Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Articles

Vol. 1 No. 1 (2020): Debating the status of 'theory' in technology enhanced learning research

Liberating teachers from the dominant theories and the unquestioned mission: Towards ‘disruptive theories’ in technology enhanced learning research

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.82168/hf2chg03
Submitted
27 July 2026
Published
12-06-2020

Abstract

In Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) research, technology is commonly perceived as an innovative tool to “enhance” the quality of pedagogical experiences. The assumptions that the introduction of new technology has brought about a more effective learning paradigm into current classrooms have rarely been challenged by TEL researchers. In this context, teachers are often considered as important actors who are responsible to achieve the urgent mission of TEL, which is to effectively integrate new technology in classrooms. However, this article argues that such blind faith in TEL can have ramifications in actual educational contexts. It is mainly because this blind faith can determine what is possible or impossible for teachers in enacting their pedagogical beliefs, and thus, in imagining alternative educational scenarios for their students.

This paper, therefore aims to reveal how dominant theories in the TEL field, largely drawn from the common assumptions of an educational role of technology, produce a set of imperative claims about teachers and their subjectivity in the field of teacher education. By doing so, this research intends to envision new roles of theory in TEL research, arguing that ‘disruptive theory’ can help us to challenge the common, but uncritical assumptions prevailing in TEL and further open unique opportunities for more critical debates. The first part of the paper will conceptualise theory as discourse and describe a methodological approach utilised in this critical literature review project. The second part will critically review different theories in a set of scholarly journal articles (N=33) concerning TEL-related teacher education, highlighting the dominant, but limited ways in which the theories have guided knowledge construction in those articles. Three themes (i.e., building, medicalising, expanding) have been identified as common actions of theories in TEL research through the authors’ open coding process. The third part will point out the taken-for-granted assumptions in which TEL theories are commonly rooted. It continues to discuss alternative and imaginative ways in which theory can inspire TEL research based on three disruptive roles that a TEL theory may take. The disruptive theories are essential to challenge taken-for-granted assumptions with imaginative thoughts which seem to be dormant in TEL research. They may contribute to liberating teachers from the dominant theories and the unquestioned mission and further empowering them to be able to create their own pedagogical possibilities and ultimately, may contribute to freely educating their students.

References

  1. Abend, G. (2008). The meaning of ‘theory’. Sociological Theory, 26(2), 173-199.
  2. Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32.
  3. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215-228.
  4. Coloma, R. S. (2011). Who’s afraid of Foucault? History, theory, and becoming subjects. History of Education Quarterly, 51(2). 184-210.
  5. Corbin, J., Strauss, A. L., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research. Sage.
  6. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Psychology Press.
  7. Fendler, L. (2012). Lurking, distilling, exceeding, vibrating. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 31(3), 315-326.
  8. Foucault, M. (1972). Archaeology of knowledge. (A. M. S. Smith, Trans.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1971).
  9. Gilbert, S. W. (1996). Making the most of a slow revolution. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 28(2), 10-23.
  10. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32, 131-152.
  11. Korea Ministry of Education. (2011). Smart Education Implementation Strategies.
  12. Laurillard, D. (2008). Digital technologies and their role in achieving our Ambitions for Education. London, Institute of Education, University of London.
  13. Lawless, K. A., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2007). Professional development in integrating technology into teaching and learning: Knowns, unknowns, and ways to pursue better questions and answers. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 575-614.
  14. Lee, K., & Bligh, B. (2019). Four narratives about online international students: a critical literature review. Distance Education, 40(2), 153-169.
  15. Merton, R. (1949). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.
  16. Mills, S. (2004). Discourse (2nd ed.). Florence, NY: Routledge.
  17. Selwyn, N. (2011). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  18. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
  19. Trowler, P. (2012). Wicked issues in situating theory in close-up research. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(3), 273-284.
  20. Web of Science group. (2019, October) Retrieved from https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/web-of-science/