The practice of taking hand-written notes in lectures has been rediscovered recently because of several studies on its learning efficacy in the mainstream media. Students are enjoined to ditch their laptops and return to pen and paper. Such arguments presuppose that notes are taken in order to be revisited after the lecture. Learning is seen to happen only after the event. We argue instead that student’s note-taking is an educational practice worthy in itself as a way to relate to the (...) live event of the lecture. We adopt a phenomenological approach inspired by Vilém Flusser’s phenomenology of gestures, which assumes that a gesture like note-taking is always an event of thinking with media in which a certain freedom is expressed. But Flusser’s description of note-taking focusses on the individual note-taker. What about students’ note-taking in a lecture hall as a collective gesture? Nietzsche considered note-taking ‘mechanical,’ as if students were automatons who mindlessly transcribed a verbal flow, while Benjamin considered it an inaesthetic gesture: at best, boring; at worst, ‘painful to watch.’ In contrast, we argue that the educational potentiality of note-taking—or better, note-making—can be grasped only if we account for its mediaticity (as writing that displaces the voice), together with but distinct from its political potentiality as a collective mediality (as a ‘means without end’). Note-taking enables us to see how collective thinking emerges in the lecture, a kind of thinking that belongs neither to the lecturer nor the student, but emerges in the relation of attention established between the lecturer, students and their object of thought. (shrink)

In recent years, initiatives aiming at innovating and modernizing education and training have been deployed. Digital technologies are being integrated into educational institutions with the aim of bettering the education of skills needed in the 21st century. Learning through Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) is part of the strategy to promote the continuous acquisition of skills. For instance, today’s demanded competences of digital literacy and entrepreneurial mindset are taught in MOOCs, which are framed as a neutral tool that is used (...) for connecting students and teachers. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate MOOCs beyond these neutral perspectives. The promises and debate around MOOCs are examined in order to understand how MOOCs shape people’s understanding of learning. The research question guiding the analysis is: What do we learn when we learn through educational technologies such as MOOCs? Drawing from concepts of Critical Pedagogy and Philosophy of Technology, the structure of learning through MOOCs is analyzed. The theoretical frameworks of Paulo Freire serve to problematize educational models that equate learning with transferring of information. The aim of education is not just to equip students with the skills and competences to function in a world that treat them as labour force. Education can serve as a vehicle for developing a critical consciousness and social awareness of the active role that people have in transforming their reality. This is what Freire conceptualized as a process of humanization. Education makes us human. However, there are structures in educational models that frame students as objects rather than active subjects. The approach of “banking model education” describes the dynamics of oppressive structures in classrooms. On examining the educational models in MOOCs through a Freirean analysis, oppressive structures are revealed. Therefore, in this thesis it is argued that educational technologies can become new forms of oppression that often are not acknowledged as such, perhaps because they are obscured by technological enthusiasm and innovation narratives discussed in the media Digital oppression is conceptualized as the technologically-mediated processes where oppressor-oppressed relationships take place. In order to further grasp how digital oppression can occur through educational technologies, the philosophy of technology perspectives of Byung-Chul Han and Nolen Gertz are discussed. These perspectives help to examine the role of MOOCs in shaping people’s understanding of learning. Achievement societies and techno-hypnotic effects of technologies illustrate why people might not acknowledge digital oppression. The main conclusion to be drawn from this thesis is that learning cannot be reduced to technological practices. Through MOOCs people do not learn the skills needed for the 21st century. Critical thinking, reflection, and the development of a social and political consciousness cannot be learned through MOOCs. MOOC platforms are instrumental in helping prepare students with skills that serve an ideology of market interests. The result of the analysis suggests that oppressive models should not be replicated in educational technologies. There is a need for continuous investigations about educational technologies through approaches that can lead to the development of transformative practices. Critical pedagogy and philosophy of technology invites us to reflect beyond the technological enthusiasm around technologies and reveal new perspectives that allow stakeholders to further reflect, inquire, and govern the learning environments of the future. (shrink)