The Future of Online Teaching and Learning and an Invitation to Debate



This chapter opens by re-visiting the social and economic context of UK higher education, a context dominated by globalisation, new liberalism and competition, but also shaped by the opportunities associated with digital learning. It revisits theories of pedagogy and issues arising from the chapters focusing particularly on: online forums in teaching, developing a learning community through digital technology and by analysing how such technology shapes the identity of teachers. Finally, it argues that despite constraints, challenges and work intensification, technologies are an important resource within Higher Education, increasing access and broadening reach whilst also contributing to the formal and informal education of citizens and positively contributing to the creation of critical publics – publics with the capacity to challenge established social norms and centres of power.


e-learning TEL Neoliberalism Criticality Online teaching Pedagogy 


  1. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Special Issue, 12(3), 80–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azevdo, C. (2017) Through the looking-glass: An exploration of students’ discourse within the managerialised university (Unpublished MRes dissertation). The Open University Business School.Google Scholar
  3. Baxter, J. (2012). The impact of professional learning on the teaching identities of higher education lecturers. European Journal of Open, Distance and E Learrning 2012:II [Online]. Accessed 23 Mar 2017.
  4. Baxter, J., & Haycock, J. (2013). Roles and student identities in online large course forums: Implications for practice. International Review of Open and Distance Learning, 15(1), 20–40.Google Scholar
  5. Bayne, S. et al. (2014). Manifesto for teaching online, digital education at the University of Edinburgh. Accessed 6 Nov 2017.
  6. Boitshwarelo, B. (2011). Proposing an integrated research framework for connectivism: Utilising theoretical synergies. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 161–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brerton, L., & Vesoodaven, V. (2010). The impact of the NHS market. Civitas, Accessed 2 Nov 2017.
  8. Burke, P. J., & Reitzes, D. C. (1981). The link between identity and role performance. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Callaghan, G., Fribbance, I., & Higginson, M. (Eds.). (2012). Personal finance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan/ The Open University.Google Scholar
  10. Chaplea, C. (2006). Barriers to brand building in UK universities. International Journal of non-profit and voluntary sector marketing, 12(1), 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duemer, L., Fontenot, D., Gumfory, K., Kallus, M., Larsen, J. A., Schafer, S., & Shaw, B. (2002). The use of online synchronous discussion groups to enhance community formation and professional identity development. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1(2), 1–12.Google Scholar
  12. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frey, C.B., & Osborne, M.A. (2013). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerization (Working paper). University of Oxford. Accessed 2 Nov 2017.
  14. Hamilton, M. (2017). Loving the alien: Robots and AI in education In Digifest conference. Accessed 2 Nov 2017.
  15. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing (pp. 117–136). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hutton, W. (1995). The state we’re in. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
  17. Hutton, W. (2015). How good we can be: Ending the mercenary society and building a great country. London, US: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  18. Illeris, K. (Ed.). (2009). Contemporary theories of learning : Learning theorists in their own words. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Irvine, V., Code, J., & Richards, L. (2013). Realigning higher education for the 21st century learner through multi-access learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 172.Google Scholar
  20. Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., & Schneider, E. (2013). Deconstructing disengagement: Analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the third international conference on learning analytics and knowledge (pp. 170–179). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rheingold, H. (2012). Net smart: How to thrive online. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Riding, R. J., & Sadler-Smith, E. (1997). Cognitive style and learning strategies: Some implications for training design. International Journal of Training and Development, 1(3), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sappey, J., & Relf, S. (2010). Digital technology education and its impact on traditional academic roles and practice. Journal of university teaching and learning practice, 7(1), 3.Google Scholar
  24. Schreurs, B., et al. (2014). An investigation into social learning activities by practitioners in open educational practices. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(4), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scott, J. (2000). Rational choice theory. Understanding contemporary society: Theories of the present 129.Google Scholar
  26. Skinner, B. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  27. Stefani, L. (2017). Realizing the potential for creativity. In L. S. Watts & P. Blessinger (Eds.), Creative learning in higher education: International perspectives and approaches (pp. 196–209). New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Tomlinson, M. (2014). Exploring the impact of policy changes on the student approaches and attitudes to learning in contemporary higher education: Implications for student learning engagement, Higher Education Academy.
  29. UK Government. (2017). Student finance. Accessed 2 Nov 2017.
  30. Veletsianos, G. (2016). Social media in academia: networked scholars. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Weinbren, D. (2014). The Open University: A history. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Weller, M. (2011). The Digital Scholar: How Technology is transforming academic practice, Bloomsbury Open Access. Accessed 7 July 2016.
  33. Weller, M. (2013). The battle for open – a perspective. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, (3). Accessed 24 June 2016.
  34. Weller, M. (2015). Open education Europe, Summary. Accessed 4 Nov 2017.
  35. Wenger, E. C. (2008). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity (18th Printing, first published 1998). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: The career of a concept. Accessed 9 Sept 2016.
  37. Wenger, E. C., & Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Williams, R. (1989). Resources of hope. London: Verso.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsOpen UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  2. 2.Department of Public Leadership and Social EnterpriseOpen UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  3. 3.School of PsychologyOpen UniversityMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations