Foundations of a philosophy for online learning – views of technology

In his paper, Foundations of educational theory for online learning, Mohamed Ally begins by unpicking how on-line learning may benefit a learner. The suggestion is that the effectiveness of online learning is more to do with the instructional strategy built in to the technology, rather than the technological medium itself (Ally 2004).  This places the professional instructor/teacher/tutor in the position of responsibility for ensuring that the learning is beneficial.

Much of the literature on online learning begins by outlining perceived benefits. Ally refers to the benefits of the asynchronous nature of online learning – where both time and space are ‘collapsed’ and the learner can access the learning space any time day or night (Ally 2004). Learner motivation and the prerequisite skills needed to learn autonomously are missing from this ideal picture. There is also an assumption that the technology is assimilated into the learner’s life already and that there are no issues with access or ownership of the hardware. Not all homes have internet access: in 2012, 80% of homes had some form of access – that’s roughly 350, 000 households with any form of internet access (see here for stats). A fewer percentage of homes have smart phones or tablets (see here).  

Heather Kanuka begins her paper by outlining perceived advantages and disadvantages of e-learning.  She describes a series of perceived advantages that includes just-in-time learning, increased access, cost effectiveness, greater accountability and increased interaction.    The disadvantages include the prioritisation of techno-centric models of discourse, the centralisation of decision-making, increased uniformity, greater surveillance and concerns about the digital divide. (Kanuka 2008). It is interesting to note that the advantages described are practical in scope while the disadvantages are highly political. It is almost as if positive commentary is coming from practitioners while a more critical stance is taken by sociologists. Kanuka goes on to point out that these perceptions of e-learning are based on philosophies-in-practice and that by examining these philosophies we can better understand the nature of the disagreement.

The paper goes on to peel back the debate to uncover a set of philosophical orientations: three views of technology and six views of teaching. Much of the description of the views of teaching is taken from James Draper’s chapter Valuing what we do as practitioners in The Craft of Teaching Adults (Barer-Stein, T., & Draper, J. A. 1993). This in turn is taken from Elias and Merriam’s outline of five philosophies in Philosophical Foundations of Adult Education (1984). Draper characterises philosophy as our “values, assumptions, beliefs and attitudes which guide us” (Draper 1993, p.57) and states that by articulating our own personal philosophy we come to a greater understanding of why we behave and think the way we do.

For a not-so-brief summary of Kanuka's paper click here
 

Three view of technology

In terms of our views of technology, Kanuka posits three philosophical orientations, all of which are labelled determinisms. A deterministic view is one in which outcomes are pre-determined, or follow a given law. In other words, determinism posits a world in which any event occurs only as part of some law of nature (Urmson & Ree 1993).

The first view of technology described by Kanuka is ‘Uses Determinism’. Here, technology is reduced to a neutral tool that allows us to extend our capabilities and is free of any social, cultural or political burden. It is merely a means to an end. Torin Monahan captures the essence of this thinking (Monahan 2005) in the opening quote of his paper:

“‘Computers are tools, just like pencils.’ This is the statement echoed on the lips of most technologists, teachers, administrators, and policymakers…” (Monahan 2004, p.272)

Kunuka asserts that this perspective is not new and tries to place it in an evolution of thinking about technology: she states that it emerged as a response to the Frankfurt school. This seems highly unlikely, given that it can better be characterised as an unthinking response to technology, or rather the taken-for-granted attitude. 

The second view of technology is characterised as ‘Social Determinism’. This view positions technology as integrated into social and cultural structures. Educators who hold this view take an interest in how those structures then shape the discourses of the subject matter and the method of instruction. The deterministic aspect of this view is that technology is inextricably a part of the underlying ‘law’ that states humans cannot create tools independent of a historically-situated culture and society.

The third view is that of ‘Technological Determinism’. Kanuka describes this view as positioning technology as the causal agent that determines the form in which it is used and which itself brings about change in society.  She states that the origin of this view is from a Marxist analysis of class structure. Many proponents hold the view that technology is eroding freedoms and serving the interest of a minority group. This view is characterised as negative, but seems to be made up of left wing political critiques on the uses that technology may be put to – rather than any inherently deterministic view of technology itself. 

Considered together, these views of technology are based wholly on what Malcolm Knowles describes as the ‘Elemental model’ of the world (Knowles, Holton & Swanson 2005). This is characterised as understanding the world as composed of discrete elements that operate in a chain-like system where prediction of outcomes is possible. What is missing is the ‘Holistic model’, where for the purposes of this discussion, human technology is part of a unified, interactive and developing organism (Knowles, Holton & Swanson 2005). In this view, there would be no determinism, but an understanding of an integrated view of technology comparable to the gestalt view of human psychology and learning.

Ally, M (2004). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. Theory and practice of online learning, 2, pp. 15-44.

Draper, J. (1993) Valuing what we do as practitioners. In Barer-Stein, T., & Draper, J. (eds.) The craft of teaching adults. Pp. 55-67 Culture Concepts: Toronto

Kanuka, H. (2008). Understanding e-learning technologies-in-practice through philosophies-in-practice. The theory and practice of online learning, pp.91–118.

Knowles, M., Holton, E., Swanson, R. eds. (2005) The adult learner Elsevier: San Diego

Monahan, T (2005) Just another tool? IT pedagogy and the commodification of education. The urban review 36 (4) pp 271-292

Urmson, J & Ree, J. eds (1993) The concise encyclopaedia of western philosophy and philosophers Unwin: London