A posthumanist critique of flexible online learning and its “anytime anyplace” claims
Tóm tắt
Flexible approaches to online learning are gaining renewed interest in some part due to their capacity to address emergent opportunities and concerns facing higher education. Importantly, flexible approaches to online learning are purported to be democratizing and liberatory, broadening access to higher education and enabling learners to participate in educational endeavours at “anytime” from “anyplace.” In this paper, we critique such narratives by showing that flexibility is neither universal nor neutral. Using critical theory, we demonstrate how flexibility assumes imagined autonomous learners that are self‐reliant and individualistic. Through relevant examples, we show how such a framing to flexibility is oppressive, and argue that a contextual, relative and relational understanding of flexibility may in fact be more liberatory. Such an approach to flexibility, for example, may involve contextual and relational efforts to relax prescribed curricula within courses or programmes of study.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Barnett R., 2014, Conditions of flexibility: Securing a more responsive higher education system
Bates T., 2018, The 2017 national survey of online learning in Canadian post‐secondary education: Methodology and results, International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, 2
Betasamosake Simpson L., 2014, Land as pedagogy: Nishnaabeg intelligence and rebellious transformation, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 3, 1
Braidotti R., 2013, The posthuman
Daniel J., 1998, The knowledge web: Learning and collaborating on the net, 21
Evans T., 2000, Flexible learning, human resource and organizational development, 211
International Council for Distance Education, 1985, Flexible designs for learning: Report of the Thirteenth World Conference of ICDE
Jaschik S., 2013, Feminist anti‐MOOC, Inside Higher Ed
Kilkey M., 2001, Aspects of the experience of non‐traditional students at the University of Hull
LaCapra D., 2009, History and its limits: Human, animal, violence
Lowenthal P. R., 2011, The CU online handbook, 9
Massey D., 1994, Space, place, and gender
McKenzie L., 2018, An elite online bachelor’s degree, Inside Higher Ed
Nixon R., 2013, Slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor
The Open University, 2018, Flexible education of the highest standard
Rose G., 1993, Feminism & geography: The limits of geographical knowledge
Ross J., 2013, Making distance visible: Assembling nearness in an online distance learning programme, IRRODL: The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14, 51, 10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1545
Russell C., 2005, Cultures within cultures: Canadian Aboriginal students’ experiences in online learning communities
Samuels E., 2017, Six ways of looking at crip time, Disability Studies Quarterly: The First Journal in the Field of Disability Studies, 37, 10.18061/dsq.v37i3.5824
Seaman J. E., 2018, Grade increase: Tracking distance education in the United States
Serhan D., 2010, Online learning; Through their eyes, International Journal of Instructional Media, 37, 19
Snaza N., 2014, Toward a posthumanist education, Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 30, 39
Tuck E., 2012, Decolonization is not a metaphor, Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1, 1
University of British Columbia, 2018, Flexible learning at UBC
University of Wisconsin‐Madison, 2018, UW flexible option
Veletsianos G., 2017, The rise of educational technology as a sociocultural and ideological phenomenon, Educause Review
Watkins C., 2016, Lifelong learning and the future of work, Udacity