Peter Taylor uses a borderline framework in order to provide a critical lens through which to consider the use of technology to deliver ‘open education’ (or, for the purpose of this class, online education) courses. These are borderline issues because he is considering the challenges that emerge when knowledge is mobilized, crossing the boundary between in-person educational spaces and online (or open) ones. One of the most significant issues Taylor discusses is that content that would be used in a body-to-body classroom context is often simply transferred into online educational spaces, although context plays a significant role in the interpretation of content (Taylor, 8). For Taylor then, a borderline issue is that content needs to not merely be put online in order to be accessible in ways that will authentically engage students, but rather the way content is approached in these new educational spaces must change in ways suitable to the method of delivery. Online spaces such as this pose new, different opportunities and challenges for teaching, and are not simple replacements of physical classrooms. By extension, Taylor also notes the shifting authority the teacher and the learning process have in online spaces – relationships and expectations must develop in ways appropriate to the online learning space, but must also provide continuity between distance and non-distance experiences for students accessing the same degrees in a variety of ways.
The concept of centre and periphery are used to help explain the need to further explore the focus of various educational pursuits in response to method of delivery. A particular interest must be given to context, where certain things will be the ‘centre’ of focus in different contexts, even on the same or similar content. For example, in a course on special education conducted in-person the centre of focus might be on the instructor using modelling to discuss classroom management strategies that accommodate students with a variety of exceptionalities, supported peripherally by reading materials. That same course online, although containing the same content, might have as a centre of focus readings on classroom management strategies with paired discussion topics. The instructor could then include videos of practicing teachers implementing these strategies, but the focus on modelling would necessarily be peripheral given the limited amount of time provided to observe strategies ‘in action’ versus conducting readings. It is through the context provided by method of delivery that pedagogical approaches would shift from centre to periphery or vice versa. The border then comes from making sure that all students, regardless of their method of access, are receiving a certain standard of education appropriate to their chosen method of learning, and that all methods are comparable. This means acknowledging as an educator that it is at the border of various methods and contexts of learning that one must channel their resources to ensure all students are getting what they need.
One of the border problems Taylor associates with open learning (online learning) is the instability of technological means of access, including software incompatibility and other technological issues. This necessarily impacts the success of pedagogical strategies and the acquisition of new knowledge across distances. Because of this instability, the educational experience of students accessing material through technological mediation loses its sense of authenticity. In addition, because of the demands of new methods of access in higher education, the symbols of a high standard of education (a professor, a building that resides in a space historically associated with higher learning) are pushed to the periphery or abandoned altogether for the sake of ease of access. A significant border problem is therefore the loss of a feeling of legitimacy with regards to education, as both body-to-body and distance education are in some ways overlapped, resulting in a lack of continuity in the educational experience for all. Education is reduced to content to be transmitted instead of grappled with by a community (teacher, student, peers) engaging in learning together (Taylor, 11). While today there are certainly examples of classes that take advantage of the unique learning opportunities that emerge from body-to-body educational interactions and online spaces for learning, or provide a high standard of education using either method of access exclusively, online learning still too often consists of a transfer of information moreso than an educational experience. Few classes (excluding this one) take advantage of some of the unique characteristics of online learning – flexibility in scheduling, for example – and instead teachers of these classes attempt to find substitutes for elements of body-to-body classrooms, replacing discussion in-person (which usually develops organically and is facilitated by the teacher) with rigid discussion boards which are representative of superficial learning and interaction at best. Online components of courses are often ‘add-ons,’ peripheral to the core focus of the class and thus generally a waste of time. As a result, courses or programs that are partially or entirely online are usually the most successful when the teacher takes the time to consider the genuine advantages of the online educational space, and seeks to build relationships with and between students in ways specific to the method of access itself. Unfortunately, this is seldom accomplished.
One of the most significant issues with regards to online learning which Taylor identifies is the perceived devaluing of a degree when it is offered both in-person and online. The dominant view is that the more people who receive a degree, the less valuable that degree is. Because the whole point of open/online learning is to facilitate wider spread access to education, these methods of access directly contribute to the loss of value in higher education. Online learning lessens the importance of people coming together and engaging in educational experiences together, and also reduces the consistency of any particular degree because programs can be tailored to individual needs for the sake of institutional financial gains. Connecting Taylor’s observations about open learning and communication technologies to online learning and virtual spaces for learning, it seems these concerns are still relevant. A bachelor’s degree is the standard today because so many people have one that it is almost impossible to get a job with the prospect of furthering one’s career without an undergraduate degree, and a master’s degree is quickly succumbing to the same fate in certain areas. Online degrees only perpetuate the feeling that a degree is only a piece of paper. That being said, this feeling regarding massification of education is still timely but also in some ways outdated, because of the way society and certain systems in place themselves are outdated regarding the way higher education is understood and valued. While the integration of ‘distance’ education serves many people well who otherwise could not obtain an education at all, the primary focus is on financial gain by institutions. But arguably, it is for the betterment of everyone that more people are educated, if only competition were taken out of the equation where education is concerned. It should then be the goal of teachers and institutions alike to build online programs in such a way that the method of access is taken full advantage of, and challenge and the facilitation of relationships are built into courses being offered more consistently across the board so that society on a whole is more educated and thus more equipped to make decisions as a collective.
Finally, Taylor’s suggestion is that teachers should not only be preoccupied with what they teach, but how they teach it. While open/online learning takes away something gained from the experience being physically present with the teacher, Taylor notes that transitioning to online learning showed teachers how little they had been thinking about the presentation of content instead of the content itself. When pedagogy was ignored many students’ needs were not being met because teachers were so wedded to content that they would not be in any way flexible to the needs of the students in front of them. However, overwhelmingly Taylor suggests that rather than remedy this issue, online learning has resulted in more content-driven teaching, even though the initial transition to open forms of learning provided an opportunity to make much needed changes. It seems then, that both in-person and distance education provide the opportunity for dynamic teaching if the systems in place allow teachers to explore student-centred teaching strategies that take advantage of the unique characteristics of the method of access teachers are working within. Both methods of access, or any joint use of both, must be reimagined in such a way where social growth and content exploration are given priority in ways unique to students’ needs in order for degrees to maintain their value and help students contribute more meaningfully to their communities as a result. Flexibility in this sense must be seen as an opportunity for student learning, and the focus must be taken off of financial benefit in order for degrees to remain meaningful. In both secondary and tertiary education, the emphasis must be on taking full advantage of the educational space (however it is manifested) to develop relationships with students where teaching strategies are thoughtful, where if degrees are becoming more common then it must be for the greater good of society, instead of a way merely to financially profit from the devaluation of education in all forms.
Taylor, P. (1996). Pedagogical challenges of open learning: Looking to borderline issues. In E. McWilliam & P.G. Taylor (Eds.), Pedagogy, Technology and the Body (pp. 59-77). New York, NY: Peter Lang
