The ‘utopian’ view of technology in education is one which sees the introduction of ICTs in education as both necessary as well as sufficient for educational reform. Here, the introduction of ICTs into education is seen as a sort of panacea. The ‘nostalgic’ view of education in relation to the introduction of ICTs, on the other hand, considers that the introduction of these technologies will seriously undermine traditional objectives, rooted in personal enlightenment and democratic citizenship. Sahay in his article seeks to take a middle path between these two poles, arguing neither that technology is without possible pernicious consequences and can be uncritically adopted, nor that technology is solely destructive to education and must be completely rejected. Instead, Sahay believes that ICTs should be adopted with appropriate levels of criticality and their appropriate adaptation to educational goals. Throughout the article, when Sahay speaks of ICTs or of technology in education more generally, he seems to have in mind online university programs and courses. It is the value and risks of these modalities that are discussed in the article.

In assessing the potential benefits and risks of online learning, Sahay takes as his criteria their impacts on the autonomy of the students. This concept has numerous elements. What he really seems to be describing here is human freedom, which has the following components. The ability to do and work in the world to earn a living; individual access to education; individual choice as to which types of learning to pursue; the level of individual freedom and its constraint by society at large, in particular the capitalist marketplace. There is also one dimension of autonomy which Sahay relates to the ability to participate in a group, society, culture with others. This seems to be an element of autonomy which Sahay takes from Habermas. The article asks whether online learning increases or decreases autonomy according to each of these parameters.

Online learning offers the promise of greater access to education. However, as I have already argued in another post, online learning tends to not be as accessible as is often promised. There are limitations when it comes to access to the technology or to internet connectivity. Time and money, related to social class, offer additional barriers to participation. We could also cite the typically higher cost of online education programs. However, it is true that online learning offers some increases in accessibility when compared to brick-and-mortar institutions.

It is true that online learning can offer skill development, especially in high tech, which facilitates labour market integration. In this sense it increases the autonomy of the learners as far as participation in work. In fact, this is also one of the criticisms of online learning. The model tends to encourage the focus on more narrow types of ‘skills,’ which can be more easily packaged and reproduced at scale, over and against deeper and less tangible forms of ‘education.’ This also has to do with the fact that online learning has attracted a lot of private sector investment. This pulls online education in the direction of the dissemination of skills which will benefit private sector profit-making.

As a result of the above, online learning tends to skew heavily towards tangible skills and away from more traditional fields of education such as the arts and social sciences. Inasmuch as this is the case, the course of study for students in online environments is curtailed. This reduces the autonomy of the learner in these settings.

As mentioned, Sahay considers connections to others and belonging to certain groups as a fundamental aspect of autonomy. This may have to do with the way in which the individual self and identity are constructed in relation to others and groups. The Russian developmental theorist Vygotsky is cited, in addition to Habermas. On the one hand, ICTs can facilitate social connection. Clearly, it is much easier now to find like-minded people through the internet. However, the quality of these connections is much lower. It is certainly the case that online learning suffers from rendering the creation of strong relationships with colleagues and instructors far more difficult, if not impossible. This is related to issues of interpersonal trust, which are absent in online environments. This is one of the major drawbacks of e-learning in my opinion, and as such reduces the autonomy of the student.

Finally, online learning substantially intersects with the capitalist economy, corporatization and globalization in ways that pose substantial threats to the autonomy of the individual in their relationship to the larger society. Online learning has been a major site of investment for large corporations, especially tech companies, who see through its promotion, the possibility of selling more of their products. This involvement of large corporations in online learning tends to push this education in a direction which conforms with capitalist interests. It becomes the training grounds for the preparation of the high-tech workforce. As I have already mentioned in another post, this only causes the value of the labour of such workers to fall, while the profits of their employers rise. While these high-tech, workplace skills are taught, critical thinking and reflection on social issues is slowly removed from the list of educational objectives. This makes it harder to understand and to call into question the capitalist order. The fact that online learning tends to be guided by the profit motive leads to the standardization and reproduction, in addition to the simplification, of the educational content. This lowers the quality of the education delivered through this medium. Finally, online education offers the promise of greater reach and lowered costs to traditional universities. This allows the latter another tool to continue the process of rationalizing their operations along capitalist and neoliberal lines. It allows them to outsource a number of their operations, and to deskill their workforce. Instructors need no longer be tenured faculty, but can be low-level sessional instructors. Not only does this contribute to the reduction of good middle class jobs in society, it works to further lower the quality of the education available.

Despite these potential problems with online learning, Sahay remains sanguine that ICTs can be successfully integrated into educational structures. What is required is a critical understanding of their potential negative consequences, and the will to adapt them to meet larger educational needs, instead of confusing the ‘means’ of ICTs with the ‘ends’ of education.

Article:

https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1371&context=jais