be viewed as multiplicitous, merging interactions of the physical, the social and the constant digital connections (Eyal and Gil, 2022, pp. 15-18). 

            I have identified therefore in this conclusive blog, a weaving thread that marked all the study blocks – that of considering different possibilities, without resting in any of those possibilities as definite.  All the elements that make up the educational journey can be seen as undergoing constant hybridization, whether it is our educational spaces, our roles as learners and educators, our modalities or our approaches to education.  Not least it should be our thoughts about HE that are undergoing hybridization. We should be ever on the move in the consideration of multiple possibilities for the “[c]reation of something new together” (Norgard & Hilli, 2022, p. 26).  These can be exciting times.  I go back to Cixous here; I look forward to embark on a “[c]ourse that multiplies transformations by the thousands” (1994, p. 43). 

Block 7: Conclusion

References:

Bates, A.W. (2019). Teaching in a Digital Age.  Second Edition. Tony Bates Associates Ltd.  https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/teachinginadigitalagev2/

Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., Lamb, J., Macleod, H., O’Shea, C., Ross, J., Sheail, P. & Sinclair, C. (2020). The Manifesto for Teaching Online. The MIT Press.

Biesta, G. (2013). Receiving the Gift of Teaching: From ‘Learning From’ to ‘Being Taught By’. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 32(5), 449-461. DOI: 10.1007/s11217-012-9312-9

Cixous, H. (1994). The Newly Born Woman. In: S. Sellers (Ed.), The Helene Cixous Reader (pp. 35-45). Routledge.

Cutajar, M. (2018). Variation in Students’ Perceptions of Others for Learning. In: N. Bonderup Dohn, S. Cranmer, J. A. Sime, M. de Laat & T. Ryberg. (Eds.). Networked Learning. Research in Networked Learning (pp. 79-94). Springer. https://doi-org.ejournals.um.edu.mt/10.1007/978-3-319-74857-3_5

Cutajar, M. (2019). Teaching Using Digital Technologies: Transmission or Participation? Education Science, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9030226

Damşa, C., & de Lange, T. (2019). Student-centred learning environments in higher education. Uniped, 42(01), 9-26. https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1893-8981-2019-01-02

Eyal, L., & Gil, E. (2022). Hybrid Learning Spaces — A Three-Fold Evolving Perspective. In: E. Gil, Y. Mor, Y. Dimitriadis, & C. Köppe (Eds.), Hybrid Learning Spaces. (pp. 11-23) Springer. ProQuest Ebook Central - Reader (um.edu.mt)

Fenwick, T. (2015). Sociomateriality and Learning: a critical approach. In D. Scott & E. Hargreaves (Eds.), The Sage handbook of learning (pp. 83-93). Sage publishers. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781473915213

Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin.

Harasim, L. (2017). Learning Theory and Online Technologies. Second Edition. Routledge.

McGill, L. (2014). Open Educational Resources (OERs). Jisc. Open educational resources (OERs) | JiscTubaro, P. (2016) Hierarchy, market or network? The disruptive world of the digital platform. Data Big and Small. https://databigandsmall.com/2016/04/07/hierarchy-market-or-network-the-disruptive-world-ofthe-digital-platform/.

Nørgård, R. T., & Hilli, C. (2022). Hyper-Hybrid Learning Spaces in Higher Education. In E. Gil, Y. Mor, Y. Dimitriadis, & C. Köppe (Eds.), Hybrid Learning Spaces. (pp. 25-41). Springer. ProQuest Ebook Central - Reader (um.edu.mt)

Oliver, M. (2015). From openness to permeability: reframing open education in terms of positive liberty in the enactment of academic practices. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(3), 365-384.

Ormrod, J. E. (1999). Human Learning. Third Edition. Merrill Prentice Hall.

Otto, D., & Kerres, M. (2022). Deconstructing the virtues of openness and its contribution to Bildung in the digital age. In: D. Kergel, J. Garsdahl, M. Paulsen, & B. Heidkamp-Kergel (Eds.), Bildung in the Digital Age (pp. 47-63). Routledge.

Picciano, A. G. (2017). Theories and frameworks for online education: Seeking an integrated model. Online Learning, 21(3), 166-190. doi: 10.24059/olj.v21i3.1225