Very interesting read, Nick!

I agree that whenever a critical research is undertaken we need to stay aware of the underlying and often implicit ideological values of the author doing the critique (and critically engage with those as well). I too got the sense that Sian was favouring an anti-consumerist view of education in her critique – a view that I personally share.

However, as the critique does not put forward an explicit counter proposal, we have to try and focus on the critique at hand and not its implicit assumptions for we might fall into the trap of thinking within false dichotomies. Being against something does not automatically equate to favouring its opposite, even if it is likely. In politics, for example, criticising the Obama administration does not necessarily make one a Republican.

You are right that we need to think of the implications of alternative models, but such a discussion should in my opinion be made explicit. The value I see in Sian’s paper is that it simply draws to attention the problematic fact that the term TEL is implicitly promoting a certain ideology. Whether said ideology is problematic in itself can (and should) be debated in a more explicit form. What I am wondering is whether there can be such a thing as a neutral expression devoid of ideology or whether the terms we use will always be (ab-)used by ideologues pushing for a certain narrative.

from Comments for Nick’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/15xb1iV
via IFTTT

I can empathise with your frustration Jin. My suspicion is that in instances like the one you described some of the involved people (in your case the Quality Manager) have to somehow justify the investment in the VLE regardless of their educational outcomes.

from Comments for Jin’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/1CAgsLl
via IFTTT