Series | Studi e ricerche
Edited book | Blended Learning and the Global South
Chapter | Stakeholder Struggles in the Uptake and Use of Blended and Online Learning in Higher Education
Abstract
Recommendations for greater adoption of blended and online learning pedagogies pre-date COVID-19 by many years. However, the uptake and implementation of blended and online learning was largely ignored by lecturers in many contact institutions, despite the introduction of policies and various resources to support such a shift. In this chapter, we critically explore the reluctance of lecturers to adopt blended and online learning pedagogies, drawing on the Epistemic Pedagogic Device (EPD) of Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) and the elements of Archer’s theory of Social Realism to explicate the roles and contestations among the various stakeholders involved in teaching and learning in higher education institutions. In particular, we examine the struggles for legitimacy faced by instructional designers and academic developers in the sites of teaching and learning, sites which have traditionally been controlled by lecturers. We posit that successful, sustainable implementation of online and blended learning requires institutional recognition of multiple stakeholders as legitimate role-players in teaching and student learning.
Submitted: Aug. 31, 2020 | Accepted: Oct. 9, 2020 | Published Sept. 6, 2021 | Language: en
Keywords Online learning • Educational change • Instructional design • Institutional culture • Blended learning
Copyright © 2021 Kershree Padayachee, Laura Dison. This is an open-access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction is permitted, provided that the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. The license allows for commercial use. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Permalink http://doi.org/10.30687/978-88-6969-529-2/003