For many years teaching/learning was constituted by the figures of the teacher and student, within the four walls of the physical classroom during a set time slot as timetabled by the educational institution. The primary experience was that of the teacher transferring knowledge onto the student, referred to by Paulo Freire (1993, p. 53) as the “banking concept of education [whereby] knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing”. We have since come a long way in apprehending the educational experience in this sole manner and although traditional concepts may persist, an increasing awareness of additional modalities have definitely taken ground, not least because of “the ubiquity of online technology in society today” (Harasim, 2017).
Let me clarify that the increasing use of online technology does not inherently equate to a different way of doing education and could still enforce the banking concept of education (think of a lecturer delivering a lesson via Zoom or Teams – the space and time may have changed but not the modality), unless of course via the digital means there is an honest effort to “turn away from the flat spaces of videoconferencing environments, which tend to replicate classroom practice in their foregrounding of content and teacher over student participation” (Bayne et. al, 2020, p. 9). It is this latter factor therefore which defines contemporary learning and teaching as complementary processes in space, time and modality. It is student participation that fast forwards us into novel pedagogies, pedagogical designs and a multitude of learning environments, be that in the physical classroom (which I dare say is definitely not redundant) or in virtual learning environments (which I dare say will be an increasing part of our future).
Photo by Scott Graham on Unsplash
Insofar as names are given to define different modalities, such as for instance face-to-face and digital learning, we continue to focus on differences rather than similarities, we continue to create binary oppositions, we continue to dichotomize rather than to unite that which is evidently staring us in the eye and as adequately predicted by Baume and Brown (2017, as cited in McDougall, 2021) that “[s]oon, there will be only be learning, using a rich range of tools and resources”. We need to see complements in our teaching/learning spaces, times and modalities and these can be united by the diversity of student-centred environments. Possibly this is the reason for McDougall (2021) simplifying the terminology to “the learning” (p. 3) and “the space” (p. 12).
The notion of student-centred environments is
elaborated on in detail in a paper by Damsa and De Lange (2019), focusing on
pedagogical designs that again put the student on the forefront rather than the
teacher. Having said that, the teacher
remains an important part of the learning journey as “learners can be
overwhelmed by the complexity of options available” (Quintana et al., 2006, as
cited in Damsa & De Lange, 2019, p.14).
Teaching and pedagogical design are hereby viewed as “provid[ing] the
environment and the tools that make learning possible, by supporting, guiding,
feeding content and giving direction to the activities that are acknowledged to
be conducive to learning” (Damsa & De Lange, 2019, p. 10). Let us not fall into the trap of demoting the
teacher to a facilitator in such pedagogical discourses, a point which is well
put forward by Bayne et al. (2020, p. 26) when quoting Biesta (2005) in saying
that “educational professionals play a crucial role because a major part of
their expertise lies precisely there”.
The hierarchical structure of the traditional
classroom is deconstructed here to allow for a less dictatorial teacher and
more responsible students actively involved in their learning as well as
multiple exchanges that allow for multiple knowledges to be shared, discussed
and questioned. McDougall (2021, p. 13) adequately
describes these participants as “occupants [that] can work (from within) as
allies in decentring learning” and in so doing, allowing for a multitude of
voices to be heard. This is in a sense
liberating, echoing Paulo Freire’s description of education as “the practice of
freedom”, which in his foreword to Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Richard Shaull goes on to define as “the means
by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover
how to participate in the transformation of their world” (1996, p. 16).
The digital mode of learning has made it even more
possible for the HE student to become more of an active agent in their learning,
enabled by what Goodyear & Retalis (2010, as cited in Damsa & De Lange,
2019, p. 15) define as “affordances”. The
latter range from the ability to access and utilise study content digitally, to
acts of communication and collaboration, production of knowledge and engagement
with multimedia activities to mention but a few. It is thus that the student is no longer limited
by the four walls of the classroom or by a set time in their acquisition and
questioning of knowledge. The outside world,
mediated by the digital, has added value to a student’s learning journey. This is also corroborated by Dr. Maria
Cutajar in her 2017 paper titled ‘The student experience of learning using networked
technologies: an emergent progression of expanding awareness’, wherein the student
is described as going through different experiences in their approach to networked
learning, ranging from individually accessing material given by the educator
and apprehending the said material individually to an experience of
collaboration and connectivity with others.
In conclusion I would say that the future of teaching
and learning is imbued with possibilities.
The key here is to unlearn cliches and accepted norms and assumptions to
allow for critical thinking of diverse ways of doing education, without any one
mode being the default causing another mode to be viewed as less. To borrow Bayne et al.’s words, “online and
offline, there are many ways to get it right” (2020, p. 9) or as McDougall states,
“[w]e need to see the opportunities in the online learning space for more
inclusive ways of being in the university” (2021, p. 4). This last sentence is especially useful in
terms of envisaging learning and teaching as complementary processes in space,
time and modality.
Block 2: Contemporary teaching and learning: Space, Time and Modality
References:
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.
Cutajar, M.
(2017). The student experience of learning using networked technologies: an
emergent progression of expanding awareness. Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 26(4), 485-499. doi:10.1080/1475939x.2017.1327451.
Damşa,
C., & de Lange, T. (2019). Student-centred learning environments in higher
education. Uniped, 42(01), 9-26.
Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of
the Oppressed. Penguin.
Harasim, L.
(2017). Learning Theory and Online Technologies. Routledge.
McDougall, J., Jarvis, J., &
Smith, K. (2021). Critical Approaches to Online Learning (Critical
Practice in Higher Education). Critical Publishing.
