Elsevier

Computers & Education

Volume 69, November 2013, Pages 520-522
Computers & Education

Orchestration, power, and educational technology: A response to Dillenbourg

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.007Get rights and content

Abstract

This response is about the role of “orchestration” as a useful metaphor to assist the investigation of technology-enhanced learning (TEL) settings. The paper argues that current positions on orchestration are based on a technologically-orientated viewpoint on the issue of technological under-usage in schools. The paper suggests that this is a form of circular reasoning, and a distraction from the actual, socially shaped dynamics at play. The paper’s main contention is that orchestration is an opportunity to incorporate a more ‘sociological’ angle in TEL scholarship. Orchestration – as often used in the English language to signify ‘political work’ – is indeed a welcome addition to the field. Insofar as the metaphor allows teachers and researchers to recognise the complex interplay of influences, pressures, and expectations that surround the use of technologies. In other words, insofar as orchestration allows us to appreciate the ‘political’ nature of educational technology and the impacts of implementation. As such, orchestration can help us move away from an idealised understanding of teaching as a neutral practice, that is, the idea that teachers act always rationally, positively planning and executing their work to maximise learning for students.

Introduction

Orchestration as a metaphor for teaching is gaining increased attention in the technology-enhanced learning (TEL) community and thought-provoking views are emerging in favour or against its formalisation as an actual pedagogical theory. As implied by Dillenbourg in his position paper (this issue), metaphors can be a tricky affair when describing complex phenomena. Perhaps useful to draw attention to hitherto underspecified aspects of these phenomena, metaphors are equally likely to lure overeager ‘theorists’ into sterile debates focused on unproductive analogies among, possibly, incongruent domains. On the other hand, metaphors can be useful tools for theory building, often capable of providing a more palatable ‘common-sense’ framework for interpreting and communicating complex themes and dry empirical findings (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). We would like to contribute to this lively discussion of orchestration, whether it be deemed metaphor or heuristic, by offering a critical perspective: one not aligned with an unquestioned emphasis on instructional technology, which seems to be a defining element of current views on orchestration, but one that places power as central to the understanding of how teachers successfully (or not) orchestrate TEL environments. ‘Instructional technology’ is used here in its broad form, to refer not only to tools and resources, but also to a general approach to instruction that draws on technological discourse (e.g., computing and information processing) to frame and explain educational dynamics (e.g. Muffoletto, 2001).

To illustrate our position, we will draw on research carried out by the authors (Perrotta & Evans, 2012) where orchestration as power was positioned to be an appropriate heuristic for analysis of TEL environments in formal and informal settings. We will take the opportunity offered by this response to discuss additional theoretical and conceptual contributions. Our hope is that this critical perspective might clarify a few key assumptions, defining more effectively the broader challenges faced by the TEL community in adopting orchestration as a productive metaphor.

Orchestration can be regarded as a response to an emerging trend in academia, but also in the wider educational discourse in Europe, North America, and perhaps globally, that seeks to reinstate the centrality of the teacher in formal (and informal) educational contexts. Dillenbourg and Jermann (2010) refer to orchestration as a ‘teacher-centric approach’ (p. 1) to emphasise the elements of proactive guidance, which may be interpreted as an implicit remark on the frustration with unguided discovery or experientially-based learning (see e.g. Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006). Other factors, more specific to the field of TEL, also contributed to the emergence of orchestration as a proposed theoretical construct, most notably a rising awareness of a gap between ‘state of art’ experimental studies on learning and technology, and the ‘state of the actual’ (Selwyn, 2011); the latter referring to the messy realities of schooling where compromise, pragmatism and politics take centre stage, and where the technological transformation promised by enthusiasts over the last three decades failed to materialise. This, arguably, is a key point made by Dillenbourg when he suggests that orchestration “originated from some frustration. Why are technologies under-exploited in schools despite the fact that, in Western countries, computers and internet are ubiquitous, educational software is available … ?” (this issue).

Although Dillenbourg acknowledges that this question is mostly sociological in nature, he undertakes the task to find a technological explanation, using orchestration as a conceptual lens. While never advocating for wholesale dismissal of Dillenbourg's attempt, we argue in this response that a technologically-orientated viewpoint on the issue of technological under-usage in schools is a form of circular reasoning, and a distraction from the actual, socially shaped dynamics at play in any given learning scenario. Our main contention is that orchestration is indeed an opportunity to incorporate a more ‘sociological’ angle in TEL scholarship, but this opportunity will be wasted if this notion is unproblematically framed along the traditional theoretical lines of the learning sciences, computer science, CSCL (Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning), and instructional design.

In his position paper, Dillenbourg suggests that orchestration is about accounting for a new level of extrinsic constraints, which refer to social, logistic as well as more ‘systemic’ aspects teachers have to cope with: time, curriculum, discipline, assessment, energy (effort needed), and physical space. In the literature, these aspects are generally viewed as elements of a complex ecosystem where the actions of individual teachers, with or without technology, are influenced by what happens outside the classroom: from the broad level of educational policies, to the school level where accountability mechanisms and assessment regimes influence teaching and learning practices (e.g. Zhao & Frank, 2003). We agree that recognising these constraints is fundamental because it will introduce a broader social dimension in TEL research. For too long research on educational technology has been in fact characterised by too narrow a concern for collaborative dynamics in small and medium-sized groups. In this respect, orchestration is indeed a welcome addition to the field; insofar as the metaphor allows teachers and researchers to recognise the complex interplay of influences, pressures, and expectations that surround the use of technologies. In other words, insofar as orchestration allows us to appreciate the ‘political’ nature of educational technology and the impacts of implementation.

After all, beyond it obvious musical meaning orchestration is often used in the English language to signify ‘political work’. That is to say, to describe the actions of individuals or groups who know which levers to pull, the people to talk to, and the tools to use to achieve the desired outcomes. it may even have a rather negative connotation, leaning towards ‘Machiavellian’ or ‘manipulation’ – which is also rather interesting and useful as it helps us move away from an idealised understanding of teaching as a neutral practice, that is, the idea that teachers act always rationally, positively planning and executing their work to maximise learning for students.

For instance, by drawing attention to the issue of power, orchestration may highlight the tensions and contradictions that surround teaching and learning, most notably that teachers are subjected to many conflicting demands and expectations, while at the same time acting according to their own ambitions, values, and predispositions towards technology. Technological Innovations, in other words, are not simply assimilated or integrated, but more often appropriated by individuals in ways that reflect differing and sometimes oppositional agendas. If we position orchestration as a metaphor or heuristic that might grant us greater insight into these agendas, then it deserves further attention and refinement.

Research carried out by the authors of this response suggests that individuals tend to use educational technology and, generally, the discourse of innovation for political purposes, though these intimations often remain implicit (Perrotta & Evans, 2012). For instance, to accrue benefits, to enhance opportunities for career development, or more often as a form of harmless ‘resistance’ to escape the drudgery of daily teaching, with its sometimes boring and stultifying routines, and pursue individual interests and passions. Hence, technology can sometimes provide an opportunity to suspend existing power relations that shape curricula, assessment, timetabling and what is generally considered as acceptable knowledge in a formal (or informal) educational setting. This is what Giroux (1992) called a ‘border pedagogy’, where teachers and learners have a temporary chance to establish forms of dialogue that are not permitted in other spaces and times. So, technology and instruction can be orchestrated to create opportunities for expression and ‘resistance’. At the same time, orchestration can serve consensus and authority, whereby a technology-based activity is ‘tamed’ to fit within traditional instructional templates. This type of orchestration is meant to reassert an established social order: the ‘correct’ forms of knowledge, the assessment and testing regimes, and so forth. It is indeed possible that these two forms of technology orchestration co-exist and are expertly deployed by teachers who negotiate the complexities of their profession. This could be in fact an interesting hypothesis to inform future research.

Section snippets

Conclusion

If we seek to help teachers cope with the intricacies of TEL, then emphases solely on instructional design may be insufficient, the existing political and cultural dynamics of actual power in schools deserving equal attention. In this respect, orchestration may be an opportunity to problematise the relationship between teachers, technology, students, and the different agendas and institutional pressures operating simultaneously. This goes beyond a simple acknowledgement of the constraints, and

References (12)

  • P. Dillenbourg et al.

    Technology for classroom orchestration

  • P. Dillenbourg et al.

    Classroom orchestration: the third circle of usability

  • N. Fairclough

    Technologisation of discourse

  • H. Giroux

    Border crossing

    (1992)
  • P.A. Kirschner et al.

    Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching

    Educational Psychologist

    (2006)
  • G. Lakoff et al.

    Metaphors we live by

    (1980)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (11)

  • Streamlined orchestration: An orchestration workbench framework for effective teaching

    2016, Computers and Education
    Citation Excerpt :

    Perotta and Evans, however, provide an argument for why an emphasis on instructional design is insufficient. The central theme to their argument is that more emphasis ought to be placed on more human elements in order to better understand the broader challenges faced during orchestration (Perrotta & Evans, 2013). Orchestration has been applied in a wide variety of TEL fields, most notable Computer-Support Collaborative Learning (CSCL) (Koschmann, 1996; Dillenbourg, Järvelä, & Fischer, 2009).

  • Classroom orchestration: Synthesis

    2013, Computers and Education
    Citation Excerpt :

    The disagreements go far beyond the metaphor. Perrotta and Evans (2013) critique the emphasis on computing entirely, suggesting that real orchestration should start with human dilemmas of power which transcend specific tools and materials. Dimitriadis and colleagues likewise warn that the focus on classrooms may be too narrow.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text