The identity changes in online learning and teaching: instructors, learners, and learning management systems

Soyeong Kwon,Seunghoon Lee,Woolchul Kim,Minjang Cho,Neal Dreamson,Changyeon Bae

doi:10.1186/s41239-021-00304-8

Abstract

Not because of the unexpected global pandemic, but because of the emergence of educational technology and pedagogical innovation, the ways of teaching and learning have been switched to technology integrated modes such as blended and flipped learning which is more than changing to online from face-to-face. Yet, many institutes, which rely on a conventional residential teaching mode or use learning management systems (LMS) as an additive tool, are further struggling to adjust to the new environment. In this paper, we argue that the identity changes of three components, instructor, learner, and LMS are inevitable for authentic online teaching and learning. By applying conceptual frameworks for the identity changes with four sequential levels, we evaluated Blackboard course sites (n = 53) and analysed course evaluations (n = 41) from a university that remained holding a traditional classroom mode and using an LMS in a non-integrated way. As a result, only a few courses appeared at higher levels of the identity changes. To integrate the identity changes in online learning and teaching, we argue that an LMS should be designed and managed as a learning community; both instructors and learners should be repositioned as co-participants; and they should work together to build a post-learning community by practicing community membership.

Highlights

It has been a long time since technology integrated teaching and learning was adopted in higher education—the word ‘e-learning’ was coined in 1999, and most major universities in Western countries have used a Learning Management System (LMS) as part of their formal educational activities since the late 1990s and developed blended and complete online programs (Cross, 2004; Pishva et al, 2010)
It is often ignored that the pedagogical values require more than getting familiar with those technical skills, and they are inclusive of value of care, value of diversity, value of community and value of justice (Palahicky, et al, 2019)
The values require ‘identity changes’ including instructor, learners, and the learning environment, as technology offers a new paradigm of education (Conrad & Donaldson, 2012; Khalid, 2019; Park, 2011; Parra, 2013; Salmon, 2013)

Summary

Introduction

It has been a long time since technology integrated teaching and learning was adopted in higher education—the word ‘e-learning’ was coined in 1999, and most major universities in Western countries have used a Learning Management System (LMS) as part of their formal educational activities since the late 1990s and developed blended and complete online programs (Cross, 2004; Pishva et al, 2010). (Dreamson, 2020; Dhawan, 2020; Picciano, 2017) and instructors and learners who are either unfamiliar with or yet unaware of pedagogical values of digitally networked learning environments (Dhawan, 2020; Dreamson, 2020; Picciano, 2017). The values require ‘identity changes’ including instructor, learners, and the learning environment, as technology offers a new paradigm of education (e.g., an instructor to a learning designer, an instructor to a learning partner, and a knowledge transmitter to a co-knowledge constructor) (Conrad & Donaldson, 2012; Khalid, 2019; Park, 2011; Parra, 2013; Salmon, 2013)

Methods

Findings

Conclusion