While reading Dron (2014), I couldn’t help but notice the parallels between what I was reading and my current workplace and how we conduct our distance education (DE). In chapter nine of Online Distance Education: Towards a Research Agenda (2014) Dron dives into innovation; Information Communication Technologies (ICT); the different generations of technologies; pedagogies used as technology; measurements and determining success; factors that determine success; what is required of the learners, instructors, administration, and culture; etc.
The focus of my blog post are the determining factors of success, rather one part of it that really helped me see a new perspective of my work and the DE I help produce: hard vs soft technology.
Dron (2014) describes hard technology as rigid and unadaptable DE, where the process of learning is set, mandated, and unable to adapt to the learner. In this case, the learner is forced to adapt to the DE. Whereas soft technology is more adaptable, the lessons more abstract, where more of the learning process is dependent on the learner and instructor.
As a point of clarification Dron, does not refer to technology as strictly machine tools like computers, tablets, and cellphones. The definition of technology here is closer to the semiotic definition of cultural tools where technology does not have to just include physical tools, methods used to communication perspective (Sharples, Taylor & Vavoula, 2005).
The parallels I draw echo the notion of hard technology. In my day to day the learning management system (LMS) we use is at time restrictive to us and it’s rigidity forces us to ensure that our need for plugins and features adapt to what the LMS can offer. As much as we try to innovate learning, the programs provided to us are still somewhat limited as to what is capable to develop. Most learnings are styled from traditional lecture and question models. Here the process is embedded in the technology taking the process of learning out of the hands of the learner. This is the nature of the business, hierarchical culture, and what the IT department will allow; DE must be inexpensive and efficient, but at what cost?
Dron, J. (2014). Innovation and Change: Changing how we Change. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Athabasca, AB: AU Press.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2005). Towards a theory of mobile learning. Proceedings of mLearn 2005, 1.1(2005), 1-9.
Hi Alastair, your question “at what cost” do we keep distance learning affordable, is one I have been grabbling with for a while now.
I am on the receiving end of a learning management system (LMS). I need to work within a structure that is “inflexible and somewhat linear” (Fahrenbruch, 2018), more representative of a design structure based on a model of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation (ADDIE). This leaves me struggling to create an environment that is more reflective of my teaching approach and of my students’ experiences in the world outside the LMS. I believe the cost is carried by the students who, as you stated so succinctly, are “ forced to adapt to the [LMS]” they are provided with. A learning environment (LE) of hard technology creates a disconnect for the student as it restricts a socially engaged environment that fosters the co-construction of knowledge through the learner’s connection with the world outside the LMS (Anderson, 2008). To support a more socially engaged environment online, we must engage in “a process of growth that incorporates earlier knowledge and builds upon it to create new knowledge” (Dron, 2014, p. 261). This new knowledge creation will depend on a financial commitment from an institution, and unless that promise is made, instructors need to be creative and innovative in meeting their students’ needs.
Financial constraints are a reality, however, maybe a reworking of restrictive policies could offer the bridge between hard technologies and a more socially engaging LE?
References
Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a Theory of Online Learning (2nd ed). Athabasca, AB: AU Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146
Dron, J. (2014). Innovation and Change: Changing how we Change. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Athabasca, AB: AU Press.
Fahrenbruch, A. (2018). The push and pull in teaching [blogpost]. Retrieved from https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0053/the-push-and-pull-in-teaching/
Hi Alastair, your question “at what cost” do we keep distance learning affordable, is one I have been grabbling with for a while now.
I am on the receiving end of a learning management system (LMS). I need to work within a structure that is “inflexible and somewhat linear” (Fahrenbruch, 2018), more representative of a design structure based on a model of analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation (ADDIE). This leaves me struggling to create an environment that is more reflective of my teaching approach and of my students’ experiences in the world outside the LMS. I believe the cost is carried by the students who, as you stated so succinctly, are “ forced to adapt to the [LMS]” they are provided with. A learning environment (LE) of hard technology creates a disconnect for the student as it restricts a socially engaged environment that fosters the co-construction of knowledge through the learner’s connection with the world outside the LMS (Anderson, 2008). To support a more socially engaged environment online, we must engage in “a process of growth that incorporates earlier knowledge and builds upon it to create new knowledge” (Dron, 2014, p. 261). This new knowledge will depend on a financial commitment from an institution, and unless that promise is made, instructors need to be creative and innovative in meeting their students’ needs.
Financial constraints are a reality, however, maybe a reworking of restrictive policies could offer the bridge between hard technologies and a more socially engaging LE?
References
Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a Theory of Online Learning (2nd ed). Athabasca, AB: AU Press. Retrieved from http://www.aupress.ca/index.php/books/120146
Dron, J. (2014). Innovation and Change: Changing how we Change. In Zawacki-Richter, O. & T. Anderson (Eds.), Online distance education: Towards a research agenda. Athabasca, AB: AU Press.
Fahrenbruch, A. (2018). The push and pull in teaching [blogpost]. Retrieved from https://malat-webspace.royalroads.ca/rru0053/the-push-and-pull-in-teaching/
Great feedback Anita! I find it ironic that perhaps a restrictive or ‘hard’ policy could lead to softer information communication technologies in education depending on how the administration dictates how education is to be delivered.
I find that many of our constructed sandboxes are built on standards or as Dron (2014) put it, “… when orchestration is built into the technologies” (p. 241). I understand the need for standardization and the efficiencies it brings, but the other half of the story is the human element which is often forgotten. Does this mean that the technologies are at fault? Potentially, we could have put too much stock into the idea of using technology to make our lives easier. I’m certain that the amount of money and time spent on these ridged hard technologies is hard to give up for something more learner-centred. Perhaps an apt analogy would be, if you had an iPad, iPhone, Apple SmartWatch, MacBook, and Apple TV, how difficult would it be to switch to Android which allow more freedom?
Hi Alastair,
The title of your blog intrigued me, so I clicked!
You bring up some really good points about digital environments and hard vs. soft technology as Dron had introduced.
Currently at the college, I know that our IT department is quite limited in the knowledge of the technology that is available to our faculty. However, we do have one staff member who is the “master practitioner” (Hineman, Boury & Semich, 2015, p. 69). of our LMS, Blackboard. Without him, our faculty would be lost and would not be updated on the capabilities of the platform. They do say that there are limitations; however, with the “master practitioner’s” help, they are trying to work around it by getting creative in some of their curriculum. We are starting to a see a shift to a model/framework similar to Koole’s (2009) where the “mobile learning provides enhanced collaboration among learners, access to information, and a deeper contextualization of learning” (p. 38). An issue that exists is that there is only one of him who is located at our campus. When more faculty have issues, he is unable to help everyone. We hope that there will be more consideration in this capacity in the future, particularly since we will be looking at making more opportunities for digital transformation in more programs/courses.
Cheers!
Joyce
References:
Hineman, J. M., Boury, T. T., & Semich, G. W. (2015). Technology-Literate School Leaders in a 1:1 iPad Program and Teachers’ Technology Self-Efficacy. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 11(2), 68-79.
Koole, M. L. (2009). A model for framing mobile learning. In M. Ally (Ed.), Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training, (pp. 25–47). Edmonton, AB: AU Press.
These are some great points Alistair. I really like the focus on how the LMS seems to create an uninviting environment for the learner without trying to tweak it. At my institute we’re constantly looking at accessibility for learners and it’s so easy to look at just the physical accessibility that we often miss the cultural or other less tangible elements.
We’ve begun a path of looking deeper into Universal Design for Learning (UDL) which has been fascinating to look at. One of the more interesting articles I’ve read on it comes from the D2L blog (an LMS) and though many of us thought that the LMS was preventing UDL this article by Chandrashekar (2017) actually took the LMS out of the equation which is something I hadn’t considered. Leading with the content and materials and then working within the system needed.
There is some interesting work done (primarily by) David Rose and Anne Meyer that I think you would quite enjoy. I’ve included some links below. Their focus on UDL has a strong focus on technology and fits well with your work.
Some links:
https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/doi/pdf/10.1177/016264340001500208
http://www.eiltsfamily.org/udl_at/resources/Universal%20Design%20for%20Learning/UDL_Overview.pdf
Chandrashekar, S. (2017, November 10). What is Universal Design for Learning? Retrieved from https://www.d2l.com/blog/universal-design-learning/
Gordon, D., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. (2016). Universal Design for Learning. Peabody: CAST Professional Publishing.
Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing New Access to the General Curriculum. TEACHING Exceptional Children,35(2), 8-17. doi:10.1177/004005990203500201