There is yet another growing body of research and academic literature on a topic that, while it attempts to rest in a practical realm, has proven of its own accord that it has little application in the real world of public education, online or otherwise. My argument for this contention lies in the patterns that are emerging from my exposure to the academic literature on the subject. These patterns reveal themselves in three distinct ways:

  1. Innovations in the design and delivery of teaching occur at a grass-roots level from the classroom in real life and from small “fringe” endeavours online using existing technologies in unconventional ways.
  2. The models and pedagogical theories that are being developed appear to be reverse-engineered. That is to say that they are borne out of observing existing practice and technologies rather than suggesting any new practice or technology be invented to improve learning/teaching.
  3. Pre-existing models and pedagogical theories and those that the author(s) describe and define as their own both support and refute each other as they are re-framed or reworded to suit the author’s intentions, but generally do not express any new ideas or insights that would bring fundamental change to online learning/teaching.

To the first point, as with most paradigm shifts in society, the beginnings of such change are difficult to pinpoint and are represented by a small group of individuals or even one person of whom the future scarcely looks back upon as having been ahead of their time.  The academic literature that has focused on educational technology does not reveal this first pattern well since it relies heavily on the collection of masses of data that reveal trends and cannot perceive the subtleties of grass-roots change and small-scale innovation.

Both the second and third patterns reveal a reactionary approach to the evolving realm of online, distributed, open education, and education in general. Scholars and researchers are constrained by the review and compulsory inclusion of previous academic literature. Their views are limited first by what is already out there in their field of interest and also by the application of the past in the hope of defending their theories which, in turn, creates a non-salient work of academic literature that at best calls for more research or for some action that has already taken place, only now in  another scholar’s light and under the examination and terminology of the scholar(s) who are obligated to publish research for their tenure.

To accept such a fundamental criticism of current trends in academic literature on education is difficult and requires a shift in perspective that has lain unchallenged over countless professional development seminars and workshops.  As practising teachers, we are too polite for our own good in this regard.  We dare not offend the generators of educational pedagogy whose credentials espouse an erudition far greater than our own. These are the experts after all.

It is essential to have a solid grounding in the practical experience of teaching in the public sector in order to truly appreciate how far removed the world of academia is from reality.  Public sector teaching is stressed here because it is in this less-affluent environment that the difference is most noticeable. However, the separation from the day-to-day life of real-world education is still an attractive endeavour for the thinker in all of us and this creates an internal conflict that can only be resolved by coming to terms with our own reality.

It is in this more philosophical light that academia shines brightest, for, without a practical philosophy, one cannot hope to make peace with one’s reality. Most will agree that more often than not we act according to our beliefs. As teachers in training,  we are exposed to many theories of learning and beliefs around psychological development. We allow them to stand as filters or lenses through which we see and reflect upon our experience, sometimes informing change to improve our craft. However, a great amount of caution needs to be applied in the acquisition of such theoretical knowledge as it can easily sway our perception of what has been a successful or disappointing teaching/learning experience from the reality that students experience.

The accumulation of ‘other’ knowledge can distort the reality of the teaching/learning experience and lead to unintended conclusions, misdirected intentions, and a false confidence that results in students who might mimic learning but do not retain their learning and might not develop a thirst for further learning. ‘Other‘ knowledge here is defined as a theoretical basis or understanding that is external to the teacher’s experience and has not arisen from personal illuminations made in the act of the teacher’s own teaching. Although, there is a whole branch of research methodologies that are based upon the researchers own practice and self-reflection, which is encouraging in the development of unique if not original philosophies and theories, even if it is highly personalized.

Yet, higher education is fertile with the tendency to accumulate ‘other’ knowledge.

Take, for example. the TPACK model of learning design, which is more useful to those who have not taught or who had to put their own knowledge and skills into an external framework because they have not spent enough time coming up with their own personalized learning design theory or because they were instructed to do so without questioning why.

TPCK or TPACK frameworks do not help the educator to learn how to operate synchronous software, LMS programs, virtual classroom softwares, etc..  They simply provide a framework for evaluation based on criteria that may or may not reflect the actual learning conditions. There is a gap between the academic theoretical work and the application of it in the literature due, perhaps, to keep separate the research from the software/technology development and their companies so as not appear to be “selling” a specific branded framework or model of delivery that would act as an advertisement for software developers or the like.

Online, distributed, and open learning exaggerates the challenges that today’s teacher faces. Not only are teachers asked to use methods of evaluating learning designs that are not their own, but they are also asked to become at least proficient in other roles, such as the seven listed in the 2019 Dublin City University (DCU) report titled “Teaching online is different: Critical perspectives from the literature.” This multi-skilled expectation might present issues of maintenance and design adaptations when online courses are being delivered by one facilitator/teacher/professor left to their own devices, as has been our cohort’s experience where a professor was having to learn synchronous and asynchronous software on-the-fly.  There was no time to “test drive” and certainly no time to reflect on the learning and use of the new learning design elements.

Reflection on teaching causes subtle change within practice over long periods of time and does not lend itself well to measurable results, especially when teachers are forced to adapt to new softwares quickly such as reporting tools, Learning Management Systems (LMSs), etc., often brought down by administration without adequate in-service time. This frames the basis for much of the research literature on education practices and usually does not reveal substantively positive results that change teachers’ practical philosophies and pedagogies. Empathizing with our cohort’s professor who faced these challenges was easy. Not only have I experienced an ultimatum to use new software without in-service training, but I have also read studies where conclusions revealed that teachers experienced great difficulty adopting to learning designs employed by the research to the detriment of the studies’ results.

I continue to develop much of my own teaching content, mixing designs as the culture of learning continues to evolve, but looking at various online courses, many are designed to fit more traditional pedagogies with little consideration for the collaboration, collective learning, and student-centred models that the British Columbia (BC) curriculum encourages. The BC curriculum itself gives little practical guidance in the direction of collaborative and collective learning. To governing administrations, the intrinsic value of ongoing teacher preparation in the face of evolving learning cultures is greatly lacking. The autonomy of instruction at the post-secondary level lends an environment that lacks a collective view of student-teachers’ learning needs. However, this may be symptomatic of a larger phenomenon. Education is in constant flux and the institutions that train teachers are just as susceptible as working teachers. During my own teacher training, the university taught elements of a new curriculum developed from a ministry report called Year 2000, much of which was abandoned, but much, too, that has been reincarnated in the current new curriculum.

Time and availability for professional development is beyond the control of teachers, especially at the public school level. At the higher education level, the results of a study on novice vs. expert teachers reflects how out of touch higher education is in training new teachers for the workplace and giving them the proper tools to be confident using and adapting new technology.

Many teaching environments are blended which complicates mirroring such modality during professional development, especially when trying to teach/learn online only in an authentic way. Students and teachers both most often prepare and “set up” their online environments with hands-on help to transition from In Real Life (IRL) to online and back again. The final reflection page from DCU’s report is a somewhat biblical reference. One single simplified page to conclude a 43-page article that lists the roles, competencies, and effective delivery methods of online educators describes in no way differently the roles, competencies, and delivery methods of today’s blended and inclusive classroom teacher.

Open educational practices and learning design have been influenced then, by an overpowering body of research that admits there is some resistance to teach online. Teachers have a “lack of understanding of pedagogies and learning theories in online education, professional development is essential in helping educators engage in online pedagogies.” (as cited by Ní Shé, C et al. 2019). As previously explained, this resistance may actually be caused by the externally applied pedagogies and learning theories which are essentially old reworded ideas that are seen no differently when placed in more traditional contexts such as classrooms and end up giving little cause for any action to be taken. What is viewed as resistance is simply a reluctance to reinvent the wheel. This illustrates a conflict between scholar and practitioner that with a paradigm shift in awareness of the patterns discussed here might help to build a new direction for training teachers to be equipped with the deeper tools and soft skills needed for teaching in the new century, acknowledging the unpredictability of popularized pedagogies.

References

Conle, G. (2018). Learning design and open education. International Journal of Open Education Resources. Retrieved from https://www.ijoer.org/learning-design-and-open-education_doi-10-18278-ijoer-1-1-6/

Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M., Seale, J. (2004). Mapping pedagogy and tools for learning design. Computers and Education. 43:1-2. pp. 7-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2003.12.08

Kilian, Crawford. (2011). The Last Time We Had an Education Commission. The Tyee. Retrieved from: https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/03/09/LastEducationCommission/

Ní Shé, C., Farrell, O., Brunton, J., Costello, E., Donlon, E., Trevaskis, S., Eccles, S. (2019). Teaching online is different: critical perspectives from the literature. Dublin: Dublin City University. Doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3479402