EDTECH 522 - Mod 2: Reflection on Readings

img src

For this module, we read a number of articles on course management systems (CMSs) and course quality guidelines, supplemented by sections from Ko and Rossen's Teaching Online: A Practical Guide. We were then encouraged to pick a topic or two that we found interesting and write about it. What follows is my reaction to Lisa Lane's paper "Insidious pedagogy: How course management systems impact pedagogy" (2009), specifically a reaction to the concept of "neutral" technology.

Is Neutrality Possible and What are the Implications?

I thought Lane’s (2009) paper on how course management systems (CMSs) impact teaching brought up a number interesting points about neutrality in technological design. She states “we would like to believe that technologies are neutral,” as though somehow the tool(s) are free of any bias or preference (p. 2). However, as she continues, “the fact that each technology had a specific purpose implies a goal in its design, an objective that limited or even determined its use” (p. 2). Therefore, it's notable that the people involved in the development of the tool will have their own ideas about how to design it for best use.

It brought to mind the innumerable people invested in the concept, design, and marketability of a CMS, which is a certain type of tool. Each person involved in creating the CMS will influence how the user, such as an instructor, will approach designing a course.

I began to think about an instructor ready to create her first online course. In this scenario, I imagine she has had some training in course design, but not necessarily in online course design. That puts the onus on the CMS provider or institution for which she works to provide the necessary training in course design for that particular tool. Perhaps she would like to continue online her in-class role as facilitator and guide, but isn't sure how to design an online course in that way.

To continue with the scenario, I try to imagine what the course design process would be like if the institution left training up to the CMS provider. What pedagogical/androgogical approach to course design would they promote, and why? Would it promote instructivism (a more sequenced, teacher-centered approach) or constructivism (individualized, cooperative approach)?

Throughout the paper, Lane makes mention of how “Faculty are led by the interface of a CMS,” or the options immediately visible to a “novice” user (Lane, 2009, p. 5). Moreover, these options tend to have a “predisposition for supporting more instructivist methods” of teaching (Lane, 2009, p.2). With the constructivist/instructivist debate aside, the point is that the CMS is inherently designed to promote a pedagogical approach to course design, and especially so for new users that do not yet understand how to creatively use the tool.

When designing courses in the future, I need to be aware of how the CMS influences me to make decisions. Since Lane’s concern is that novice users are most at-risk for allowing the CMS to influence their approach to course design, it encourages me to practice and prepare to move well-beyond the novice level so that I may begin to creatively use the CMS and explore various andragogical approaches.



Source

Lane, L. (2009). Insidious pedagogy: How course management systems affect teaching. First Monday, 14(10). doi:10.5210/fm.v14i10.2530 {link}