The question of how technology affects pedagogy is not new, but has started to become a focus for attention again. The UK&#x0027;s Joint Information Systems Committee, for example, has spent the past two years supporting a programme of research into this topic, both from the perspective of the teacher (understanding designing for learning) and more recently from the perspective of the learner (understanding the learner&#x0027;s experience)

Oliver, Martin

English

Martin Oliver

Crossref

ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology
Vol. 14, No. 2, June 2006, pp. 133–134
ISSN 0968-7769 (print)/ISSN 1741-1629 (online)/06/020133–02
© 2006 Association for Learning Technology
DOI: 10.1080/09687760600668453
EDITORIAL
New pedagogies for e-learning?
Martin Oliver
Institute of Education, UK
Taylor and Francis LtdCALT_A_166818.sgm10.1080/09687760600668453ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology0968 7769 (pri t)/1741-1629 (onli e)Edit ri l2 06 & Fran is4 000June 200MartinOliv rm.o iver@ioe.ac.uk
The question of how technology affects pedagogy is not new, but has started to
become a focus for attention again. The UK’s Joint Information Systems Committee,
for example, has spent the past two years supporting a programme of research into
this topic, both from the perspective of the teacher (understanding designing for
learning) and more recently from the perspective of the learner (understanding the
learner’s experience).
What is different, this time around? The promise of technology to revolutionise
teaching has a long-established history that seems to have failed to materialise. In the
mid-1950s, Skinner proposed the idea of the teaching machine; even earlier, the US
military had made a serious commitment into what would become educational tech-
nology by looking at the potential of video for training. We can chart a long series of
developments since—the microcomputer, computer-based training, multimedia, the
web. And yet we are still trying to understand this relationship between technology
and learning.
Meanwhile, the media debate has provided background noise—McLuhan’s claim
that the medium is the message and the counter-arguments that the medium has no
effect on message content confusing matters still further. Which is more naïve: to look
for an effect of technology on learning, or to assume that there will be none?
I was recently involved in a small European project that set out to explore the rela-
tionship between technology use and the roles that teachers undertook. As part of
this, a colleague (Sara Price, Institute of Education) and I analysed some interviews
undertaken with lecturers who were starting to use virtual learning environments for
the first time. Perhaps, in retrospect, it should have been obvious—but our analysis
suggested that, for these people, teaching with a new medium was the same and
completely different simultaneously. It all depended upon how they framed teaching.
When they talked about it strategically, nothing changed: they still had to conceive
the curriculum, monitor students’ progress, provide feedback, and so on. At an inter-
mediate level, the actions they undertook were slightly different: they would check
contributions to a bulletin board, for example, instead of trying to spot who was
sitting quietly on the edges of the seminar; different tools were used, but the practices
were recognisable. At a fine-grained level of analysis, none of their original practices
134 Editorial
remained. Button clicks and typing replaced conversation; automated records
replaced sensitive observation.
So was there a new pedagogy? Yes and no; it all depended on how you looked at
the situation.
This is the situation we have now reached with research. If there is progress on this
topic, it has been to recognise the complexity of the problem, rather than to provide
a simple answer. In various ways, this complexity is played out across the articles
included in this issue. Malcom Rutters describe work that seeks to preserve the ideals
of education but realise them in new forms. A. Kamil Mahmood and Elaine Ferneley
are, arguably, involved in trying to establish what the strategic purposes of particular
educational traditions are, in order that new technologies can be designed to support
them. Thiemo Müller-Kalthoff and Jens Möller describe a study that explores the
match between a new set of learning operations and strategic aspirations to foster
understanding. Rhona Sharpe, Greg Benfield and Richard Francis describe some-
thing slightly different, however – their exploration of the role of strategies in effecting
organisational change initially seems to have little to do with the immediacy of peda-
gogy. Yet even here, the production of a document is being used to help groups of
teachers work through what their educational strategy is, so that their subsequent use
of technology supports rather learning, rather than just information management.
The challenge, then, is not to establish new pedagogies for e-learning in the simple
sense of coming up with new things to do with learners. Instead, this more compli-
cated picture requires a more conservative approach: finding out what teachers do
and why, and then working out how technology can best be used to support that. This
is not to deny the importance of developing innovative teaching techniques; there is
certainly space in ALT-J for this, too. However, it is to call into question its relevance
to the vast majority of teachers in higher education. If innovative research is all we do,
we run the risk of not connecting, of producing nothing that is relevant and meaning-
ful to their daily practices. It would be particularly ironic for our research to end up
unread because we could not establish a connection.


New pedagogies for e-learning?

The question of how technology affects pedagogy is not new, but has started to become a focus for attention again. The UK’s Joint Information Systems Committee, for example, has spent the past two years supporting a programme of research into this topic, both from the perspective of the teacher (understanding designing for learning) and more recently from the perspective of the learner (understanding the learner’s experience).DOI: 10.1080/09687760600668453</jats:p

Research in Learning Technology

ALT Open Access Repository

ALT-J, Research in Learning TechnologyVol. 14, No. 2, June 2006, pp. 133–134ISSN 0968-7769 (print)/ISSN 1741-1629 (online)/06/020133–02© 2006 Association for Learning TechnologyDOI: 10.1080/09687760600668453EDITORIALNew pedagogies for e-learning?Martin OliverInstitute of Education, UKTaylor and Francis LtdCALT_A_166818.sgm10.1080/09687760600668453ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology0968 7769 (pri t)/1741-1629 (onli e)Edit ri l2 06 & Fran is4 000June 200MartinOliv rm.o iver@ioe.ac.ukThe question of how technology affects pedagogy is not new, but has started tobecome a focus for attention again. The UK’s Joint Information Systems Committee,for example, has spent the past two years supporting a programme of research intothis topic, both from the perspective of the teacher (understanding designing forlearning) and more recently from the perspective of the learner (understanding thelearner’s experience).What is different, this time around? The promise of technology to revolutioniseteaching has a long-established history that seems to have failed to materialise. In themid-1950s, Skinner proposed the idea of the teaching machine; even earlier, the USmilitary had made a serious commitment into what would become educational tech-nology by looking at the potential of video for training. We can chart a long series ofdevelopments since—the microcomputer, computer-based training, multimedia, theweb. And yet we are still trying to understand this relationship between technologyand learning.Meanwhile, the media debate has provided background noise—McLuhan’s claimthat the medium is the message and the counter-arguments that the medium has noeffect on message content confusing matters still further. Which is more naïve: to lookfor an effect of technology on learning, or to assume that there will be none?I was recently involved in a small European project that set out to explore the rela-tionship between technology use and the roles that teachers undertook. As part ofthis, a colleague (Sara Price, Institute of Education) and I analysed some interviewsundertaken with lecturers who were starting to use virtual learning environments forthe first time. Perhaps, in retrospect, it should have been obvious—but our analysissuggested that, for these people, teaching with a new medium was the same andcompletely different simultaneously. It all depended upon how they framed teaching.When they talked about it strategically, nothing changed: they still had to conceivethe curriculum, monitor students’ progress, provide feedback, and so on. At an inter-mediate level, the actions they undertook were slightly different: they would checkcontributions to a bulletin board, for example, instead of trying to spot who wassitting quietly on the edges of the seminar; different tools were used, but the practiceswere recognisable. At a fine-grained level of analysis, none of their original practices134 Editorialremained. Button clicks and typing replaced conversation; automated recordsreplaced sensitive observation.So was there a new pedagogy? Yes and no; it all depended on how you looked atthe situation.This is the situation we have now reached with research. If there is progress on thistopic, it has been to recognise the complexity of the problem, rather than to providea simple answer. In various ways, this complexity is played out across the articlesincluded in this issue. Malcom Rutters describe work that seeks to preserve the idealsof education but realise them in new forms. A. Kamil Mahmood and Elaine Ferneleyare, arguably, involved in trying to establish what the strategic purposes of particulareducational traditions are, in order that new technologies can be designed to supportthem. Thiemo Müller-Kalthoff and Jens Möller describe a study that explores thematch between a new set of learning operations and strategic aspirations to fosterunderstanding. Rhona Sharpe, Greg Benfield and Richard Francis describe some-thing slightly different, however – their exploration of the role of strategies in effectingorganisational change initially seems to have little to do with the immediacy of peda-gogy. Yet even here, the production of a document is being used to help groups ofteachers work through what their educational strategy is, so that their subsequent useof technology supports rather learning, rather than just information management.The challenge, then, is not to establish new pedagogies for e-learning in the simplesense of coming up with new things to do with learners. Instead, this more compli-cated picture requires a more conservative approach: finding out what teachers doand why, and then working out how technology can best be used to support that. Thisis not to deny the importance of developing innovative teaching techniques; there iscertainly space in ALT-J for this, too. However, it is to call into question its relevanceto the vast majority of teachers in higher education. If innovative research is all we do,we run the risk of not connecting, of producing nothing that is relevant and meaning-ful to their daily practices. It would be particularly ironic for our research to end upunread because we could not establish a connection.

New pedagogies for e‐learning?

Name not available

Directory of Open Access Journals

http://doaj.org/search?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22bool%22%3A%7B%22must%22%3A%5B%7B%22term%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A%22608af46d8a5f4e97a75b3d60677ee394%22%7D%7D%5D%7D%7D%7D

New pedagogies for e‐learning?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

Crossref

Crossref

ALT Open Access Repository

Crossref

Name not available

Directory of Open Access Journals