Pedagogies as Educational technologies Jon Dron Athabasca University Canada
[email protected]
Abstract: There is a widely held belief in e-learning circles that pedagogy must come before technology. In this paper it is argued that, not only is that not true, but that it is a meaningless war as pedagogies, insofar as they represent a set of techniques and tools for learning, are as much technologies as the computers, forums, virtual classrooms and so on in which they are used. This perspective has some significant implications as to how we should research and use educational technologies. In this paper the nature of the relationship between different technologies is examined and some conclusions drawn about implications for educational research, how technologies should be designed and the nature of the educational process.
Introduction There is a widespread orthodoxy in the field of educational technology that pedagogies matter more than technologies (e.g. (Chumley-Jones, Dobbie, & Alford, 2002; Nation & Evans, 2000; Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wilkinson, Forbes, Bloomfield, & Fincham Gee, 2004)). Some (e.g (Clark, 1983)) suggest the medium is not important at all – that pedagogy is the only thing that is significant. Others (notably (Conole & Dyke, 2004)) recognize the interrelationship between technologies and pedagogies and have developed frameworks that link them along with other aspects of a system such as context. George Siemens goes further and cogently argues that context should be the starting point before pedagogy is even considered (Siemens, 2008). Siemens still believes that pedagogy is important, although he rightly observes that it is a poorly defined thing that can mean different things in different contexts. While this is true, there is broad agreement that a pedagogy refers to a way of teaching, and that ‘pedagogies’ is the plural of that usage. Used without a definite or indefinite article, ‘pedagogy’ might be an area of study relating to teaching or something more vague, and the terms ‘pedagogical’ or ‘pedagogic; relate back to that broader definition of subject matter, enabling such poetic uses of the term as ‘pedagogic love’ (Vandenberg, 2002). Systems theorists tend to take a broader view –Moore & Kearsley, for instance, are clear that we cannot exclude any part of the system if we are to build effective learning opportunities (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). This is a more sophisticated view that moves in the right direction, though a pedagogy is still seen as a distinctive and different kind of entity than, say, computer systems or management systems.
- 2120 -
In this paper I intend to argue that this orthodoxy is based on a misunderstanding of both pedagogies and technologies and that the two have not only a right to peaceful coexistence and equal placing within our educational systems but, more fundamentally, that our pedagogies are, in a very real and fundamental sense, technologies. This in turn has implications that strike at the heart of the educational endeavour and explain some of the successes and failings of educational technologies and research.
What is a technology? Although we have had technologies since long before recorded history began, the term ‘technology’ is of fairly recent origin. In the 17th Century the term referred to the systematic study of one of the arts, but has slowly evolved into what Nye describes as ‘an annoyingly vague abstraction’ (Nye, 2006, p. 15). It is interesting how this echoes Siemens’s annoyance with the term ‘pedagogy’ and at least some of the reason is similar. ‘Technology’ is a broad subject matter, whereas a technology is something we use. When Papert (1987), rails against techno-centrism, he makes the obvious point that it is not the tools that matter but what you do with them. Tools and technologies are not the same, but there is an important relationship between the two. Following a similar but more refined tack, Nye (Nye, 2006) suggests that a technology is a combination of artefacts (physical or virtual) and what we do with them. A tool separated from how we use it is meaningless. For example, a stick lying in a forest is just that: a stick. If it is picked up by an ape to extract ants from their nest, it becomes a technology. The same tools may be used in different technologies. Kauffman observes, for example, that there is a possibly limitless list of uses for a screwdriver – it has infinite affordances (Kauffman, 2008, p. 188).
Pedagogies as technologies Franklin (1999, p. 6) takes Nye’s linking of tools and process significantly further. For Franklin, drawing on the work of Boulding, technology is practice – it is a way of doing something (Franklin, 1999, p. 22). Franklin persuasively argues that there are as much technologies prayer as there are of ploughing. By Franklin’s definition, pedagogies are technologies. A pedagogy is a way of doing something – a repeatable process that can be formalised and passed from one teacher to another. Pedagogies are technologies than can be used well or badly, to create great learning or to produce piles of scholarly rubble. It is possible to go further with this analysis. A pedagogy is a tool for teaching, nor a full-blown technology in itself. It becomes a technology when it is a tool and set of procedures and processes intended to bring about transformation, much as a screwdriver is a technology that combines a tool with a set of procedures and processes to fix a screw. This has a corollary that is quite significant: a pedagogy is a tool that can be used in many different ways, but never separately from the practice or context in which it is used. This may consist of many other distinct and different technologies, such as the management procedures of an institution, its buildings, and its facilities such as whiteboards, books,
- 2121 -
desks projectors and learning management systems. This leads to something that is perhaps more of an educational apparatus than a toolset, because the parts are interdependent and inextricable. We might equally think of pedagogies as being parts of our educational technologies, much as the parts of the car, the road system, the rules of the road (implicit as well as explicit) form the technologies of road transport. A car itself incorporates a vast range of technologies - gears systems, engines, seats, electrical systems, radios and much more. This hierarchy goes deep. For instance, the radio may consist of an assortment of technologies such as microchips, capacitors, lights, amplifiers, tuners and so on. Each is separable and each is (mostly) necessary for the operation of the wholes that we perceive. If any single technology or part of the techno-ecology fails to play its part, the consequences may range from mild inconvenience through to total system failure or even death. Narrowing our focus, although we might replace different parts of the car with different technologies, there is an interdependency between them that requires us to seek a measure of compatibility. Unless we find parts that fit and work together, our car will not work at all. If we replace the capacitors, resistors and transistors of its radio with those that do not match the voltage, impedance, capacitance etc of the other parts, the radio will work badly, if at all. This leads us to an important insight into the nature of pedagogies as technologies. They must work together, or be made to do so. A skilled mechanic might be able to fit outsized wheels, overpowered engines or unconventional seating to his or her car, but it is harder work than following the default path and, for most of us, it is impossible. Similarly, different educational technologies (teachnologies, if you will), that include a range of pedagogies, computer systems, organisational systems, physical spaces, information resources and so on, must fit together if they are to work effectively or at all. This leads us to the problem of scale.
Scale If our technological systems are to work, we need to understand the interdependencies between their parts. In particular, our interest here is in whether pedagogies are more akin to the car radio, or to its traction system or steering mechanisms. In other words, to what extent are they vital determinants of the progress of education and to what extent are they the frills that make it a more comfortable experience? In any system, the large and slow moving features tend to exert more influence on the small and fast moving than vice versa (Brand, 1997). For instance, the shape of a landscape places limits on the kinds of plant life that can exist in it. Mountains limit trees. Trees in turn limit the range of smaller shrubs and plants than exist under their canopy, which in turn affects the range of animals than can live on them. In turn, the lives of microbes in an animals gut are entirely determined by the structural constraints of that animals digestive system. Similarly, the shape of streets constrains the range of buildings
- 2122 -
that may be built there, which in turn limit the possibilities for internal uses of space such as rooms, which in turn constrain the kinds of furnishings and decorations that may be used, which in turn limit the activities of the people who inhabit them. While the rule is not immutable and the combined efforts of many small and fast moving things (locust swarms, for instance) can reverse the trend, it is both logically and empirically true that systems display this tendency. The effects of scale are rife in educational systems. To take a trivial example, where the most common teaching provision is the tiered lecture theatre, there is a much higher probability that the didactic lecture form will be used than, say, small group discussions. It is not that it is impossible to buck the trend through well-planned interventions like pyramiding, fish-bowling and other techniques, but the fact that the classroom is structured that way makes the lecture the path of least resistance, and so it is more likely to be used than other forms in that environment. Group work is to lectures as outsized wheels are to trucks – possible, but ungainly and hard to implement. Similarly, the systems of timetabling, formal accreditation and resource management that most educational systems employ do not necessarily entail classes, courses of a small range of fixed lengths, subject specialisms and formal examinations, but there is a tendency for this pattern to occur. This is as true of virtual environments as of physical spaces. For example, in (Dron, 2006) I report on the discovery that, despite the potential of changing the defaults and the willingness of a significant number of faculty to do so, 99.17% of over 6,000 online or blended courses at my institution used the Blackboard default of providing announcements as the first thing seen on entry to a given course. This teacherdriven default sets a power relationship and tone for a course than in turn affects the pedagogies used. Bearing that in mind, it is interesting to observe that pedagogies tend to be more malleable and flexible than most other technologies that define the educational ecosystem, so they are influenced or determined by other technologies more than vice versa. To give an extreme example, were there are no opportunities for communication (say, a course provided entirely in book form with no tutorial support) then it would be impossible to employ pedagogies that require two-way communication. By and large things are more flexible in most educational systems, but a combination of policies, regulations, constraints on tool availability and so on have a tendency to act together to ensure that it is often a struggle to use the kinds of pedagogy that teachers may prefer. It is therefore not surprising that it is necessary for authors to insist that pedagogy should come first because, by default, it is unlikely to do so. However, in choosing that path, we are inevitably swimming against the tide.
What can be done to equalise the balance of power? If technologies (by which I mean the entirety of technologies in the system) are structurally constraining and we wish to elevate pedagogies to a more structural role, then there are two clear possibilities: to build them into higher level structures, or to relegate other technologies to a more equal role.
- 2123 -
Building better pedagogies into the higher processes This is a risky approach as it is highly unlikely that a single technology would be appropriate on all occasions. It is also very easy for good intentions to be stymied by higher level decisions. Were we to institutionalise constructivist technologies, it would be just as restrictively limiting as the more popular instructivist technologies, limiting diversity. In either case, by structurally constraining the tools that we use we are in a position not unlike that of an art school that insists every artist should only use oil paint. It is interesting to observe that Moodle, built with constructivist principles in mind, is only barely distinguishable from the crowd of systems that it competes with that have no such pretensions. The problem with Moodle is only partly one of design limitations. More significantly, the technology of which it is most often a part includes a range of only partly compatible assumptions: that courses are a one of a certain subset of lengths, that their purpose is accreditation, that they will be used by synchronised cohorts, and so on. Although Moodle gives some flexibility to go beyond this framework, when it is part of a bigger system that employs such structures then its inevitable direction seems to be to follow the path that most other learning management systems tread, reinforcing the higher structures. Moodle is the engine of the technological machine. Constrained by higher level structures, it too plays its part in determining the pedagogies used in the educational apparatus through its affordances and limitations.
Destroying hierarchies Given the structural constraints of hierarchical educational systems, an obvious way to place pedagogies on a more equal footing with other technologies is to remove some elements of the hierarchy. From a (traditionally) technological perspective, a monolithic learning management system should be the first thing to go. We need to build our systems from small pieces, using the parts that will help us and discarding those that will not. Systems such as Elgg, that allow us to assemble widgets and components with a drag and drop interface are a step in the right direction here. From a management and organisational perspective, a smaller, distributed structure is better than a centrally managed hierarchy. The risks of decentralisation centre primarily on efficiency, consistency and reliability. In the case of computer technologies, it is therefore important that decentralisation does not negate these benefits. Central departments are far better suited to the management of infrastructure, maintaining core data services, handling storage and so on. They are the ones who should manage the components which are used in the decentralised structure, but not their deployment and use in constructing the learning environment. In the case of management and organisation it is again important that aspects such as enrolment, registration, assessment and so on are managed in a reliable and consistent way, but that centralised management should be seen as a coordination and service role for decentralised units.
- 2124 -
Do we need good pedagogies? A teacher is a user of technologies such as pedagogies, institutional systems and classrooms as an artist is a user of technologies like brushes, paints, printing. However, just as an artist is more than the sum of his or her techniques, a teacher is greater than the sum of his or her technologies. The two parts of the system that are of greatest significance are not the mediating technologies but the teacher and the learner. They are the elephants in the room that are typically ignored in much educational research. We report on our methods, the effects of interventions, our uses of new techniques and so on, but the single most important feature of an educational system is often brushed aside or reported on vaguely and generally. It is important to distinguish the skills of teachers from the pedagogic (and other technical) approaches and systems they use. What makes a good teacher, whether online, offline, mediated through a book or a website, might include, for example, passion, breadth and depth of knowledge, novelty, ability to understand and connect with learner needs, humour, the ability to perform, the ability to communicate, personal charisma and many other things. All of these abilities may be developed and talked about without reference to any formal pedagogy (though, arguably, implicit pedagogies may sometimes be entailed by their effects). It is not only possible but common for a great teacher to employ a poor pedagogy. Take the conventional conference keynote: by no stretch of the imagination could the hour-long didactic presentation be regarded as an example of a good pedagogy yet there are few among the pedagogical great and good who have not given a keynote using precisely this technique. The better ones are inspiring learning experiences – indeed, that is often the point of inviting a keynote speaker in the first place. Sometimes such events may afford opportunities for discussion, may be appropriately chunked, may follow a carefully planned progression of ideas and arguments, advance organisers, mixed media, active engagement and so on, and they may be placed in a programme of activities that is pedagogically inspired, but few speakers at educational technology conferences consistently apply the principles of which they speak. I have a colleague who has justly won various teaching awards, including at a national level, whose pedagogies are pure drill, practice and test.
Do we need good technologies? A good teacher will often be a good technologist and be able to apply techniques and processes that less able teachers are not able to use because it is likely that their passion, interest and curiosity will lead to them actively seeking such technologies (though, of course, that does not necessarily mean they will leap with glee into elearning). Equally, less able teachers may be able to reach at least a satisfactory level of performance by learning effective use of technologies, much as it is possible to produce acceptable or even delightful music with little talent and a lot of technique.
- 2125 -
Bad or mismatched technologies can be deeply ineffective. Examples abound in the literature of case studies that discuss the often pernicious effects of implementing a learning management system which is used as a document repository. Inevitably, students begin to miss lectures because the slides and notes are online. Equally inevitably, retention worsens, results falter and student satisfaction decreases. For all of its faults as a technology, the lecture provides a range of opportunities for the teacher to overcome its weaknesses and shine through: to fire students with their own enthusiasm, to pick up the yawns and body postures of their students and adapt their pace, to look their students in the eye and demonstrate that they care. Separating this from the technology of presentation without further modification is likely to lead to failure.
Some benefits of this perspective By removing pedagogies from their exalted status and recognising that they are also just technologies, several of the eternal mysteries of e-learning research may be seen with greater clarity. By seeing that it is not just the tools, but (more importantly) the users of those tools that make a difference, we can begin to understand things like: •
•
•
The No Significant Difference phenomenon. Because very few studies consider the hard-to-define qualities of the (real or virtual) teacher it is unsurprising that results that compare different uses of technologies fail to reveal a consistent differences between their effects. The success of teachers despite weak pedagogies. Any connoisseur of blues will be able to cite instances of the finest musicians using terrible instruments and objectively poor technique. A fine artist does not always need the most expensive paints. If a pedagogy, or any other technology, were that important then it would be impossible for a good teacher to teach well without it. The relative benefits of social interaction in pedagogy and other technologies. If our technologies do not enable social interaction then it is often significantly harder to communicate the passion and interest of the teacher. Good writers, directors and designers can succeed in doing so despite the limitations of their media, but it is much easier to communicate such things if there is dialogue. This is especially true of important learning stimulators such as communicating a sense of being cared for.
Conclusions By thinking of our pedagogies as simply part of the machine, a group of relatively flexible technologies that, if they are to work, must do so as an integral part of the apparatus and not as its raison d’etrre, we are liberated from much of the detritus that bogs down educational research and which divides technologists and educationalists in the field of e-learning. Even technophobes are educational technologists. Some of us are more interested in one part of the technology than the other, but the educational vehicle cannot move without both and neither has precedence.
- 2126 -
Technologies, whether pedagogical, organisational, electronic or physical, are hugely important – they enable us to do things we could not do before, to do things better, more cheaply, more efficiently, more entertainingly, more interestingly. Equally, they shape what we can and cannot do. All have affordances, all have constraints. We should always be seeking new and better technologies, whether they are pedagogies or computer applications or management systems. However, they are our tools and, when all is said and done, we are the ones that use them well or badly. Any research into the effectiveness of educational interventions must take this into account.
References Brand, S. (1997). How buildings learn. London: Phoenix Illustrated. Chumley-Jones, H. S., Dobbie, A., & Alford, C. L. (2002). Web-based Learning: Sound Educational Method or Hype? A Review of the Evaluation Literature. Adcademic Medicine, 77(10), S86-S93. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459. Conole, G., & Dyke, M. (2004). What are the affordances of information and communication technologies? ALT-J, 12(2), 113-124. Dron, J. (2006). Any color you like, as long as it’s Blackboard®. Paper presented at the E-Learn 2006, Hawaii. Franklin, U. M. (1999). The Real World of Technology. Concord ON: House of Anansi Press. Kauffman, S. (2008). Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason and Religion. Philadelphia, PA: Basic Books. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A Systems View. Belmont: Wadsworth. Nation, D., & Evans, T. D. (2000). Changing University Teaching: Reflections on Creating Educational Technologies. London & New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Nye, D. E. (2006). Technology Matters: Questions to Live With: MIT Press. Papert, S. (1987). A Critique of Technocentrism in Thinking about the School of the Future. Paper presented at the Children in an Information Age: Opportunities for Creativity, Innovation and New Activities, Sofia, Bulgaria. Phipps, R., & Merisotis. (1999). What' s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington D.C.: American Federation of Teachers & National Education Association. Siemens, G. (2008). Pedagogy first? Whatever [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 28th April 2009 from http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=110. Vandenberg, D. (2002). The Transcendental Phases of Learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 34(3), 321-344. Wilkinson, A., Forbes, A., Bloomfield, J., & Fincham Gee, C. (2004). An exploration of four web-based open and flexible learning modules in post-registration nurse education. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 41(4), 411-424.
- 2127 -
