Technological mediation

According to phenomenologists such as Peter-Paul Verbeek and Don Ihde (Achterhuis, 2001: 119-146; Ihde, 1990), human beings cannot be independently conceived from the world that surrounds them. That is the case as they are in permanent contact with the environment and context. Therefore, understanding their actions implies considering, in turn, the tools they use to carry them out. For these authors, technology is not a set of objects alien or independent from us, but rather mediators which allow us to experience the world and be present in it in specific ways.

Following this line, Ihde suggested the existence of four types of relationships that arise from human-technology-world interaction: (1) incarnation or personification, which happens when we become "one" with technology and experience the environment or context through it, an example of this is the use of virtual reality glasses; (2) hermeneutics, in which technology provides us with a specific representation of the world, for example, by consulting the results of an MRI; (3) alterity, in which the focus of attention is technology itself, an example of which are the customizable features on a mobile device; and (4) background, in which technology takes a back seat, for example, when we turn on the air conditioning in a room (Ihde, 1990; FreedomLab, 2019).

On the other hand Verbeek (2020) proposed two dimensions that help simplify the understanding of technological mediation: to act and to perceive (fig. 1). The first has to do with how technologies shape our actions. The second is related to how technologies help us regard the world differently.

Fig. 1. Graphic interpretation of the dimensions proposed by Verbeek (2020).

Regardless of which explanation one subscribes to, it can be said that technology provides human beings with new and meaningful ways of relating to their environment or context, and vice versa. Thus, knowing better ways to understand and take advantage of this type of mediation is important.

Implications for education

Nowadays, teachers are seen as mediators of knowledge, as they facilitate access to information for their students, and challenge them to find the solution to problems.

After it gets in contact with the teaching and learning processes, technology acts as a mechanism that mediates and supports the performance of activities. Therefore, as various experts suggest, it empowers both teachers and students (Altinay-Gazi and Altinay-Aksal, 2017; Soares et al. 2019). This is the case as technology can contribute to the development of their sense of agency and self-efficacy.

In the particular case of teachers, this occurs at the time of scheduling activities, selecting materials, or coordinating the actions of students using specialized software and hardware. In the case of students, during the development of activities in environments where they can learn by doing (i.e., proactive learning).

Technology and education

As a way to maintain their competitiveness in an increasingly saturated, global educational market, higher education institutions seek to provide enriched learning environments, which promote, among other things, the free exchange of knowledge, the development of skills, and the mastery of concepts (Duro-Novoa and Gilart-Iglesias, 2016; Soares et al. 2019). One way to achieve this goal is through the incorporation of specialized hardware and software in the curriculum.

Nevertheless, the role that technology plays in society is not passive. Little by little, technology has influenced the way in which we communicate, express, and conduct ourselves in our daily activities. In the case of education, this has led to an evolution of the educational experience of both teachers and students (Brown et al. 2018). An example of this are digital learning spaces such as MOOCs (massive online open courses), within which users are able to engage in activities regardless of what time they do it or from where.

This has led the models and frameworks for the technological mediation of learning to change and, as Verbeek (2016) suggests, to start contemplating both the people involved (i.e., the stakeholders of education), as well as their environment. Some of the new models and frameworks that follow this line are:

• The 70:20:10 framework, which promotes that 70% of the time to dedicated to learn should be used to practice and having experiences in real-life scenarios (or close to reality), 20% in collaboration with third parties, and 10% listening to a class or reading a text (Arets, Jennings and Heijnen, 2016).
• SOLO Taxonomy (Structure of Observed Learning Outcome), which seeks to act as a means of classifying learning outcomes in terms of their complexity, allowing teachers to evaluate their students' work in terms of quality (Biggs, 2020).
• Wheel of technology, a taxonomy for the selection of tools according to the teaching goal (Carrington, 2013).
• PAR model (Present, Apply and Review), which contributes to the planning of activities for practical learning (Petty, 2018).
• Five-step model for online teaching, which functions as a scaffolding for the structuring of e-activities (i.e., online activities) (Salmon, 2013).

After contemplating the various socio-technical factors related to this type of models and frameworks, it can be highlighted that designing and developing educational activities that promote meaningful and immersive human-technology relationships is complicated. In the case of students and teachers, this includes knowing and considering their perceptions, points of view, technological skills, and beliefs. In the case of society, the social relevance of the topic to be discussed (expressed in terms of its viability and impact). Finally, in the case of the environment/context, its possible interaction for or against the development of activities.

Researcher Celia O'Hagan postulates that a teacher who takes advantage of technology effectively is one who encourages her students to use various resources (e.g., word processors, Internet browsers, programming languages, simulators, graphics, audio or video players, etc.) at the time of developing activities such as problem solving, (self)reflection, physical experience, and social learning, among others (Soares et al. 2019: 6). This approach is better known as ePedagogy.

ePedagogy

According to Mortimore (1999), pedagogy is "any conscious action taken by one person designed to enhance learning in another". On the other hand, a pedagogical model is a framework that explains the principles through which a theoretical vision can be applied in the practice of teaching and learning (Barefah and McKay, 2015).

There are three fundamental elements to take into account for teaching and learning to take place: the methods, the conditions, and the results (Barefah and McKay, 2015; Reigeluth, 1983). In the case of the teaching-learning that takes place through digital means, the term methods is used to refer to the technological tools necessary to achieve the desired instructional results. It should be noted that the selection of the tools depends on the work environment (e.g., at school, at home, when traveling, etc.). The term conditions refers to the combination of factors (e.g., instructional format, student characteristics, community culture, etc.) that impact the effectiveness of the tools used. Finally, the term results is used to refer to the measurable values ​​that are obtained through the use of different tools under varied conditions.

Taking the above into consideration, it can be said that ePedagogy is a pedagogical approach that describes the relationship that exists between: (1) environments enriched by technology; (2) instructional strategies that favor students' attitudes, disposition, and learning; and (3) activities designed for the student to put their knowledge and skills into practice (Barefah and McKay, 2015; Soares et al. 2019: 4).

As Barefah and McKay observe (2015), ePedagogy leads us to a paradigm shift regarding how the flow of knowledge occurs. The hierarchical teacher-student structure present in traditional pedagogical models evolves into a horizontal structure (i.e., networked, peer-to-peer). This in turn transforms the role of teachers from providing information to guiding students on their learning journey. And in the case of students, encourages them to become collaborators of their own learning.

Depending on the approach taken for the student to learn, ePedagogy can be classified as: associative, cognitive, participatory, or situational (Barefah and McKay, 2015). Simuth and Sarmani-Schuller (2012) proposed seven principles for ePedagogy: (1) maintain frequent contact, (2) value reciprocity and cooperation, (3) provide timely feedback, (4) foster a positive and supportive environment, (5) encourage diversity and creativity, (6) provide clear expectations, and (7) provide appropriate training.

On the subject, O'Hagan suggested five steps to have a good class session with ePedagogy: (1) visual instruction, (2) assessment as learning, (3) guidance and support, (4) problem solving and (5 ) discussion and debate (Soares et al. 2019: 5).

To facilitate the understanding of ePedagogy, we present an example of an activity planned following this approach. First, to present the problem or case to be solved, the teacher takes advantage transmedia in the following way: (1) make use of diagrams to publicize the problem, (2) show a video that summarizes the importance of this problem, (3) share with the students a dynamic presentation (created with Genially) where they can learn about the different aspects of the problem, and (4) illustrate the areas of opportunity to solve the problem through an infographic.

Once the teacher finishes presenting the information, the students must: (1) make use of the Internet to understand it better, (2) devise an action plan taking advantage of collaborative tools such as Google Docs, (3) stay in constant communication with colleagues to assess possible solutions with the support of chats or video call software, and (4) propose a solution by making an illustration in Adobe Illustrator or equivalent software.

Bibliography

Altinay-Gazi, Z. & Altinay-Aksal, F. (2017). Technology as Mediation Tool for Improving Teaching Profession in Higher Education Practices. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education 13 (3), p. 803-813, ISER Publications. DOI: 10.12973 / eurasia.2017.00644a

Arets, J., Jennings, C. and Heijnen, V. (2016). 702010: Towards 100% performance. Netherlands: Sutler Media. ISBN: 978-9082397833

Barefah, A., and McKay, E. (2015). Designing for online learning environments: Towards an ePedagogy development model. Paper presented at 2015 IEEE Conference on e-Learning, e-Management and e-Services (IC3e), 24-26 August, Melaka, Malaysia. DOI: 10.1109 / ic3e.2015.7403508

Biggs, J. (2020). ONLY Taxonomy. John Biggs Blog. Last visit: May 26, 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.johnbiggs.com.au/academic/solo-taxonomy/

Carrington, A. (2013). The Pedagogy Wheel. Last visit: May 26, 2020. Retrieved from: https://designingoutcomes.com/the-padagogy-wheel-its-a-bloomin-better-way-to-teach/

Brown, K., Feniser, C., Lally , V., Bilbao, J., and Sadeh, A. (2018). Sharing cultures and society in technology enhanced learning mediated environments. Paper presented in Proceedings of the 11th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (ICERI'18), pp. 7369–7373, 12-14 November, Seville, Spain. Retrieved from the website: https://library.iated.org/view/BROWN2018SHA

Duro-Novoa, V. and Gilart-Iglesias, V. (2016). Competitiveness in higher education institutions. Application of business management philosophies: LEAN, SIX SIGMA and BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT (BPM). Economy and Development 157 (2), Havana, Cuba. ISSN: 0252-8584

Mortimore, P. (1999). Understanding Pedagogy: and its impact on learning. USA: Sage. DOI: 10.4135 / 9781446219454 

Petty, G. (2018). How to teach even better: an evidenced based approach. UK: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0198414100

Reigeluth, C. (1983). Instructional theories and models: An overview of their current status. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN: 978-0898592757

Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities - 2nd edition. UK: Routledge. ISBN: 978-0415881760

Simuth, J., and Sarmany-Schuller, I. (2012). Principles for e-pedagogy. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46, pp. 4454-4456. DOI: 10.1016 / j.sbspro.2012.06.274 

Soares, F., Lopes, AP, Brown, K., and Uukkivi, A. (2019). Developing Technology Mediation in Learning Environments. USA: IGI Global Publishers. ISBN: 978-1799815914

Verbeek, PP (2016). Toward a theory of technological mediation: A program for postphenomenological research. Friis, JKB and Crease, RP (editors), Technoscience and Postphenomenology: The Manhattan Papers. USA: Lexington Books. ISBN: 978-0739189610