Introduction
Welcome to an exciting period in human history. We are witnessing a seemingly endless array of technological innovations which over the past twenty years or so have accelerated to such a point that society is now fundamentally different to that when most teachers grew up and attended school themselves (Carl, 2009; Collins & Halverson, 2018; Fullan, 2016; Gross, 2019; Quong, 2016; Ross, 2010; Steele & Whitaker, 2019; TEMAG, 2014). Further, given their eighteenth-century hallmarks, schools still largely operate in ways that reveal a distinct contrast to the society they aim to serve (Carl, 2009; Fullan, 2016; Lynch, 2012; OECD, 2017a; Quong, 2016; Ross, 2010; Yeigh & Lynch, 2017). This is not to say that schools have not modernised. Nor that they have not invested in professionally developing their teachers. It is a comment on how the logic and staging of classroom teaching, despite pockets of change and innovation, remains largely unchanged (Berry, 2011; Burns & Gottschalk, 2019; Lynch, 2012; OECD, 2015; Tyack & Cuban, 1995; Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019).
Let us elaborate on this assertion.
The organisation of schools and the arrangements inside the four walls of a classroom is such that schooling, with its âone-size-fits-allâ design heritage, is a contrast to a society built on individualism, choice, flexibility and exponential change. By this we mean schools and their teachers follow a state-mandated age-related curriculum â often the product of a ten-year review cycle â which inclines the teacher to âcover contentâ irrespective of the individual needs of assigned students. National testing regimes, now prevalent in most countries, have the unintended consequence of reinforcing this mentality (Berry, 2011; Chenoweth, 2020; Lynch, 2012; OECD, 2017a; Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019).
This is not to say that teachers do not endeavour to consider their student profiles when teaching. It is a comment on the limitations of such arrangements and how a curriculum mandate, coupled with lock-step progressions, dominates the âwhatâ and the âhowâ of what teachers have to achieve and what they are accountable for in their classroom (Burns & Gottschalk, 2019; OECD, 2015). One might imagine that a teacher from a past generation could easily walk into any school and immediately recognise the organisational logic. This clear resemblance to history would not be so for many other professions which have been disrupted by technological innovation and change. Publishing, banking and healthcare immediately come to mind.
Thinking about how schools have remained largely the same over many generations of students, one could argue that teachers and schools have stagnated, resolved to continue doing what they have always done (Joram et al., 2020; Lynch, 2012; OECD, 2017a; Quong, 2016; Yeigh & Lynch, 2017). This is despite calls, over many years now, for fundamental change to occur in teaching and learning (Berry, 2011; Fullan, 2016; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Hattie, 2009, 2012; Kaufman, 2015; Lynch, 2012; OECD, 2015, 2017a; Starkey, 2020).
This is not a criticism of teachers. Teachers care about their students. They want the best for them. It can be a challenging pursuit. Our point is that the histrionics and enculturating effects of traditional schooling coupled with a skills lag (Ertmer et al., 2012; Starkey, 2020; Yeigh & Lynch, 2017), a product of deficiencies in teacher education (Lynch, 2012; Yeigh & Lynch, 2017), are such that doing what has always been done often seems the most intuitive and easy path to follow. Besides, everyone has been to school and readily accepts the schooling logic as part of growing up. And therein lies the problem. This new world order is neither intuitive nor static.
The conundrum is that the people who work in schools today are still very much at the point of being able to capture amounts of value and productivity by doing what has always been done (Lynch, 2012). This could be attributed to the pressures for change being diluted by things such as producer capture, industrial agreements and the nature of the associated âreward systemsâ or because, as a United States Teaching Commission Report (cited in Fullan, 2007, p. 275) once suggested, âgraduates are still being hired: if they (teacher education faculties) are failing they are doing so quietlyâ. But, and it is a big but, we live in a fast-changing world in which society and its economy now face daily challenges that invariably require ongoing innovations and change strategies if they are to thrive. As Yeigh and Lynch (2017), Fullan (2016), OECD (2015), Lynch (2012), Hattie (2011) and Christensen et al. (2011) all suggest, a disruptive model is needed to show a better way.
Welcome to the digital age of learning. We argue it offers the best of both worlds!
To fully appreciate the concept of digital learning one has first to understand how technology has fundamentally changed society and by direct association what it means for those who educate people for work and life in such a new society (Burns & Gottschalk, 2019). In the sections which follow, we provide an account of societal change, citing technological innovation and convergence as the key culprit. This outlining provides a foundation from which to appreciate the new fundamentals that schools and teachers must account for in their teaching and learning strategies today. Our central premise is that schooling, with its face-to-face classroom-centric focus, is not a bad thing. It is just that it is not sufficient on its own for a world where exponential technological innovation and disruption predominate our home and work life. Further, each learner has peculiarities which require of the teacher new capacities and capabilities for optimal outcomes. The traditional classroom alone just will no longer âcut itâ, and because of this new, digital-based pedagogies such as Blended Learning have been introduced.
For the uninitiated, Blended Learning comes to mean using online learning technologies in the classroom or at home. But this is only half right. Blended Learning is the harnessing of all the good things about the physical classroom world with those of the online world to create a âblendâ in teaching and learning. Blended Learning comes to represent an opportunity for teachers to exploit the rapid technological developments that are occurring in information communication technologies while embracing the face-to-face classroom circumstance that is synonymous with growing up and attending school (Gepp & Kumar, 2020; Horn & Staker, 2017). At its heart, Blended Learning is an opportunity for teachers to meet the learning needs of all students, not just those who do school well and to propel teaching and learning into the digital age (Gepp & Kumar, 2020; Yeigh et al., 2020).
In short, it is our belief, given the profile of technological change that has occurred to date in society, that technology holds the power to transform teaching and learning in schools by enabling new capabilities and capacities that will benefit all learners in all circumstances (Fleurbaey et al., 2018; Starkey, 2020). We view Blended Learning as a fundamental first step in such a transformation (Gepp & Kumar, 2020; Yeigh et al., 2020).
A remarkable period in human history
The 2000 epoch is a truly remarkable period in human history (Fleurbaey et al., 2018). Technological innovations explode onto the market at a daily rate, only to be quickly replaced by a new, faster and better version (Schatzki, 2019). Take the mobile phone, for example. Its size has shrunk considerably over past decades such that its size has shrunk considerably over past decades making it compact enough to fit in oneâs pocket. When using a mobile phone, its gadgetry illustrates the phenomena of converged technologies. Although referred to as the âmobile phoneâ, its application far exceeds this rather erroneous name to include a video camera, digital camera, global positioning system, thermometer, calendar, compass, calculator, âe-padâ, web browser, diary, diagnostic tool, and the list goes on. The use of mobile phones, especially among young people, is so ubiquitous that to not figure its use in classrooms seems erroneous, and perhaps an example of schools refusing to move with the times.
Similarly, the motor vehicle, while still designed to take people from one place to another, has a central computer which governs the vehicle such that driving is now supported by all manner of creature comforts and technologically assisted mechanics. It appears only a matter of time before the âdriverâ is made redundant and replaced by an auto-drive system. Diseases and ailments, once considered a death sentence, are now being efficiently dealt with by technologically advanced medicines and medical machinery. At the heart of such advancements is a cadre of highly educated individuals who are relying on schools to prepare equally highly educated people to join and eventually replace them.
These advancements represent a fundamental change in the structure of society, such that the way people live, socialise and work today has taken a radical departure from a relatively recent era in which the church, the school and the community were the mainstays of human knowledge, order and societal engagement (Schatzki, 2019; Tormos, 2019). Of importance to the message of this book, underpinning this fundamental change is a set of interwoven technological advancements (Victer, 2020), and thus we need to explore this phenomenon further.
The aforementioned advancements were created by human brainpower and networked ideas and stimulated by a consumer market driven by a seemingly insatiable desire for âa betterâ, more convenient, social and entertaining existence. In this new world, the consumer seeks a capacity to âdelegateâ the drudgery of everyday life to a gadget, be connected and up-to-date 24/7 on topics and with people of interest for the most part, and have their next âwantâ satisfied in a new and unique way, often with the expectation that it will be for free (Schatzki, 2019). While the consumer ap...
