Open learning through an online platform presents a great potential for developing independence in students and foster a pattern of life-long learning. Taylor contends that open learning, by encouraging independence, makes it “more likely to contribute to the development of these capacities and expectations.” (1996, p. 61). While excellent in theory, Taylor quotes Thorpe that the adoption of open learning is being pressured “to achieve ambitious, publicly announced targets on both student numbers and qualifications, and with efficiency gains.” (1996, 62).
This push to online learning creates challenges as educators seek to “develop ‘border resources’ which allow for educationally appropriate uses of artifacts, rather than with the de-contextualized development of those artifacts as material technologies.” (Taylor, 1996, p. 59) Taylor further contends that online learning provides “an impoverished ‘virtual’ world stripped of the social and cultural support provided through body-to-body interactions, and of opportunities for learning through […] legitimate peripheral participation.” (1996, pg. 69). This matches Umbridge’s course description where students follow “a carefully structured, theory-centered, Ministry-approved course of defensive magic” (Rowling, 2003, pg. 239). I believe COVID has driven education to a hasty adoption of open learning en masse which has led many classes to become “a teacher-centred process, [which], tends to position students as powerless and dependent” (Taylor, 1996, pg. 71), negating open learning’s strength as a pedagogical construct. In the Umbridge Approach information is delivered in a top-down model where students are told that “[w]izards much older and cleverer than you have devised our new program of study. You will be learning about defensive spells in a secure, risk-free way” (Rowling, 2003, p. 242). In an online platform bereft of social interactions and context I agree with Taylor’s argument that “[i]n this stripped-down form, open learning has tended to represent the educational process as essentially an information-into-mind process” (1996, pg. 69) which is leads to the need to “’reconstitute the authority’ of pedagogical practices within the context of open learning.” (Taylor, 1996, p. 69)
As an educator teaching both in person and online I found myself not entirely in agreement with Taylor’s statement that “[t]eachers know that their ‘authority’ rests with social conventions rather than with the artifact of a school, classroom, or other aspects of the technologies of their role.” (Taylor, 1996, p. 66) I would contend that the artifact of the classroom can play a substantial role in student success when it has been established as a safe learning environment. Johnson states how the learning environment, including “an instructor’s tone in the classroom, or the “course climate,” is just as important to student success as faculty expertise and active learning methods” (2015, p. 83).
I conflicted as to whether the massification of the MET program alters its value for me. I recognize the opportunities and new perspectives that arise interacting with people from different backgrounds/educations. There are times where I wonder if the value would be higher if the courses were able to focus on utilizing educational technology purely in a classroom setting…
Sources Cited:
Johnson, Melissa Carol. (2015). Wands Or Quills? Lessons In Pedagogy From Harry Potter. The CEA Forum. https://journals.tdl.org/ceaforum/index.php/ceaforum/article/view/7061
Rowling, J.K. (2003). Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Ch12 (excerpt)
Taylor, Peter G. (1996). Pedagogical challenges of open learning: Looking to borderline issues. In E. McWilliam & P.G. Taylor (eds) Pedagogy, Technology and the Body. New York: Peter Lang.