Underlying structures of power in online learning: Lessons from early adopters
Underlying structures of power in online learning: Lessons from early adopters
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v9i2.499Keywords:
Forced transition, Power, Online learning, Community of Inquiry framework and early adoptersAbstract
This paper explores underlying power structures in an online learning environment through the lens of the community inquiry framework. By drawing on interview data from 22 students and 12 module leaders across three programmes at one higher education institution (HEI) in the UK, the study explores how technology enhances or inhibits cognitive presence, teaching presence, and social presence in an online learning environment. The results show that the pedagogical or psychological characteristics and approaches to online learning can enhance learners' experience or silence them, diminishing their experience in an online learning environment. This paper's core argument is that online learning occurs in a virtual space aided by 'technology' in which learners can access, engage, and interact within a community for a meaningful learning experience. However, a degree of bias can arise from the asymmetries of power underlying a technology-aided environment. This bias is shaped by 'access' to the online environment, 'skills, and expertise needed to take advantage of opportunities in the virtual environment, the nature of 'curriculum design' and module 'delivery plan' that determine learners' ability to become reflective autonomous learners. These biases have the potential to enhance or inhibit the student learning experience. The paper sets out what this means within the broader context of higher education policy and practice.
References
Adekola, J., Dale, V.H., Gardiner, K. and Fischbacher-Smith, M., 2017. Student transitions to blended learning: an institutional case study. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 5(2), pp.58-65.
Alea, L.A., Fabrea, M.F., Roldan, R.D.A. and Farooqi, A.Z., 2020. Teachers' Covid-19 awareness, distance learning education experiences and perceptions towards institutional readiness and challenges. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(6), pp.127-144.
Arbaugh, J.B., 2007. An empirical verification of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), pp.73-85.
Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M.S., 1962. Two faces of power. The American political science review, 56(4), pp.947-952.
Balacheff, N., Ludvigsen, S., De Jong, T., Lazonder, A., Barnes, S.A. and Montandon, L., 2009. Technology-enhanced learning. Berlin: Springer.
Branon, R.F. and Essex, C., 2001. Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education. TechTrends, 45(1), p.36.
Goodyear, P. and Retalis, S., 2010. Technology-enhanced learning. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 6.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), pp.77-101.
Carey, P., 2013. Student as co-producer in a marketised higher education system: A case study of students' experience of participation in curriculum design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(3), pp.250-260.
Cleveland-Innes, M., Gauvreau, S., Richardson, G., Mishra, S. and Ostashewski, N., 2019. Technology-Enabled learning and the benefits and challenges of using the Community of Inquiry theoretical framework. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 34(1), pp.1-18.
Deeley, S.J. and Bovill, C., 2017. Staff student partnership in assessment: enhancing assessment literacy through democratic practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), pp.463-477.
Dewey, J (1916) Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: MacMillan.
Elliott, I.C., Robson, I. and Dudau, A., 2020. Building student engagement through co-production and curriculum co-design in public administration programmes. Teaching Public Administration, p.0144739420968862.
Garrison, D.R., 2009. Communities of inquiry in online learning. In Encyclopedia of distance learning, Second edition (pp. 352-355). IGI Global.
Garrison, D.R., Cleveland-Innes, M. and Fung, T.S., 2010. Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The internet and higher Education, 13(1-2), pp.31-36.
Garcia, I, Noguera, I, Cortada-Pujol, M (2018) Students perspective on participation in a co-design process of learning scenarios. The Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change [Special Issue] 4(1). Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.21100/jeipc.v4i1.760.
Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T. and Archer, W., 1999. Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The internet and higher education, 2(2-3), pp.87-105.
Garrison, D.R. and Arbaugh, J.B., 2007. Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and higher education, 10(3), pp.157-172.
Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T. and Archer, W., 2010. The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The internet and higher education, 13(1-2), pp.5-9.
Goodman J. and Carmichael F. (2020). US election 2020: 'Rigged' votes, body doubles and other false claims. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54562611. Access date: 19/02/2021
Healey, M, Flint, A, Harrington, K (2014) Engagement Through Partnership: Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. York: The Higher Education Academy.
Henriksen, D., Creely, E. and Henderson, M., 2020. Folk pedagogies for teacher transitions: Approaches to synchronous online learning in the wake of COVID-19. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), pp.201-209.
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. and Bond, A., 2020. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause review, 27, pp.1-12.
Imsa-ard, P., 2020. Thai university students' perceptions towards the abrupt transition to ''forced'online learning in the COVID-19 situation. Journal of Education Khon Kaen University, 43(3), pp.30-44.
Jarvis, J., Dickerson, C. and Stockwell, L., 2013. Staff-student partnership in practice in higher education: the impact on learning and teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, pp.220-225.
Jones-Devitt, S, Austen, L, Chitwood, L, et al. (2017) Creation and confidence: BME students as academic partners – but where were the staff? The Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change 3(1): 278–285.
Kirkwood, A. and Price, L., 2014. Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is '''enhanced' and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, media, and technology, 39(1), pp.6-36.
Kovanovic, V.; Joksimovic,S.; Poquet, O.; Hennis, T,; de Vries, P.; Hatala, M.; Dawson, S. Siemens, G. and Gasevic (2019) Examining Communities of Inquiry in Massive Open Online Cpurses: The role of study strategies. The Internet and Higher Education 20 20-43.
Little, S. ed., 2010. Staff-student partnerships in higher education. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Lukes, S., 2004. Power: A radical view. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Mpungose, C.B., 2020. Emergent transition from face-to-face to online learning in a South African University in the context of the Coronavirus pandemic. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), pp.1-9.
Rovai, A.P., 2003. Strategies for grading online discussions: Effects on discussions and classroom community in Internet-based university courses. Journal of Computing in higher Education, 15(1), pp.89-107.
Stenbom, S. A systematic review of the Community of Inquiry survey. The Internet and Higher Education 39 (2018) 22-32.
The Economic Times (2021). In silencing President Donald Trump, Twitter and Facebook show who's boss. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/in-silencing-president-donald-trump-twitter-and-facebook-show-whos-boss/articleshow/80197232.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst. Access date: 19/02/2021.
Twigg, C. (2003): Models of online learning. https://blendedtoolkit.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/twigg.pdf. Access date: 23 January 2020.
Zalite, G.G. and Zvirbule, A., 2020. Digital readiness and competitiveness of the EU higher education institutions: The COVID-19 pandemic impact. Emerging Science Journal, 4(4), pp.297-304.
Alea, L.A., Fabrea, M.F., Roldan, R.D.A. and Farooqi, A.Z., 2020. Teachers' Covid-19 awareness, distance learning education experiences and perceptions towards institutional readiness and challenges. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(6), pp.127-144.
Arbaugh, J.B., 2007. An empirical verification of the community of inquiry framework. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(1), pp.73-85.
Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M.S., 1962. Two faces of power. The American political science review, 56(4), pp.947-952.
Balacheff, N., Ludvigsen, S., De Jong, T., Lazonder, A., Barnes, S.A. and Montandon, L., 2009. Technology-enhanced learning. Berlin: Springer.
Branon, R.F. and Essex, C., 2001. Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education. TechTrends, 45(1), p.36.
Goodyear, P. and Retalis, S., 2010. Technology-enhanced learning. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 6.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), pp.77-101.
Carey, P., 2013. Student as co-producer in a marketised higher education system: A case study of students' experience of participation in curriculum design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(3), pp.250-260.
Cleveland-Innes, M., Gauvreau, S., Richardson, G., Mishra, S. and Ostashewski, N., 2019. Technology-Enabled learning and the benefits and challenges of using the Community of Inquiry theoretical framework. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 34(1), pp.1-18.
Deeley, S.J. and Bovill, C., 2017. Staff student partnership in assessment: enhancing assessment literacy through democratic practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), pp.463-477.
Dewey, J (1916) Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: MacMillan.
Elliott, I.C., Robson, I. and Dudau, A., 2020. Building student engagement through co-production and curriculum co-design in public administration programmes. Teaching Public Administration, p.0144739420968862.
Garrison, D.R., 2009. Communities of inquiry in online learning. In Encyclopedia of distance learning, Second edition (pp. 352-355). IGI Global.
Garrison, D.R., Cleveland-Innes, M. and Fung, T.S., 2010. Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The internet and higher Education, 13(1-2), pp.31-36.
Garcia, I, Noguera, I, Cortada-Pujol, M (2018) Students perspective on participation in a co-design process of learning scenarios. The Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change [Special Issue] 4(1). Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.21100/jeipc.v4i1.760.
Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T. and Archer, W., 1999. Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The internet and higher education, 2(2-3), pp.87-105.
Garrison, D.R. and Arbaugh, J.B., 2007. Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and higher education, 10(3), pp.157-172.
Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T. and Archer, W., 2010. The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The internet and higher education, 13(1-2), pp.5-9.
Goodman J. and Carmichael F. (2020). US election 2020: 'Rigged' votes, body doubles and other false claims. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54562611. Access date: 19/02/2021
Healey, M, Flint, A, Harrington, K (2014) Engagement Through Partnership: Students as Partners in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. York: The Higher Education Academy.
Henriksen, D., Creely, E. and Henderson, M., 2020. Folk pedagogies for teacher transitions: Approaches to synchronous online learning in the wake of COVID-19. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 28(2), pp.201-209.
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T. and Bond, A., 2020. The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause review, 27, pp.1-12.
Imsa-ard, P., 2020. Thai university students' perceptions towards the abrupt transition to ''forced'online learning in the COVID-19 situation. Journal of Education Khon Kaen University, 43(3), pp.30-44.
Jarvis, J., Dickerson, C. and Stockwell, L., 2013. Staff-student partnership in practice in higher education: the impact on learning and teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, pp.220-225.
Jones-Devitt, S, Austen, L, Chitwood, L, et al. (2017) Creation and confidence: BME students as academic partners – but where were the staff? The Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership and Change 3(1): 278–285.
Kirkwood, A. and Price, L., 2014. Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is '''enhanced' and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, media, and technology, 39(1), pp.6-36.
Kovanovic, V.; Joksimovic,S.; Poquet, O.; Hennis, T,; de Vries, P.; Hatala, M.; Dawson, S. Siemens, G. and Gasevic (2019) Examining Communities of Inquiry in Massive Open Online Cpurses: The role of study strategies. The Internet and Higher Education 20 20-43.
Little, S. ed., 2010. Staff-student partnerships in higher education. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Lukes, S., 2004. Power: A radical view. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Mpungose, C.B., 2020. Emergent transition from face-to-face to online learning in a South African University in the context of the Coronavirus pandemic. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), pp.1-9.
Rovai, A.P., 2003. Strategies for grading online discussions: Effects on discussions and classroom community in Internet-based university courses. Journal of Computing in higher Education, 15(1), pp.89-107.
Stenbom, S. A systematic review of the Community of Inquiry survey. The Internet and Higher Education 39 (2018) 22-32.
The Economic Times (2021). In silencing President Donald Trump, Twitter and Facebook show who's boss. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/business/in-silencing-president-donald-trump-twitter-and-facebook-show-whos-boss/articleshow/80197232.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst. Access date: 19/02/2021.
Twigg, C. (2003): Models of online learning. https://blendedtoolkit.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/twigg.pdf. Access date: 23 January 2020.
Zalite, G.G. and Zvirbule, A., 2020. Digital readiness and competitiveness of the EU higher education institutions: The COVID-19 pandemic impact. Emerging Science Journal, 4(4), pp.297-304.
Downloads
Published
2021-08-05
Issue
Section
Original Research
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice has made best effort to ensure accuracy of the contents of this journal, however makes no claims to the authenticity and completeness of the articles published. Authors are responsible for ensuring copyright clearance for any images, tables etc which are supplied from an outside source.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
