Thinking Better of It - Rethinking Space, Time and Modality in Education

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.