[I freely concede I may be over-reacting in this post. Half the reason for writing it is in fact to take the power out of a standing resentment so I can start to look at the issue more objectively.]
Rant
At the risk of instigating controversy, I have a growing resentment over the excessive use and abuse of the word “pedagogy.” While the fundamental idea behind pedagogy is a very important consideration, somewhere along the line the vernacular use has been relegated to the ultimate weapon in an argument about or defense against emerging technology – and particularly educational change.
Initiatives or technologies must be ever vetted against some nebulous or even ominous notion of “sound pedagogy” lest they fall prey to the ultimate sin of using technology for the sake of technology and branded with a Scarlet “P” for the rest of time. Almost without fail, it’s also expected that pedagogy will always proceed the investigation of any technologies.
This is not to say I discount the notion of pedagogy, which certainly isn’t the case – as I said, it’s a very important consideration. My issue regards the protectionistic use of the word as a threat or barrier that seeks to shield existing, sometimes ineffective structures or processes against new ways of working.
To me “sound pedagogy” isn’t a guarded gateway through which all things must pass before becoming true learning, it’s an ideal that should permeate and inform everything. As such whether we start with tool first, activity first, or learning objectives first it doesn’t matter so long as consideration of how to use and implement the technologies effectively and holistically to benefit learning is always in the forefront of our minds.
A Tale of Two Cities
In many ways this discussion is clearly exemplified by the perpetual conflict between the educational technology unit and the learning and teaching unit. Seemingly always at odds with one another, the spheres of activity seem doomed to a recurring cycle of merging and separating. Both have a stake in education and learning, but for some reason they can never get along with one another and ultimately attempts to create a single unified department that offers a cohesive holistic vision fall victim to restructuring and the dividing walls rise again.
The educational technologist are seen to be tech-obsessed, light on pedagogy and prone to obscure abbreviations; while the academics are stereotyped as waffley anti-technologists with a love of chalk-and-talk. Adding to this complexity, each sphere tends to be characterised by a distinct culture and common language.
Often times the divisions are so clearly delineated that, despite units merging on paper, the two spheres operate largely independently of one another.
Opening Channels
This polarity appears so systemic that the prospect of ever resolving it may be slim – and yet at least trying is really critical.
Perhaps I’m being naïve, but I believe the first step towards achieving some semblance of unity is to develop a common language. This means dropping the jargon, the abbreviations, catch-phrases and tech-lingo, the bureaucratese and excessively complexified phrases and speaking in simple, plain English where you say what you mean and mean what you say.
We won’t always agree with one another, but once we start using language instead of hiding behind it we can begin to actually communicate.
A point well made. And an explanation of the seemingly endless merging and separating of LT and edtech units. I hope that the divide is reducing as educators are more au fait with technology and techies more privy to teaching practice? Or perhaps I err on the side of optimism … I know exactly what you mean about the jargon – I spent quite a bit of my masters course learning it. But jargon is another word for ‘specialised vocabulary’ which is necessary to communicate in specialised fields. And to some extent delineates a community of practice. Educators are just as wary of techie jargon (with some justification!) The issue as you say is when people seem to hide behind it to justify inflexibility in the face of other influences. Everyone has their comfort zone ….
It’s also about context – we are in an educational environment, so it’s important that is reflected in how technology is approached. Not so many years ago few technologists were familiar with this context – but it’s changing. Somehow we have to live together, and the more we work closely together the quicker it will change, though it might sometimes be uncomfortable. So let’s make a resolution – to fight for plain english!
Educational jargon, communicating across educational cultures & silos {seesmic_video:{“url_thumbnail”:{“value”:”http://t.seesmic.com/thumbnail/qU62fAlF94_th1.jpg”}”title”:{“value”:”Educational jargon, communicating across educational cultures & silos ”}”videoUri”:{“value”:”http://www.seesmic.com/video/ifHKLyw4bM”}}}