Hybridising the Hybrid

Back in the day when any form of teaching and learning would take place in the physical classroom, with information transmitted by the teacher and acquired by the student, the boundaries were clear, literally and figuratively.  The space for teaching and learning was decisively bound by the classroom walls, the educator metaphorically marked the boundaries of where knowledge was contained, and the student was the empty vessel where a deposition of knowledge could be bound yet again.  A notion of hybridity could only upset such boundaries if understood to denote a new product which is derived out of the mixture of two or more different things (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, n.d). 

Photo by Maria Lupan on Unsplash

Initially, a hybrid learning environment denoted that which was also described as blended, or as described by Harasim (2017, p. 30) “typically refer[ing] to a mix of face-to-face and online course activities”.  The QAA (2020, p. 3) make mention of the interchangeability of these two terms, describing a learning environment that mixes onsite and online spaces, synchronously or asynchronously.  Eyal and Gil (2022, pp. 12-15) first explore hybridity in this sense – hybridity as blended - in their threefold perspective, proceeding to describe the hyflex model whereby “[e]ach class session and learning activity is offered in person, synchronously and asynchronously online” (p. 6). 

Hybridized learning environments however have come a long way from simply denoting that which started off back in the 1980s (Harasim, 2017, p. 30) and in Eyal and Gil’s (2022, p. 14) words, “towards gaining a different dimension”.  Norgard (2021) for instance discusses the redundancy of the dichotomy of digital and non-digital in theorizing hybridity in a post-digital world, calling for a move that goes beyond simplistic binary oppositions “onsite-online, physical-digital or synchronous-asynchronous learning” (p. 1712).  This very much relates to Eyal and Gil’s (2022, pp. 15-18) description of hybridity as a space of merging interactions, where a hybrid learning environment now denotes the multiplicities involved in such educational contexts that are simultaneously marked by the physical, the social and the constant connection to the digital and other users especially via our mobile devices.  Hybrid environments are in constant development, an ongoing attempt at novel forms, means and modes of teaching and learning, leading to an entanglement of the learner’s public and private life.  In an increasingly interconnected world, it is therefore of paramount importance to consider hybridity and hybridized learning environments in such a way as to understand the hows, whys and wherefores of education.

In Eyal and Gil’s (2022, pp. 18-21) third consideration of hybridity as fluid, the focus turns onto the individual themselves as being the space where transformation takes place.  The educational journey is ongoing and, in this sense, the learner is themselves a hybrid space, ever moving, fluid.  It is how we can conceive of hybridity as effecting any fixed notions of the teacher and learner roles within an educational context.  Novel approaches to teaching, mediated by all forms of spatial and temporal differences, can be further achieved by shifting away from the traditional concepts of the educators and learners involved.  Once the value of other learners is equally perceived as that of the educator, the boundaries are yet again blurred in a novel way, creating an alternative way of doing education.  The traditional one-way movement of knowledge transmission becomes marked by multiple channels of communication and of learning as “NL participants are projected as teachers and learners for each other” (Cutajar, 2018, p. 91).  This becomes increasingly important for any considerations of open and networked learning, where collaboration is key to the way education is done.  Bennett et al. (2020, p. 1191) exemplify this kind of collaboration in their study with reference to the students that are “active participant[s] in the research and [are] both the “researched” and integral in the research design.”

Lastly, Norgard and Hilli (2022, p. 26) synthesize it best when they state that, “hybrid learning and hybrid learning spaces point towards the formation of hybrid learning cultures and practices that open up for participation and engagement beyond the traditional boundaries of the institution, course or learner role”.  The ubiquity of digital technologies, the need for more flexibility and the attempt to be more inclusive have called for the need to reconsider traditional learning environments and concurrently approaches and pedagogies that could inform novel ways of doing education.  The increasing entanglements that are involved can prove useful in connecting the multiple roles of an individual as student-teacher-worker-citizen, reminding us of Norgard’s (2021) discussion of a hybridised learning experience that allows the learner to simultaneously act as citizen, enabling “networked learning in, for and with the world” (p. 1718), benefitting from the advantages derived from “formal learning, real-life experience and societal engagement” (p. 1719). 

With this in mind, hybridity in education needs to be studied and theorised for an objective understanding of how teaching and learning can be ameliorated in this day and age.  Harasim (2017, p. 107) points towards the dangers of a hybridity that involves AI for instance, where human teachers might be replaced by AI and computer software.  Schank (2001, cited in Eyal and Gil, 2022, p. 14) critiques blended learning for failing to cause a real disruption in education and for “preserv[ing] classical pedagogy”.  I believe that a theory of hybridity should foreground the human being for their exceptional ability to (critically) think and transform themselves, for their ability to engage in praxis, and ultimately therefore to create change meaningfully.  I think of hybridity in education as one which should live up to its expectations, a theory which could enable the “[creation] of something new together” (Norgard & Hilli, 2022, p. 26) in terms of practices, pedagogies and approaches.

Block 6: Hybrid Environments, Hybrid Pedagogy, Hybrid Being

References:

Bennett, D., Knight, E., & Rowley, J. (2020). The role of hybrid learning spaces in enhancing higher education students’ employability. British Journal of Educational Technology 51(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12931.

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: Reflections and Challenges. (pp. 79-94) Springer. Variation in Students’ Perceptions of Others for Learning | SpringerLink (um.edu.mt)

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)

Harasim, L. (2017). Learning Theories and Online Technologies. Second edition. Routledge.

Nørgård, R. T. (2021). Theorising hybrid lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(4), 1709-1723. doi:10.1111/bjet.13121

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)

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, (n.d.). hybrid. In Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries. Retrieved Dec 22, 2022, from hybrid_1 adjective - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (2020). Guidance: Building a Taxonomy for Digital Learning. Building a Taxonomy for Digital Learning (qaa.ac.uk)

 

Keeping an Open Mind - Opening up Open Education

Cronin (2019) defines OEP as “combin[ing] the use of OER, open pedagogies, and open, transparent teaching practices with the goals of improving access, enhancing learning, and empowering learners.”  Similarly, Peters (2008, p. 11, cited in Otto and Kerres, 2022, p. 54) mentions the “core Enlightenment concepts of freedom, equality, democracy and creativity” with regards to Open Education.  Otto and Kerres (2022) identify a significant number of approaches related to Open Education, ranging from such initiatives as open culture to open source.  Moreover, Weller (2014) advises against thinking of “openness as a unified entity” (cited in Cronin 2017, p. 16).  Whichever one’s take on OE or on engaging in open education, the fact remains that OE is multi-faceted and it is highly unlikely that one inhabits an either/or territory when it comes to this educational concept (Cronin, 2017).  Of paramount importance in a discussion regarding openness in HE are considerations of neutrality and emancipation – is openness a neutral concept and in its bid towards emancipation, is it a given that it actually does so?

Photo by Katerina Pavlyuchkova on Unsplash

It is not enough to view openness as a term in opposition to closed-ness or further connoting the terms to positive and negative respectively.  Oliver (2015) makes a point of illustrating “the irrelevance of simple binary assertions about whether Higher Education is ‘open’ or not” (p. 381) and puts forward the multiplicities which inform the educational context.  In so doing, he calls for avoiding the trap of doing it differently in the blind belief that it will work out better.  In an attempt to escape the monolithic educational institution – Bayne et. al (2020, p. 91) refer to “the inaccessible and exclusive infrastructures of university education” - open education does not necessarily warrant a more just, more equitable or more socially inclusive learning environment just because it is open.  Even if that were the undisputed overarching aim of open education, the fact remains that such openness needs to be questioned.  As do Otto and Kerres (2022, p. 47) in “deconstructing the understanding of openness as a unidirectional and monolithic block” or as does Oliver (2015) in putting forward the idea that educational institutions are not the only circumscribed spaces.  If networked learning allows the undoing of geographical and temporal boundaries, as well as enhances flexibility such as the ability to learn from home, that is not by default a positive for all.  This is not to say that it is not positive (I myself embrace the advantageousness of it) but for some, the home may be a prison and flexibility in “time and pace of participation” (ibid, p. 370) may actually be a hindrance to collaborativist approaches.

It is not an either-open-or-closed that a realistic perspective should make us see.  Rather, it is the way open in its very being entails the closed.  Bayne et al. (2020, p. 91) claim that “open education projects are better understood as a much more complex, multiple, and conflicted arrangement that simultaneously opens certain opportunities for engagement while closing off others”.  In their consideration of OER, Otto and Kerres (2022) identify the advantages of broadening the availability of knowledge whilst simultaneously acknowledging the fact that the exportation of knowledge from Western industrialised countries may constitute a new kind of imperialism.  Along the same lines, Oliver (2015, p. 368) brings up the issue with regard to “scholars in low-income countries”, who he claims “would need incentives to produce [OER] materials”.  As stated by Funes and Mackness (2018, cited in Otto and Kerres, 2022, p. 55), “[n]orms inside the temple intended to include and foster diversity lead to the opposite”.  In a previous blog post I had already mentioned that the body of knowledge related to Networked Learning may not be a fair holistic representation if it lacks contributions from the Global South and other “disadvantaged spaces” (NLEC, 2020, p. 317).  It is thus evident that “Openness is neither neutral nor natural: it creates and depends on closures” (Bayne et al., 2020, p. 82).

In view of the above, I ask myself therefore, should we give up on the idea of Open Education?  Should we, most notably as educators, stop sharing resources amongst ourselves and with students, stop publishing textbooks under a Creative Commons licence or stop reflecting on content, materials and pedagogies with educators and students alike?  My answer would be a straightforward No insofar as we are practising in Cronin’s (2017) words, “social learning” (p. 24) and concurrently “break[ing] down the traditional barrier between lecturer and student” (p. 25), fostering collaborativism amongst the latter two (Nascimbeni, 2020).  Insofar as we are “contribut[ing] to a social culture of sharing” (Otto and Kerres, 2022).  Insofar as individual freedom is respected and stakeholders allowed to decide for themselves whether or not and to what degree to engage in Open Education (Cronin, 2019; Ward, 2017, cited in Nascimbeni, 2020).  And most especially, insofar as we can be self-reflexive and not simply dream, but be able to consider and re-consider, how a utopic vision of openness translates itself into the realities and practicalities of education, and where necessary be critical.  How else to combat the neoliberal trend of a market-driven education (Giroux, 2014; Mayo, 2019), if not by believing in the first place that education is a right for all, and not a commodity for the few!

Block 5: Educational Openness - OER and OEP

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.

Cronin, C. (2017). Openness and praxis: Exploring the use of open educational practices in higher education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning: IRRODL, 18(5), 15-34.

Cronin, C. (2019). Open Education: design and policy considerations. In H. Beetham & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Principles and Practices of Design. Third edition. New York, US: Routledge. https://hydi.um.edu.mt/permalink/f/1rh358i/TN_cdi_askewsholts_vlebooks_9781351252805

Giroux, H. (2014). Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education. Haymarket Books.

Mayo, P. (2019). Higher Education in a Globalising World. Manchester University Press.

Nascimbeni, F. (2020). Empowering University Educators for Contemporary Open and Networked Teaching. In D. Burgos (Ed.), Radical Solutions and Open Science: An Open Approach to Boost Higher Education (pp. 123-134). Singapore: Springer Singapore.

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

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.

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.