Skip to main content

Counting on Use of Technology to Enhance Learning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Critical Learning in Digital Networks

Part of the book series: Research in Networked Learning ((RINL))

Abstract

In global policy documents, the language of Technology-Enhanced Learning (TEL) now firmly structures a perception of educational technology which ‘subsumes’ terms like Networked Learning and e-Learning. Embedded in these three words though is a deterministic, economic assumption that technology has now enhanced learning, and will continue to do so. In a market-driven, capitalist society this is a ‘trouble free’, economically focused discourse which suggests there is no need for further debate about what the use of technology achieves in learning. Yet this raises a problem too: if technology achieves goals for human beings, then in education we are now simply counting on ‘use of technology’ to enhance learning. This closes the door on a necessary and ongoing critical pedagogical conversation that reminds us it is people that design learning, not technology. Furthermore, such discourse provides a vehicle for those with either strong hierarchical, or neoliberal agendas to make simplified claims politically, in the name of technology. This chapter is a reflection on our use of language in the educational technology community through a corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). In analytical examples that are ‘loaded’ with economic expectation, we can notice how the policy discourse of TEL narrows conversational space for learning so that people may struggle to recognise their own subjective being in this language. Through the lens of Lieras’s externality, desubjectivisation and closure (Lieras, 1996) we might examine possible effects of this discourse and seek a more emancipatory approach. A return to discussing Networked Learning is suggested, as a first step towards a more multi-directional conversation than TEL, that acknowledges the interrelatedness of technology, language and learning in people’s practice. Secondly, a reconsideration of how we write policy for educational technology is recommended, with a critical focus on how people learn, rather than on what technology is assumed to enhance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakia, M., Mitchell, K., & Yang, E. (2007). State strategies and practices for educational technology: Volume I—Examining the enhancing education through technology program. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/netts/netts-vol1.doc

  • Ball, S. J. (1999). Labour, learning and the economy: A ‘policy sociology’ perspective. Cambridge Journal of Education, 29(2), 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28, 801–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayne, S. (2014). What’s wrong with ‘technology enhanced learning’? In Proceedings of the Networked Learning 2014 Conference, 7–9 April 2014, Edinburgh, Scotland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belland, J. (1991). Developing connoisseurship in educational technology. In D. Hlynka & J. C. Belland (Eds.), Paradigms regained: The uses of illuminative, semiotic, and postmodern criticism as modes of inquiry in educational technology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertelsen, E. (1998). The real transformation: The marketisation of higher education. Social Dynamics, 24(2), 130–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braudel, F. (1985). Civilization and capitalism 15th–18th century: The structures of everyday life—The limits of the possible (Vol. 1). London: William Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L., & Pedersen, O. K. (2001). The rise of neoliberalism and institutional analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1999). Profit over people—Neoliberalism and global order. New York: Seven Stories Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities. (2008). The use of ICT to support innovation and lifelong learning for all—A report on progress. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-programme/doc/sec2629.pdf

  • Crossouard, B. (2004). E-learning: As policy, as practice. Annual conference of the Association of Internet Researchers, September 2004, Sussex: University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, L. (2004). Internet research tracings: Towards non-reductionist methodology. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 9(3), 00. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00289.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vita, G., & Case, P. (2003). Rethinking the internationalisation agenda in UK higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(4), 383–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2008). The use of ICT to support innovation and lifelong learning for all—A report on progress. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2008/2629/COM_SEC(2008)2629_EN.pdf

  • European Commission. (2009). Educating Europe exploiting the benefits of ICT. Retrieved November 14, 2013, from http://cordis.europa.eu/ictresults/pdf/policyreport/INF%207%200100%20IST-R%20policy%20report-education_final.pdf

  • Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (2007). Global capitalism and change in higher education: Dialectics of language and practice, technology, ideology. In BAAL conference 2007, Edinburgh, Scotland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J., & Wodak, R. (2011). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies. A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 357–378). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1984). Power/knowledge. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, R. (1986). Linguistic criticism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2000). Communities of practice in the new capitalism. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 515–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1998). The third way. The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greener, I., & Perriton, L. (2005). The political economy of networked learning communities in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(1), 67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasan, R. (1998). The disempowerment game: Bourdieu and language in literacy. Linguistics and Education, 10, 25–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, S., & Bartholomew, P. (2015). Where’s the humanity? Challenging the policy discourse of technology enhanced learning. In C. Nygaard, J. Branch, & P. Bartholomew (Eds.), Technology enhanced learning in higher education. London: Libri Publishing (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higher Education Academy (2009). Transforming Higher Education through Technology Enhanced Learning. Retrieved 25 October 2013 from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/learningandtech/transforming_he_through_technology_enhanced_learning

  • Higher Education Funding Council for England (2009/12). Enhancing learning and teaching through the use of technology: A revised approach to HEFCE’s strategy for e-learning. Retrieved December 16, 2014, from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140702233839/http://hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce1/pubs/hefce/2009/0912/09_12.pdf

  • Hoedemækers, C., Loacker, B., & Pedersen, M. (2012). The commons and their im/possibilities. Ephemera, 12(4), 378–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hlynka, D., & Belland, J. C. (1991). Paradigms regained: The uses of illuminative, semiotic, and post-modern criticism as modes of inquiry in educational technology: A book of readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, R. (2000). The crisis of the national spatio-temporal fix and the ecological dominance of globalising capitalism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24, 273–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, R. (2008). The knowledge based economy. Naked Punch. Retrieved March 26, 2013, from http://www.nakedpunch.com

  • Joint Information Systems Committee. (2009). Effective practice in a digital age. Retrieved December 10, 2013, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/programmerelated/2009/effectivepracticedigitalage.aspx

  • Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) (2010). Transformation through technology: Illustrating JISC’s impact across two decades. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/general/2010/impact2010final.pdf

  • Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) (2012). JISC Strategy 2010–2012. Retrieved 25 October from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/aboutus/strategy/strategy1012/context.aspx

  • Jones, C. (2001). Do technologies have politics? The new paradigm and pedagogy in networked learning. In Technology, pedagogy and politics—What next?, 3–6 May 2001, Calgary, CA. Retrieved 11th Nov, 2013, from http://oro.open.ac.uk/33381/

  • Jones, C., & Steeples, C. (2002). Networked learning: Perspectives and issues. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lash, S. (2002). Critique of information. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2002). There is no information, only transformation: An interview with Bruno Latour. In G. Lovink (Ed.), Uncanny networks: Dialogues with the virtual intelligentsia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking teaching for the knowledge society. Educause Review, 37(1), 16–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (2002). Aircraft stories: Decentering the object in technoscience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lieras, E. (1996). Is it possible to develop an emancipatory approach to technology? Systematic Practice and Action Research, 9(4), 333–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littlejohn, A., & Higgison, C. (2003). A guide for teachers. Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN). Retrieved December 16, 2014, from https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/its/lt/elearning/ELN063.pdf

  • Lukács, G. (1971). History and class consciousness. London: Merlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luppicini, R. (2005). A systems definition of educational technology in society. Educational Technology & Society, 8(3), 103–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K. (1867). Capitalism and the modern labour process (from Capital, vol. 1, Ch. 7). In R. Scharff & V. Dusek (Eds.), Philosophy of technology: The technological condition, an anthology. Oxford, England: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D. (2013). Vocabularies of the economy. Soundings, 54(54), 9–22. Retrieved October 14, 2013, from http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/soundings/contents.html

  • Matthewman, S. (2011). Technology and social theory. New York: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mautner, G. (2005). The entrepreneurial university: A discursive profile of a higher education buzzword. Critical Discourse Studies, 2(2), 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaren, P. (1994). Life in schools. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaren, P. (1995). Critical pedagogy and predatory culture. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLuhan, M. (2005). Understanding media: Lectures and interviews. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesthrie, R., Swann, J., Deumert, A., & Leap, W. L. (2009). Introducing sociolinguistics. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics: A word and some questions. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyle, K. (2010). Australian education review, building innovation: Learning with technologies. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=aer

  • Mulderrig, J. (2011). Manufacturing consent: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis of New Labour’s educational governance. Journal of Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(6), 562–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netz, R. (2004). Barbed wire: An ecology of modernity. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, R., & Allen-Brown, V. (1996). Critical theory and educational technology. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nygaard, C. (2015). Rudiments of a strategy for technology enhanced university learning. In C. Nygaard, J. Branch, & P. Bartholomew (Eds.), Technology enhanced learning in higher education. London: Libri Publishing (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Parchoma, G., & Keefer, J. M. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in technology enhanced/networked learning practices. In V. Hodgson, C. Jones, M. de Laat, D. McConnell, T. Ryberg, & P. Sloep (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference on networked learning 2012. Maastricht: Lancaster University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, M. (2004). The marketization of discourse about education in UK general election manifestos. Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 24(2), 245–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. J., & Jorgenson, M. W. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, L., & Kirkwood, A. (2010). Technology enhanced learning—where’s the evidence? In C. H. Steel, M. J. Keppell, P. Gerbic, & S. Housego (Eds.), Curriculum, technology & transformation for an unknown future. Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010. http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Price-concise.pdf

  • Scott, M. (1997). PC analysis of key words—and key key words. System, 25(2), 233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seargeant, P., & Erling, E. (2011). The discourse of “English as a language for international development”: Policy assumptions and practical challenges. In H. Coleman (Ed.), 25 Dreams and realities: Developing countries and the English language. London: British.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sennett, R. (2006). The culture of the new capitalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sezneva, O. (2007). We have never been German: The economy of digging in Russian Kaliningrad. In C. Calhoun & R. Sennett (Eds.), Practicing culture (pp. 13–34). Abingdon, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharples, M. (2005). Learning as conversation: Transforming education in the mobile age. In Proceedings of conference on seeing, understanding, learning in the mobile age. Budapest: Institute for Philosophical Research of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, M., & Masschelein, J. (2008). Our ‘will to learn’ and the assemblage of a learning apparatus. In A. Fejes & K. Nicoll (Eds.), Foucault and lifelong learning: Governing the subject. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, P., & Mayr, A. (2009). Language and power. Abingdon, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1937). The wealth of nations. New York: Modern Library. (Original work published 1776)

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, D. L. (2000). Toward a post-modern agenda in instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steeples, C., Jones, C., & Goodyear, P. (2002). Beyond e-learning: A future for networked learning (pp. 323–341). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, N. (2010). Education, neoliberalism and cultural citizenship: Living in ‘X Factor’ Britain. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(3), 341–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing functional grammar. London: Hodder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, G. (Ed.). (1991). Markets, hierarchies and networks: The coordination of social life. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorsen, D. E., & Lie, A. (2006). What is neoliberalism. Oslo: Department of Political Science, University of Oslo (Manuscript).

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Dept of Education. (2010). Office of Educational Technology, transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Retrieved December 12, 2012, from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf

  • Wajcman, J. (2002). Addressing technological change: The challenge to social theory. Current Sociology, 50(3), 347–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice, learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wikipedia. (2009). Human enhancement. Retrieved December 12, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_enhancement

  • Yeaman, A., Hlynka, D., Anderson, J., Damarin, S., & Muffoletto, R. (1996). Postmodern and poststructuralist theory. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 226–252). New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Hayes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hayes, S. (2015). Counting on Use of Technology to Enhance Learning. In: Jandrić, P., Boras, D. (eds) Critical Learning in Digital Networks. Research in Networked Learning. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13752-0_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics