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