http://www.port.ac.uk/departments/services/dcqe/Enhancingyourteachingwithtechnology/
Having had time now to read and fully digest Bayne (2014)’s critique on the rise of ‘technology enhanced learning’ as the dominant form of address in the UK, I thought it would make sense to jot down some initial thoughts and reactions:
Drawing on a mixture of ideas from science and technology studies, post-humanist theory and critical pedagodgy, Bayne problematises each of the terms within TEL (‘technology’, ‘enhancement’, and ‘learning’). In so doing, Bayne argues that attempts to position technology as ‘enhancing’ learning, serves not only to construct technology as separate from (and in the service of) learning, but that it also (albeit implicitly) lends support to the goals of human advancement through technological advancement, characteristic of the transhuman project. Drawing on Biesta’s approach to learnification, Bayne also links the development of TEL to the rise in consumerist, market-based approaches, whereby education is increasingly packaged by institutions and consumed by individual learners.
This is a very crude summation of the main arguments of Bayne’s paper, yet serves to highlight a key point, to my mind….
Whilst Bayne draws on critical tendencies within post-humanist thought to analyse the discourse of TEL, the position of post humanism itself is presented as a somewhat unproblematic analytical lens, and thus (apparently) exempt from the same degree of critical scrutiny. For example:
In critiquing the consumerization of learning, are we not (implicitly) advocating an alternative model, one that is (arguably) anti-/post humanist and anti-consumerist? What (critically speaking) are the implications of this; for example, in terms of the positioning of ‘students’, ‘tutors’ and ‘machines’ within the learning assemblage?
Equally, a critique of the notion of enhancement implies that an alternative discourse is more valid. If so, what alternatives should educators aspire to, and what are the dangers of holding such aspirations?
In short, critical approaches are essential, yet such approaches need to:
- Make explicit, the values carried within critical theory
And more importantly …
- Subject to critical analysis, the implicit assumptions and ideological motivators that drive the author’s sense of unease with the status quo
Unless this happens, are we not in danger of simply replacing one implicit set of normative expectations with another?
References
Bayne, S. (2014) What’s the matter with ‘technology enhanced learning’? Learning, Media & Technology 40(1): 5-20.
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.