The Governmentality Of MOOCs And Learning Analytics. A Critical Analysis Of Subjectivization In Open Learning Cultures

Author(s):

Patrick Bettinger(presenting / submitting)Valentin Dander(presenting)

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

06. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures

Format:

Paper

Session Information

06 SES 08 A, MOOCs and beyond

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-10

09:00-10:30

Room:

104.Oktatóterem [C]

Chair:

Theo Hug

Contribution

Within the processes of mediatization that several societal fields are currently passing through (cf. Hepp & Lehmann-Wemser 2013; Krotz, 2014) the educational sector is also undergoing changes which are closely linked to digital media. In this context the debate about new learning cultures has lately been circulating around the concept of ‘openness’ (cf. Ehlers 2013).

These changes can be seen as a transition towards an open learning culture. Accordingly, the European Union is trying to come up with strategies to meet those processes, which is seen as a key contribution “to the Europe 2020 goals of boosting EU competitiveness and growth through better skilled workforce and employment” European Commission 2013: p. 2). As a consequence, efforts are being made in order to foster open education, praising their potentials since they “allow All individuals to learn, Anywhere, Anytime, through Any device, with the support of Anyone” (European Commission 2013: p. 3).

Particularly, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) as a learning format and learning analytics (cf. Johnson et al. 2014: pp. 38f.; Picciano 2012) as a monitoring strategy, have become well-established within these developements (cf. European Commission 2013: pp. 4f.; Johnson et al. 2014: pp. 26f.). While MOOCs are said to “push forward the vision of self-organized, autonomous life-long learning” (Ehlers, 2013: p. 96), learning analytics is supposed to have an optimizing impact on learning strategies and processes (cf. Johnson 2014: p. 12). Based on the collection and evaluation of data it aims on enabling “continual improvement of learning outcomes” (ibid.). MOOCs and learning analytics, while on different levels of visibility, can be seen as basic elements of institutionalized open education and mediatized learning cultures, as well as in contemporary educational policies.

At a first glance‚ the promises of ‘open‘ seem to be consistently positive. And ‚openness‘ certainly has great potential for the democratization and participation in edcuation (cf. Deimann 2014: p. 98). Since scholars in media education show a tendency to defend educational media against critique from other fields of education, they tend to neglect problematic aspects.

We understand open education as deeply “embedded in power relations” (Deimann 2014: p. 108) and, therefore, suggest to look at phenomena such as MOOCs and learning analytics by applying a „governmentality“ perspective in the succession of Michel Foucault (cf. 1991: pp. 102f.). This concept bundles a set of diverse, but converging apparatuses (ibid.; see also: “dispositives”) and technologies to govern populations and, subsequently, subjects and their subjectivities. The notion of governmentality describes the “contact between the technologies of domination of others and those of the self” (Foucault 1988: p. 19). Within these ambivalent practices, of which no clear distinction can be drawn, between subjectivizing and de-subjectivizing effects on the self. While Foucault primarily understands ‘technologies’ as practices in general, we add digital technologies to the equation (cf. Münte-Goussar 2011).

In our presentation, we are discussing and trying to answer the following questions:

What kind of subjectivities are discourses on and apparatuses/dispositives within ‚open education‘ producing?
What technologies of domination and of the self are contributing to the emergence of such (de-)subjectivitizations?

Method

So far, only sporadic research has been conducted on possible “side effects” of open learning cultures. Our contribution uses an analytical approach based on the governmentality studies (cf. Foucault 1991). In order to identify governmental techniques and subjectivities, we examine the media-educational apparatus/dispositive of openness by applying an “interpretative analytics” (cf. Klingovsky 2009: p. 121). Analyzing governmentality means looking at the interdependencies of technologies of domination and technologies of the self (cf. Maurer & Weber 2006: p. 10). Therefore, the focus lies on the connection between the micro- and macro-level of policies (cf. Lemke, Krassmann & Bröckling 2012: p. 32). Our analysis includes elements on both levels, such as discoursive contributions (communications from the European Commission or the Horizon Reports by the New Media Consortium, mission statements and privacy policies from different MOOC providers and the press, academic texts on learning analytics), technical arrangements (socio-technical infrastructures within MOOCs). On this basis, we attempt to understand the rationalities, strategies and practices of governing and resulting modes of subjectivation (cf. Maurer & Weber 2006: pp. 24ff.). On the one hand, this approach is inspired by Ulla Klingovsky’s study on “Brave New Learning Cultures” (Klingovsky 2009), in which she investigates conceptions of practice in the field of adult education by deciphering argumentative figures in didactical action programs. On the other hand, we understand open education arrangements like MOOCs as media apparatuses/dispositives that function at the intersection of discourse, practice, subject and digital technology and, thus, materialize productive structures of knowledge/power formations. Another predecessor in the field of governmentality analysis, Münte-Goussar (cf. 2011) shows, how e-portfolios as a paradigm of new learning cultures can generate ambivalent practices between governmental technologies of control and self-determination. The question, if similar self-technologies appear in the MOOC- and learning analytics-context, remains unanswered. Ensuing our own study, a comparative analysis between our findings and preceding studies will show, if - and if so, in which way - mediatized, open learning cultures indeed introduce a new quality to governmental technologies of digital learning.

Expected Outcomes

Preliminary findings indicate that certain phenomena linked to openness in education tend to foster an implicit neoliberalization of learning cultures and corresponding subjectivities. Especially official documents from the European Union show a strong dependency of the educational on the economic discourse and thereby disband notions of not so much ‘open’, but ‘free’ learning cultures. We assume that the narratives of crisis and employability as well as the widespread availability of mobile media and internet access enforce invasive imperatives of ‘self’-compounds: self-organization, self-responsibility, self-determination etc. within (formal and informal) learning arrangements. Such putative positive aspects of open learning cultures can be revealed as possible neoliberal rationalities of self-governing. Regarding Klingovsky’s (cf. 2009) findings on the governmentality of new learning cultures in adult education, our analysis carries on the objectives of her study. Against the background of latest developments (MOOCs, OERs etc.), especially the reference to the role of digital media for learning cultures (ibid.: pp. 176ff.) seems to be even more significant, nowadays. On this basis, our analysis can be seen as an impulse to re-think the role of media education and reflect opportunities and necessities to take action in political spheres. In conclusion of the strongly critical fundament of governmentality analysis, our approach can be seen as the intention to re-introduce a critical perspective into media educational discourses, since it can serve as a counterpart by having a strongly critical impetus in the sense of a pedagogy that is oriented towards Enlightenment (“Aufklärung”) (cf. Maurer & Weber 2006).

References

Deimann, M. (2014): Open Education and Bildung. Ideas, Assumptions and Their Vigour to Transform Higher Education. In: MedienPädagogik. Zeitschrift für Theorie und Praxis der Medienbildung, 24. Online: http://www.medienpaed.com/Documents/medienpaed/24/deimann1409.pdf [Accessed 2015-01-31]. Ehlers, U.-D. (2013): Open Learning Cultures. A Guide to Quality, Evaluation, and Assessment for Future Learning. New York: Springer. European Commission (2013): Opening up Education. Innovative teaching and learning for all through new Technologies and Open Educational Resources. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0654&from=EN [Accessed 2015-01-31]. Foucault, M. (1988): Technologies of the Self. In: Martin, L. H.; Gutman, H.; Hutton, P. H. (eds.), Technologies of the self. A seminar with Michel Foucault. London: Tavistock, pp. 16–49. Foucault, M. (1991): Governmentality. In: Burchell, G.; Gordon, C.; Miller, P. (eds.), The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 87–104. Hepp, A. & Lehmann-Wermser, A. (eds.) (2013): Transformationen des Kulturellen. Prozesse des gegenwärtigen Kulturwandels. Wiesbaden: VS. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., Freeman, A. (2014): NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition. Austin: The New Media Consortium. Online: http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2014-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN-SC.pdf [Accessed 2015-01-31]. Klingovsky U. (2009): Schöne neue Lernkultur. Transformationen der Macht in der Weiterbildung. Eine gouvernementalitätstheoretische Analyse. Bielefeld: transcript. Krotz, F. (2014): Mediatization as a mover in modernity. Social and cultural change in the context of media change. In: K. Lundby (eds.), Mediatization of communication (S. 131–161). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. Lemke, T., Krassmann, S. & Bröckling, U. (2012): Gouvernementalität, Neoliberalismus und Selbsttechnologien. Eine Einführung. In: U. Bröckling, S. Krasmann & T. Lemke (eds.), Gouvernementalität der Gegenwart. Studien zur Ökonomisierung des Sozialen. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, pp. 7-40. Maurer, S. & Weber, S.M. (2006): Die Kunst, nicht dermaßen regiert zu werden. Gouvernementalität als Perspektive für die Erziehungswissenschaft. In S. Weber & S. Maurer (eds.), Gouvernementalität und Erziehungswissenschaft. Wissen – Macht – Transformation. Wiesbaden: VS, pp. 9-36. Münte-Goussar, S. (2011): Ambivalente Selbst-Techniken: Portfolio, Ökonomisierung, Selbstbestimmung. In T. Meyer, K. Mayrberger, S. Münte-Goussar & C. Schwalbe (eds.), Kontrolle und Selbstkontrolle. Zur Ambivalenz von E-Portfolios in Bildungsprozessen. Wiesbaden: VS, p. 225-250. Picciano, Anthony G. (2012): The Evolution of Big Data and Learning Analytics in American Higher Education. In: Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16 (3), pp. 9–20.

Author Information

Patrick Bettinger (presenting / submitting)

University of Hamburg

Educational Science

Hamburg

Valentin Dander (presenting)

University of Cologne

Medienpädagogik und Mediendidaktik

Köln

Search the ECER Programme

Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
Search for authors and in the respective field.
For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.