Learning technology as contested terrain: Insights from teaching academics and learning designers in Australian higher education

IF 3.3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Amos Zhiqiang Tay, H. Huijser, S. Dart, A. Cathcart
{"title":"Learning technology as contested terrain: Insights from teaching academics and learning designers in Australian higher education","authors":"Amos Zhiqiang Tay, H. Huijser, S. Dart, A. Cathcart","doi":"10.14742/ajet.8179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Learning and teaching is no longer the exclusive domain of teaching academics and is increasingly reliant on third-space professionals, in particular learning designers. The sharing of the design of the learning and teaching space is underlined by the increasing collaboration between teaching academics and learning designers. This qualitative study explores how these two key stakeholders understand learning technology, which is critical to shaping the teaching and learning process in contemporary higher education. Foucauldian discourse and power were employed as the theoretical lens to analyse semi-structured interviews with 12 teaching academics and 5 learning designers at a large Australian university. Although learning designers and teaching academics share a mutual interest in improving the learning and teaching process, the findings also revealed five discourses where practice was contested: centralisation, surveillance, institutional homogenisation, responsibility, and efficiency. This article calls for a new focus on the collaborative aspect of the learning design and teaching process that is constantly (re)negotiated between these two main stakeholders.\nImplications for practice or policy:\n\nTeaching academics and learning designers should develop practices that recognise the collaborative nature of learning technology in higher education.\nUniversities should develop practices and policies that reduce tensions within the five identified discourses of learning technology to ensure a more collaborative teaching academic-learning designer relationship.\n","PeriodicalId":47812,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Educational Technology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Educational Technology","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.8179","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Learning and teaching is no longer the exclusive domain of teaching academics and is increasingly reliant on third-space professionals, in particular learning designers. The sharing of the design of the learning and teaching space is underlined by the increasing collaboration between teaching academics and learning designers. This qualitative study explores how these two key stakeholders understand learning technology, which is critical to shaping the teaching and learning process in contemporary higher education. Foucauldian discourse and power were employed as the theoretical lens to analyse semi-structured interviews with 12 teaching academics and 5 learning designers at a large Australian university. Although learning designers and teaching academics share a mutual interest in improving the learning and teaching process, the findings also revealed five discourses where practice was contested: centralisation, surveillance, institutional homogenisation, responsibility, and efficiency. This article calls for a new focus on the collaborative aspect of the learning design and teaching process that is constantly (re)negotiated between these two main stakeholders. Implications for practice or policy: Teaching academics and learning designers should develop practices that recognise the collaborative nature of learning technology in higher education. Universities should develop practices and policies that reduce tensions within the five identified discourses of learning technology to ensure a more collaborative teaching academic-learning designer relationship.
作为竞争领域的学习技术:来自澳大利亚高等教育教学学者和学习设计师的见解
学习和教学不再是教学学者的专属领域,越来越依赖于第三空间的专业人士,特别是学习设计师。教学学者和学习设计师之间日益加强的合作强调了学习和教学空间设计的共享。本定性研究探讨了这两个关键利益相关者如何理解学习技术,这对塑造当代高等教育的教学过程至关重要。本研究以福柯话语和权力为理论视角,对澳大利亚一所大型大学的12位教学学者和5位学习设计师进行了半结构化访谈。尽管学习设计师和教学学者在改善学习和教学过程方面有着共同的兴趣,但研究结果也揭示了实践中存在争议的五个话语:集中化、监督、机构同质化、责任和效率。本文呼吁重新关注学习设计和教学过程的协作方面,这两个主要利益相关者之间经常(重新)协商。对实践或政策的启示:教学学者和学习设计师应该开发实践,认识到高等教育中学习技术的协作性质。大学应该制定实践和政策,减少五种已确定的学习技术话语之间的紧张关系,以确保更具协作性的教学、学术和学习设计师关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
7.30%
发文量
54
审稿时长
36 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信