One of the barriers to recognizing digital pedagogy as a field is that educational technology is seen as a mechanism and not a set of ideas and behaviors. /1
The deeper problem is that pedagogy (at least in higher education) is itself not recognized as a field — teaching is also mistaken as a mechanism rather than a set of ideas and behaviors. /2
So, digital pedagogy is doubly misunderstood. And it isn’t just that it’s miscategorized but that it’s more often just not recognized as a thing at all. /3
This makes a critical, pedagogical intervention in edtech challenging and sometimes even futile. /4
The commercial interests in edtech are invested in our not being critical — our not making careful choices about what technologies we adopt and what terms of service we agree to (or ask our students to agree to). /5
The entrenched disciplinary politics in higher ed (and siloed funding models) leave little space for emerging disciplines or interdisciplinarity. As long as experts in a field are assumed to be expert teachers, pedagogy won’t be seen as an area of expertise in its own right. /6
Higher education pedagogy is a field with a long history, diverse literature, and myriad sub-disciplines. But it is almost never recognized as such. At most institutions, it is acknowledged only as a stack of (hopefully connected) side-projects or short-sighted initiatives. /7
I have seen pockets of really amazing stuff at nearly every institution I’ve worked or visited, and I’ve found community here on Twitter in the conversations between what otherwise amount to isolated nodes. /8
The call for a scholarship of teaching and learning has been made elsewhere and loudly. But the culture of higher education has not changed significantly to keep pace with these calls. /9
Higher education pedagogy, and the sub-discipline of digital pedagogy, should be recognized as an area of study, a respected field. And development work in pedagogy should be supported and rewarded in higher ed — not viewed as a distraction, a luxury, or “just in time.” /10
Pedagogical development work should be prioritized at every institution, for every graduate student who teaches, every new faculty member, all continuing faculty. (Where special training is required for specific jobs at an institution, adjuncts should be paid to complete it.) /11
Robust pedagogical development programs won’t become the norm in higher education without assertive action. Faculty who weren’t initially trained in pedagogy aren’t likely to design programs that foreground it — aren’t likely to value it in hiring or for tenure and promotion. /12
I’ve been saying some version of this since I started teaching 18 years ago. I’ll keep saying it.
Until a third of the graduate work for every graduate program that employs or prepares faculty is focused on pedagogy. /13
Until a third of the graduate work for every graduate program that employs or prepares faculty is focused on pedagogy. /13
I’ll keep saying this.
Until people stop repeating to me and others “but what’s your field?” when we say our “field” is higher education pedagogy. /14
Until people stop repeating to me and others “but what’s your field?” when we say our “field” is higher education pedagogy. /14
Adding this thread from a few months ago to the mix, because it fleshes out some of the practical details:
