Category Archives: Uncategorized

McLuhan (1977) stated that “all man’s artefacts […] are extensions of the physical human body” (p.175). Applied to the blackboard, this statement suggests that, originally, the blackboard allowed teachers and students to display semi-permanently and to share the information that was relevant to them at that specific point in time.

Fast forward 40 years, scholars such as Toohey argue that “people, practices and things [are] continually in relation, under construction and changing together” (2018, p. 29). This new materialism shifts educational researchers and practitioners’ inquiries from “how does this work?” to much more dynamic questions such as “what is this tool becoming?” and “how are we, as humans, and our non-human tools, entangled?” In other words, new materialism studies matter not for what it is (its essence), but for what it does and its capacities to act and affect (its agency) (Monforte, 2018). Furthermore, this framework explores how the entanglement of human and non-human entities co-creates and influences each other’s agencies (Hill, 2017).

In an educational context, it suggests that the tools we bring into our learning environments are not inert objects. Rather, they have the power and agency to mediate numerous interactions: student-to-student, student-to-teacher, student-to-material, and teacher-to-material relationships can all be altered by the types of objects (e.g. table & chairs, blackboard & interactive whiteboards, tablets & computers, molecular models & representations) present in our learning spaces. For instance, teachers used more open-ended questions and students’ participation quality and quantity increased after interactive whiteboard was installed in primary classrooms (Murcia & Sheffield, 2010). This is an example of how the presence of a technology – and its intra-actions – positioned both learners and teachers as dynamic entities whose vision of the world expanded while living within this material environment.

A historical review of the use of the blackboard in our classrooms also nicely highlights how a new materialistic framework expands our understanding of the intra-actions of educational technology onto our societies. James Pillan, a UK geography teacher, is credited for the invention of the blackboard in the early 1800s. From that point onward, the blackboard provided an economical, user-friendly, and well-accepted educational tool (Wylie, 2012). This arguably opened the door to 1) the provision of universal elementary education in the UK in 1870 and 2) to the standardization of English education. Recently, Charteris and colleagues (2017) argued that the promotion of innovative learning environments (ILEs) in New Zealand is brought upon by the pressures exerted by knowledge economy. Similarly, the blackboard carried considerable political power and agency as it facilitated massification of education at a time where the industrial revolution required a large influx of scholarized workers. This nicely illustrates how humans and non-humans are entangled and co-create each other’s agencies, a fundamental pillar of new materialism (Hill, 2017).

References

Charteris, J., Smardon, D., & Nelson, E. (2017). Innovative learning environments and new materialism: A conjunctural analysis of pedagogic spaces. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49:8, 808-821.

Hill, C. (2017). More-than-reflective practice: Becoming a diffractive practitioner. Teacher Learning and Professional Development, 2(1): 1-17.

McLuhan, M. (197). Laws of the media. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 34(2): 173-9.

Monforte, J. (2018). What is new in new materialism for a newcomer? Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 10(3): 378-90.

Murcia, K., Sheffield, R. (2010). Talking about science in interactive whiteboard classrooms. Australasian Journal of Education Technology, 26 (4): 417-31.

Toohey, K. (2018). New materialism and language learning. In Toohey, K. (Ed.) Learning English at school: Identity, socio-material relations and classroom practice. (Chapter 2). Multilingual Matters: Bristol.

Wylie, C. D. (2012). Teaching manuals and the blackboard: accessing historical classroom practices. History of Education: Journal of the History of Education Society, 41(2), 257-272.

Peter Taylor’s 1996 writings on the pedagogical challenges facing online learning find a strange contemporary relevance since covid forced a large majority of post-secondary courses to migrate to online delivery. Central to Taylor’s thesis (1996) is that online learning disrupts the “taken-for-granted” interactions between the material and social aspects of education. In many ways, University-based instruction is still seen in a traditional light where knowledge is built socially, via discussions and interactions amongst students and scholars – a vision of education that is also very prevalent in most Harry Potter series (Johnson, 2015), except for the unfortunate encounter with Dolores Umbridge. This sociality involves reciprocal communications – and thus, some level of shared power – between learners and teachers. Furthermore, Taylor (1996) illustrates that sociality, typically relegated to the periphery of scholars’ attention, is actually crucial to the central mission of higher education.  He then argues that online learning disrupts these social conventions, consequently impeding the educational process of knowledge building and sharing. In his words, “what was once border [social aspects of learning] now becomes centre.” (Taylor, 1996, p.76).

Some online learning supporters have suggested that virtual learning environments are, by design, necessarily more student-centered than face-to-face instruction. To those, Taylor (1996) responds that, to the contrary, the shift to online learning has reinforced a “curriculum-centered” educational approach at least in part because the context in which education takes place has not been thoroughly considered in pedagogical decisions. This content vs. context dichotomy is clearly represented in Dolores Umbridge’s approach to Defence against the dark arts teaching. Indeed, it is clear that she and the Ministry of Magic endorse a “risk-free” and content-heavy approach to education:

“Using defensive spells? […] Well, I can’t imagine any situation arising in my classroom that would require you to use a defensive spell, Miss Granger.” (Rowling, 2003, p. 218)

However, their theoretical and disembodied method fails to take into consideration the out-of-school environment in which students live: one where the dark arts are alive and gaining strength. This anxiolytic context – not too different from a global pandemic, really – clearly influences students’ interests, motivations, and social interactions. Yet, these students’ characteristics are sadly ignored at the expense of teacher-centred methods dictated by “Ministry-trained educational experts” (Rowling, 2003, p.218). As a result, the learning outcomes and methods described by Dolores Umbridge definitely “offer students an impoverished world stripped of social and cultural support” (p.69), one of Taylor’s (1996) main fears with regard to virtual learning.

Taylor (1996) also highlights that students’ autonomy, a critical aspect of academic success, has traditionally been supported by informal – almost invisible – social interactions between students and instructors. This status quo has obviously been shaken up with the recent pandemic and I personally witness students who are disproportionately anxious, overwhelmed, disoriented, and lonely compared to previous cohorts. Let’s be clear: I believe that many students are adequately equipped to navigate the demands and expectations of online learning. However, I think at-risk students are more alienated and isolated than they previously were. Similarly, I also feel increasingly powerless to adequately guide these students due to increased workload and the constraints of online communication. In other words, the ever-expanding need for personal, sensitive, and timely communication is in direct conflict with the limited human and technical resources currently available to online teachers. Put together, this discordance aligns with Taylor’s (1996) fears that, under the current conditions, online learning disrupts social tissues in higher education, puts additional pressures on both students and instructors, and thus may negatively affect the educational experience and outcomes.

References

Johnson, M. C. (2015). Wands or Quills? Lessons in Pedagogy from Harry Potter. In CEA Forum 44, 2, 75-91. College English Association.

Rowling, J.K. (2003). Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Vancouver: Raincoast Books.

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 (pp.59-77). New York: Peter Lang.

This 4th intellectual production compares and contrasts clickers and textbooks and their effects on learners-teachers communications and relationships.

References

Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9-20.

Draper, S. W. (1998). Niche-based success in CAL. Computers & Education, 30(1-2), 5-8.

Frank, A. W. (1995). Lecturing and transference: The undercover work of pedagogy. Pedagogy: The question of impersonation, 28-35.

Jagušt, T., Botički, I., & So, H. J. (2018). Examining competitive, collaborative and adaptive gamification in young learners’ math learning. Computers & education, 125, 444-457.

Olson, D. (1980). On the Language and Authority of Textbooks. Journal of Communication 30, 1, 186–196.

Watt, I. (1964). The Seminar. Higher Education Quaterly, 18, 369-389.

References

McLuhan, M. (1977). Laws of the media. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 34(2), 173-179.

Ressler, S. J. (2004). Whither the chalkboard? Case for a low-tech tool in a high-tech world, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 130(2), 71-73.

San Martin, J., & Veyrunes, P. (2015). Appropriation du tableau noir et expérience corporelle: le cas d’une enseignante de primaire au Chili. Recherches & Éducations, 13, 41-58.

Wylie, C. D. (2012). Teaching manuals and the blackboard: accessing historical classroom practices. History of Education: Journal of the History of Education Society, 41(2), 257-272. doi: 10.1080/0046760X.2011.584573

The field of media ecology examines the complex interactions between modes of information and communication, the technologies that allow them, and their effects on human feelings, behaviors, and thoughts (Lum, 2000). Including the term “ecology” is not fortuitous, it directly reflects that media create environments that constrain how we communicate, how we behave, how we think. Akin to “biological environments” that shape how living organisms survive and strive, “media environments” carry unique affordances that mold how the human race interact through and within this ecosystem.

Extending this concept to education, educational media ecology would be the interdisciplinary study and critical exploration of the relationships that exist between learning environments and the culture, communication, cognitive, behavioral and affective processes that take place within this context (Figure 1). Indeed, meaningful learning occurs through a series of two-way interactions between learner-content, learner-peers, and learner-instructor. The nature, quality, and quantity of these interactions are influenced by the affordances of the media through which they occur. Practically, this means that humans interact differently based on the environment in which the communication occurs. While “learning environments” are clearly not restricted to virtual spaces, the recent covid-19-induced shift towards online learning and working provided several examples of this phenomenon within technology-mediated learning environments. For instance, differences in engagement and motivation were obvious between meetings where videos were activated compared to those where only audio was shared. In my own experience, the former sparked more valuable discussions while the latter increased multi-tasking and reduced interest. This is a prime example of educational media ecology focusing on the effects of the media rather than its internal structures (Mumford, as stated in Lum & Strate, 2000).

In return, the quality and quantity of interactions that technology-mediated learning environments promote further affect how humans feel, think and behave (Figure 1). Indeed, the very nature of the technology affects learners’ affective, behavioral and cognitive processes that are central to the learning process. This aligns well with Lum’s (2000) description of media where he argued that diverging symbolic and physical media forms ultimately carry epistemological biases. In other words, the learning environment that media create directly affects how knowledge is accessed, created, and disseminated.

Other crucial features that emerged from this week’s readings is Mumford’s belief in human’s agency and responsibility in creating, shaping and regulating what technology-mediated environments are and are allowed to do (Lum & State, 2000). This highlights the obligation we have, as learners and educators, not only to be critically aware of the inherent biases brought upon by the learning environments we use and create, but also to explicitly assert our control over how media is established and developed.

References

Lum, C. M. K. (2000). Introduction: The intellectual roots of media ecology. New Jersey New Jersey Journal of Communication, 8:1, 1-7, DOI: 1080/15456870009367375

Strate, L., & Lum, C. M. K. (2000). Lewis Mumford and the ecology of technics. New Jersey Journal of Communication, 8:1, 56-78, DOI: 1080/15456870009367379