Education, Faculty of
Educational Studies (EDST), Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Jazienicki, Amy Heidi
This paper aims to evaluate the viability of ‘democratizing’ eLearning within the global neoliberal economy. ‘Democratization’ is examined through several focus areas, namely the digital divide, socioeconomic status, gender, and social justice in curricula. These facets of ‘democratization’ are scrutinized specifically through corporate and university eLearning discourse, focusing principally on adult learners. The central objective is to determine to what extent eLearning can be ‘democratized’ for 21st century learners. The COVID-19 pandemic has catapulted eLearning to the forefront of education and has been urgently implemented globally across corporations, higher educational institutions, and K-12 schools. eLearning discourse has been imbued with terms such as ‘accessibility’, ‘flexibility’, and ‘engagement’. The paper explores how these discourses could be reconstituted to live up to the promises of ‘democratization’ through Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA), and asserts that policymakers, post-secondary institutions, and companies must cultivate learning environments in which learners’ full inclusion and development is prioritized.
Democratization in eLearning Before and During COVID-19: A Foucauldian Discourse Analysis Research Paper for ETEC 580: Directed Study Master of Educational Technology (MET) Program, University of British Columbia MET Candidate Amy Jazienicki The University of British Columbia Supervisor Dr. Jennifer Jenson The University of British Columbia Abstract This paper aims to evaluate the viability of ‘democratizing’ eLearning within the global neoliberal economy. ‘Democratization’ is examined through several focus areas, namely the digital divide, socioeconomic status, gender, and social justice in curricula. These facets of ‘democratization’ are scrutinized specifically through corporate and university eLearning discourse, focusing principally on adult learners. The central objective is to determine to what extent eLearning can be ‘democratized’ for 21st century learners. The COVID-19 pandemic has catapulted eLearning to the forefront of education and has been urgently implemented globally across corporations, higher educational institutions, and K-12 schools. eLearning discourse has been imbued with terms such as ‘accessibility’, ‘flexibility’, and ‘engagement’. The paper explores how these discourses could be reconstituted to live up to the promises of ‘democratization’ through Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA), and asserts that policymakers, post-secondary institutions, and companies must cultivate learning environments in which learners’ full inclusion and development is prioritized. Keywords: Accessibility, flexibility, engagement, democratization, eLearning, the digital divide, inequality, equity, equality, socioeconomics, gender, social justice, Foucault, Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA), COVID-19, 21st century Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Outline ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Literature Review ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Education, Inequality & the Modern Economy .................................................................................... 7 The Digital Divide: eLearning’s Potential ............................................................................................ 9 Social Justice & eLearning ................................................................................................................. 11 Socioeconomics & eLearning ............................................................................................................. 13 Gender & eLearning ........................................................................................................................... 16 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 17 Theory & Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 18 Discourse: Power & Knowledge ............................................................................................................. 18 Discursive Formations & Problematizations .......................................................................................... 20 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 22 Guidelines ........................................................................................................................................... 22 Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA) ............................................................................................. 23 ‘Corpus of Statements’: Collecting Online Resources ........................................................................ 24 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 25 Findings, Analysis & Recommendations .................................................................................................... 26 Pre-COVID Discourse (2009-2019) ....................................................................................................... 26 Accessibility ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Flexibility ............................................................................................................................................ 28 Engagement ......................................................................................................................................... 30 COVID Discourse (2020-2021) .............................................................................................................. 33 Accessibility ........................................................................................................................................ 33 Flexibility ............................................................................................................................................ 36 Engagement ......................................................................................................................................... 38 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 41 Policymakers ....................................................................................................................................... 41 Post-Secondary Institutions................................................................................................................. 42 Companies ........................................................................................................................................... 43 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 44 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 44 Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 44 References ............................................................................................................................................... 46 Introduction Background In the 21st century, eLearning has been propelled to the forefront of educational theory and practice. Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, eLearning has become much more ubiquitous within and beyond the education sector. As such, the urgency to deliver upon promises of ‘democratizing’ eLearning for learners is greater now than ever before, aiming to ensure that socioeconomic status, gender and other markers of privilege and disadvantage have minimal to no bearing on one’s ability to pursue high-quality eLearning. Concepts of ‘accessibility’, ‘flexibility’, and ‘engagement’ are gaining greater prominence within eLearning discourse as well. The positive rhetoric around eLearning will be critically examined under the lenses of socioeconomics and gender in the literature review of this paper. Digital learning has opened institutions up globally to learn about and embrace a variety of students with differing skill sets, cultures, competencies, and specializations (Passantino, 2021). Globalization and the rise of remote work and online learning have redefined what it means to work, study, and participate within society. Although there is considerable enthusiasm expressed by post-secondary institutions and companies about the possibilities of eLearning promoting a greater sense of ‘democratization’ in education and training, preexisting barriers continue to persist: namely access to high-quality eLearning and education more generally. Technological and financial barriers likewise continue to perpetuate – and even exacerbate – inequalities within the world of eLearning. Those with lower socioeconomic status have much to gain from online learning, but only if financial and technological barriers are reduced or outright eliminated. Furthermore, barriers can exist with curriculum itself: Oztok (2019) has written extensively about the concept of a ‘hidden’ curriculum in which hegemonic privilege is disseminated, and notes that “discursive practices dictate the identities that are accepted, legitimized, [and] included, and those that are othered or excluded… discursive practices can never be equal or neutral” (p. 57). This ‘hidden’ curriculum can be examined through socioeconomics and gender. This area of study is crucial to the field of educational technology, especially for the post-COVID environment, because eLearning should be ‘democratized’ as much as possible. Without a thorough examination of both the inequalities and opportunities inherent in it, eLearning runs the risk of continuing to perpetuate the status quo and, consequently, being unresponsive to substantial portions of the population. To improve eLearning altogether, these concerns must be addressed and resolved. Outline This paper is divided into four major sections. Section 1 (Introduction) provides context for the topic of eLearning and its potential for democratization, principally through the literature review that explores education in the neoliberal economy, the digital divide, social justice in curricula, socioeconomics, and finally gender. Section 2 (Theory & Methodology) offers a general overview of what discourse is, how it relates to the generation of power and knowledge, and how discursive formations and problematizations are created. Furthermore, it addresses Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA): how it can be conducted, what a ‘corpus of statements’ is and its importance, and a general justification of the resources selected. Section 3 (Findings, Analysis & Recommendations) entails the FDA and is divided into two primary sections: pre-COVID (2009-2019) and COVID (2020-2021), exploring the concepts of ‘accessibility’, ‘flexibility’, and ‘engagement’ and analyzing how these discourses have been constituted and reconstituted overtime. Further, this section includes recommendation for post-secondary institutions, companies, and policymakers for how democratization of eLearning can be improved during and after the pandemic. Lastly, Section 4 (Conclusion) concisely summarizes how institutions dominate eLearning discourse and have the potential to reconstitute it in ways that are less ‘top-down’ that better integrate the voices of online learners. It also includes the list of references for the entirety of the paper. Although the scope of the literature review will be limited to socioeconomics and gender, other areas of intersectionality will be acknowledged throughout (e.g., race and ethnicity, nationality, age, ability, etc). Literature Review Education, Inequality & the Modern Economy Piketty’s (2014) research on capital in the 21st century indicates that ownership cannot be described as “‘mildly’ inegalitarian… in which the poorest half of society would own a significant share (…one fifth to one-quarter) of total wealth” (p. 258). Rather, the system is inegalitarian in its essence. The nature of capitalism however has evolved with the advent of the Internet, eliminating barriers to time, space, and cost in the acquisition of information (Journell, 2007). This evolution has entailed a transformation into the ‘knowledge economy’, requiring workers to be highly knowledgeable and skilled in technological and scientific innovations. With this evolution, education now has another mode of delivery: eLearning, which promises democratic access to its content with mantras such as ‘education for all’. In the knowledge economy, academic and professional advancement is contingent upon access to high-quality education, whether it is delivered online or face-to-face. This raises questions about the relationship between education systems and capitalist relations (Au, 2006). In particular, Sigahi and Saltorato (2019) reference the troubling relationship observed between capitalism and higher education (HE) through academic capitalism (AC), which conceptualizes HE as a business-minded venture that increasingly relies on external revenues to fund education, research, and services; HE institutions are engaged in a myriad of market-like activities, including being concerned with international rankings and reputation – similarly to a corporate brand. With substantial disparities in educational attainment along socioeconomic and racial lines, schools are entrenched within a wider system (or ‘superstructure’) in which inequalities are reproduced (Au, 2006). In other words, it is impossible to separate schooling and education from the global neoliberal economy. For HE institutions, internationalization is achieved through means such as courses for business executives and government officials, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and distance learning; AC thus transforms academic culture, including its ethical norms, institutional practices, and even discourses (Sighai & Saltorato, 2019). This insight might compel one to believe that resistance within such a hegemonic system is inconceivable. However, critical educational theorists situate education within this system as a “tactical position” (Au, 2006, p. 33) through which hegemonic processes can be disrupted. Although Marx’s conception of “infinite accumulation… [is] as valid… [in] the twenty-first century as it was in the nineteenth” (Piketty, 2014, p. 10) and represents potential for destabilization, education can be leveraged as a mechanism for social change. Specifically, individuals within school systems have relative autonomy to resist the capitalist economic base upon which it is founded (Au, 2006). As a facet of education, the advent of eLearning has the potential to both reproduce and ameliorate inequalities. Piketty (2014) observes that the supply of skills within the economy depend on factors such as “the state of the educational system [and] how many people have access” (p. 305); these factors also profoundly influence various social groups’ power, particularly when it concerns the cost and availability of continuing education and the innovation and pace of new technological implementation. AC reconfigures boundaries of knowledge by creating “new circuits of knowledge… [developed] by State agencies, corporations and universities… resulting in the emergence of new forms of education, knowledge production, student markets, [and the] university-industry relationship” (Sigahi & Saltorato, 2019, p. 99). eLearning is often touted as presenting a myriad of opportunities for working-class people to increase their wages and afford them greater autonomy to pursue a higher quality of life. If there is a greater investment by national governments (e.g., the United States, Canada, France) in high-caliber professional training and educational advancement opportunities for a greater portion of the population, this aspiration can be actualized (Piketty, 2014). Access requires addressing one of several relevant long-standing societal issues however, namely: the digital divide. The Digital Divide: eLearning’s Potential Urban and rural areas tend to be most affected by the digital divide when compared with suburban ones and is directly correlated with socioeconomic status; funding is the central barrier to digital equality in urban areas, whereas rural areas must also contend with physical access, as such areas are often out of range for high-speed Internet (Journell, 2007). Young learners who are raised in advantageous socioeconomic conditions are “more likely to have computers in their homes, attend better schools, and have more qualified teachers with better computer skills” (Journell, 2007, p. 139). Digital exclusion is determined in large part by income, education, and geography, while digital inclusion is determined by these factors as well; the benefits of educational technologies are reaped more by households with higher cultural capital (Sims et al., 2008), in addition to technological, and financial capital. As the cost of technology has decreased over time, it raises the question as to whether this will enhance digital inclusion. According to Journell (2007), this is only one piece of a larger puzzle: the idea of ‘digital literacy’ is also essential when exploring the digital divide, as it entails instilling habits in individuals to “use computer technology for learning, work, socializing and fun” (p. 140); one’s digital literacy is contingent upon their ability to employ diverse technologies based on previous experiences. When assessing eLearning’s viability to close gaps created by the digital divide, it is imperative to examine the instructor’s role in designing and implementing responsive educational solutions. A multitude of eLearning courses are designed to operate asynchronously without the instructor being present in real-time; in such courses, eLearning acts as an instructional agent as opposed to a supplementary one (Journell, 2007). Instructors need to be equipped not only with the technological knowledge required to navigate and effectively employ eLearning tools such as Learning Management Systems (LMSs), discussion forums, basic multimedia production, etc., but also the capacity to select and deploy pedagogical methods appropriate for their teaching content. Journell (2007) advises teacher training institutes to include content on eLearning instructional strategies to ensure that this marriage between technology and pedagogy is observed and practiced. eLearning does present the opportunity to revolutionize public education for learners of diverse income and education levels, in addition to geography; it can aid in lessening the severity of the digital divide as it presently exists. The COVID-19 pandemic has taught countries worldwide that their societies and educational systems must undergo massive reform. The rapid ascension of remote work and online schooling has raised a myriad of questions regarding how to craft more diverse and inclusive educational content; in particular, how instructors and designers can create culturally sensitive, clear, and empathetic learning experiences in online environments has become of paramount importance (Passantino, 2021). With new eLearning technologies regularly emerging, instructors must learn how to use and combine them with human-centered pedagogical approaches (Sims et al., 2008). If wielded effectively, these technologies can liberate learners from the previous shackles of proximity, educational spaces and even schedules that have compromised their ability to participate in face-to-face learning experiences (Passantino, 2021). Instructors can empower their learners in online environments, providing direct assistance to them to navigate and adapt to such environments (Journell, 2007). If we imagine the instructor embracing such a role in this environment, it does not differ drastically from their face-to-face responsibilities: it is merely a ‘digitized’ evolution of their role to provide practical guidance. Crucially, their role also encompasses a continued acknowledgement and practice of equity, as their learners will come from a diverse range of cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds (Oztok, 2019). Beyond educators however, it is the responsibility of national governments to implement measures to close gaps caused by the digital divide – otherwise, socioeconomic, cultural, and even gender-based exclusions will persist. Social Justice & eLearning Oztok (2019) states that educational technology developed out of a desire to find cost-effective solutions for education and schooling; the concept of EdTech then has largely been understood as something instructors engage in with “pre-constituted [bodies] of knowledge and is therefore improvable by increasingly complex applications of technology” (p. 3). As explored in the previous section detailing the digital divide, mere physical access does not constitute equity in online learning environments. Rather, educational discourses that neglect to acknowledge and address “power relationships, otherness, privilege, or marginalization in relation to the material… conditions within which the daily learning practices are embedded” (Oztok, 2019, p. 7) will invariably fail to live up to the ‘democratization’ of eLearning. Considerations of equity must be at the forefront of identifying opportunities for situating eLearning as a tool for social progress. Mishra et al. (2018) advises designers of educational technology to consider the ‘hype-and-despair’ cycle of technology’s (in)ability to reform or even revolutionize education; they explain that many of the solutions that were hoped for have not come to fruition because they do not account for the underlying systems and cultures of education, preventing them from designing impactful and inclusive eLearning experiences. One of these idealized solutions has been MOOCs. Hansen and Reich (2015) observe that most learners registered in MOOCs possessed college or graduate degrees, and that learners residing in higher-income neighborhoods are substantially more likely to enroll in Harvard and MIT’s MOOCs and earn certificates at much higher rates; they write that “the rhetoric of democratizing education implies broad social benefits without precisely articulating how those benefits might be distributed” (p. 1247). Ochieng and Gyasi (2021) explain that social justice rhetoric within education rarely incorporates the concerns of minority groups, overshadowing them while homogenizing the wellbeing of ‘the mass’. Although findings pertaining to MOOCs cannot be generalized to all Open Educational Resources (OERs) or educational technologies, skepticism must be exercised over claims of ‘democratization’ and closing gaps within the digital divide; social benefits can certainly be afforded through freely available technologies and resources, but it should never be assumed that disadvantaged groups will be the main beneficiaries of them (Hansen & Reich, 2015). MOOCs and similar OERs have emerged from a philosophy of Open Education (OE). This philosophy espouses “openly and freely sharing the tools, methods, platforms, ideas, knowledge, materials and approaches used in teaching and learning in higher education” (Ochieng & Gyasi, 2021, p. 109), and OERs have drastically reduced the cost of textbooks and other learning materials. The rhetoric of ‘openness’ as it pertains to eLearning has raised critical questions around what is open and to whom. As many national governments are investing substantially in their citizens’ educational pursuits, working-class learners are especially eager to achieve career advancement emblematic of middle-class individuals; the latter group tends to be more knowledgeable and experienced in OERs, thereby enabling them to advance even further (Ochieng & Gyasi, 2021). This phenomenon demonstrates a form of hegemonic dominance, highlighting stark differences in power, knowledge, and identities; cultural hegemony in particular entails a ‘hidden’ curriculum that is by no means neutral, but instead one that promotes “white, male, middle-class, and heterosexual world views” (Oztok, 2019, p. 111). This further illustrates the criticism of closing the digital divide as something that transcends ‘access’ alone – learning resources themselves are embedded with markers of privilege and exclusion that must be deconstructed and reconstituted. Socioeconomics & eLearning Access to traditional, face-to-face higher education has become more difficult for working-class students, as tuition rates and cost of living expenses continue to rise in major cities globally. Albert and Johnson (2011) identify socioeconomic status as one of the central changing characteristics in modern colleges in universities, with working-class and middle-class learners differing in their “lifestyle preferences, behavioral tendencies, and social norms… [affected by] parental educational background, as well as personal income and personal educational attainment” (p. 424). Working-class students are more likely to be employed on a part-time basis while pursuing their studies, restricting their autonomy in terms of flexibility, scheduling, and vacation time; as such, more universities are providing flexible degree programs and online courses to have working-class students access and study content in a manner that is most convenient for them (Albert & Johnson, 2011). There are also individuals for whom participating in higher education at all seems entirely unattainable. Sims et al. (2008) cite reasons for non-participation to include “[a] lack of financial resources, caring or work-related commitments… or for cultural reasons that leave the individual unwilling, or unmotivated to attend university” (p. 431). Further, poorer groups marked by “unemployment, low wage, occupational class, gender, area of residence” (Sims et al., 2008, p. 431) participate in higher education at substantially lower levels, in addition to “ex-offenders, part-time or temporary workers, those with low levels of basic skills, and some ethnic groups” (Sims et al., 2008, p. 431). Cuisia-Villanueva and Nuñez (2020) reiterate that this non-participation occurs primarily because poorer households have fewer resources and learning materials through which ‘digital literacy’ can be promoted. Beyond access, lower levels of ‘digital literacy’ can be directly correlated with lower socioeconomic status. Perceptions of eLearning differ considerably between working-class and middle-class learners. Albert and Johnson (2011) found that working-class learners perceive eLearning as a method through which interaction with their peers, instructors, and wider learning community could be more easily facilitated. Conversely, this is not a high priority for middle-class learners as they often have the time and financial resources to devote themselves full-time to their studies (Albert & Johnson, 2011). The beneficial features of eLearning appear to be luxuries rather than necessities for middle-class learners, while such features are often deemed essential to the learning experiences of working-class learners. Convenient LMSs such as Blackboard, Canvas and Desire2Learn allow instructors to create and embed rich multimedia content, host discussion forums, and facilitate both asynchronous and even synchronous communication methods; although they represent tremendous creative opportunities to craft impactful learning experiences, training instructors on appropriate methods is also quite expensive for institutions (Albert & Johnson, 2011). Synchronous online methods are what pose some of the greatest challenges for instructors to facilitate. Cuisia-Villanueva & Nuñez (2020) found that the effectiveness of Zoom classes correlated directly with socioeconomic status, as learners in the lower deciles were affected more by unstable Internet connections, their inability to have personal study spaces, and not having sufficient access to suitable electronic devices. There are innumerable challenges present in increasing participating in higher education for working-class and poorer groups, despite the potential presented by the convenience and flexibility of eLearning. Jaggers (2011) explains no comprehensive studies have been conducted to determine whether “low-income or underprepared populations’… enrollment has expanded as a result of the… explosion in online learning” (p. 25), while well-prepared and higher-income adults have seized the opportunities presented by eLearning. Journell (2007) found that effectively employing technology for educational purposes was shown to enhance the self-esteem of learners in lower socioeconomic statuses through fostering an environment of inclusion and participation. However, the number of fully online degrees as opposed to courses offered by universities remains low, and technological and financial barriers likely still interfere with working-class and poorer adults’ ability to seize opportunities in high-quality eLearning; tuition rates do not decrease with the implementation of online delivery (Jaggars, 2011). Even amidst the pandemic, digital inequality remains rampant as only those with higher socioeconomic status can continue their education without being excessively disrupted (Cuisia-Villanueva & Nuñez, 2020). Gender & eLearning When compared against socioeconomic status and eLearning, gender has been explored much less. Smith & Croissant (2011) critique modern universities and educational institutions as constitutive parts of the global neoliberal order; from a bureaucratic standpoint, such institutions often do not live up to the openness they espouse in their online learning offerings. Although women earn most bachelor’s degrees, they are still a minority in STEM subject areas (Smith & Croissant, 2011). Wallace and Penteli (2018) observe significant disparities between women and men enrolled in eLearning programs; over a six-year period, they observed that attendance in an online program by working adults was comprised of 79.52% women and 20.48% men; 72.31% of the program’s participants indicated confidence in their technological ability to pursue online study, while citing family responsibilities and work commitments as obstacles. Most notably, they discovered that “eLearning is considered by both male and female participants an indispensable tool for female working adults” (Wallace & Penteli, 2018). Albert and Johnson (2011) found that while eLearning tends to be perceived somewhat positively across gender identities, women demonstrate slightly more favorability towards it; they perceive eLearning as a means through which they can exercise greater control over their learning paths, while men feel somewhat limited by the structure imposed upon them through eLearning. Overwhelmingly, women tend to select eLearning out of necessity, while men select it as a choice (Wallace & Penteli, 2018). Modern women are tasked with a myriad of responsibilities within both formal and informal economies. Wallace and Penteli (2018) cite asynchronous learning and ease of access is a major point of attraction for women, as it enables them to fulfill their diverse responsibilities in their daily lives; eLearning seems to be a “female-friendly activity” (p. 298) that affords them the opportunity as primary or secondary breadwinners to maintain their full-time employment while pursuing further education. In addition to flexibility, enhancing career development has been cited by women as a determining factor in participating in eLearning (Wallace & Penteli, 2018). As women often pursue education after conventional working hours, they do not have to compromise their safety by pursuing face-to-face learning and can instead focus on their own comfort and convenience: working women largely prefer “studying online from the comfort of their homes than being out at night facing lonely car parks of bus stops” (p. 299). Women require advanced credentials to find success at work, but Wallace and Penteli (2018) found that regardless of the eLearning’s design women will pursue it if it leads to better professional opportunities. Smith and Croissant (2011) acknowledge that because knowledge, power, and gender are intertwined, knowledge-producing institutions must meet the pressing demands of diverse demographics – especially working-class women – to avoid reproducing inequalities and elitism. For women to benefit more from their eLearning experiences, their motivations and personal circumstances must be accounted for while curricula must also be tailored to suit these things. Summary The purpose of this review was to examine academic literature pertaining to eLearning’s potential to ‘democratize’ education, particularly for individuals of lower socioeconomic status and women. It is evident that one’s physical access to eLearning material does not constitute ‘digital literacy’, nor does it achieve social justice by fully closing gaps created by the digital divide: other factors such as cost, technological competence, and inclusive pedagogy and curricula are essential for working-class people and women to meaningfully participate in online learning. Although further academic research is required to investigate eLearning’s relationships more thoroughly with socioeconomics and gender, the literature has provided a foundation upon which new solutions for democratization and inclusivity can be proposed. Instructors have tremendous potential to craft impactful learning experiences for these groups, but it is also incumbent upon national governments to invest more heavily into higher education for them and to facilitate more equitable access to high-quality eLearning. Theory & Methodology Discourse: Power & Knowledge Arribas-Ayllon and Walkerdine (2017) describe poststructuralism as a paradigm that ushered in new theoretical tools that undermined the ‘grand narrative’ conception of power and knowledge as proposed by preceding paradigms such as Marxism and structuralism; they explain that philosopher Michel Foucault’s emphasis on subjectivity illuminates the need to conceptualize individuals as products of historically contingent ‘discourses’ that govern prevailing domains and actions. The individual is then conceived as a heterogeneous subject of examination: a unit of analysis through which complex power dynamics can be revealed, questioned, and even reconstituted. Such subjects occupy ‘positions’ within discourse that can only be written, spoken, or thought about in specific ways that are reflective of a particular historical period (Arribas-Ayllon & Walkerdine, 2017). Foucault (1980) expressed that power ought to be understood beyond only what is ‘negated’, as it “induces pleasure, forms knowledge, [and] produces discourse… [it is] considered as a productive network which runs through the whole social body, much more than as a negative instance whose function is repression” (p. 119). Additionally, Foucault (1969) conveyed his interest in defining ‘statements’ not through linguistic lenses, but rather through the ‘meaning’ given to units of analysis, their possible subjective positions, and how they relate to a field of objects: “Instead of fixing their limits, it places them in a domain of coordination and coexistence; instead of determining their identity, it places them in a space in which they are used and repeated” (p. 119). Rather than accepting the premise that acquired knowledge invariably leads to ‘progress’ overtime, Foucault’s work compels one to focus on how subjects emerge, how they are constituted, and for what purposes; further, one is encouraged to examine the reconstitution of these subjects through a temporal lens to understand how and why they change. Foucault had used what many refer to as an ‘archeological’ method throughout his work to better comprehend systems of knowledge. Arribas-Ayllon and Walkerdine (2017) articulate that the limits imposed on thought and language are indicative of a particular point in time, and the concept of ‘discourse’ is not a simple matter of writing, speaking, or thinking about a specific use of language, but rather the “rules, divisions and systems of a particular body of knowledge” (p.114). This ‘archeological’ approach is one he has deployed across his examinations of the prison system, psychiatry, and even sexuality. Foucault (1980) reiterated that such empirical forms of knowledge do not follow “smooth, continuist schemas of development which are normally accepted” (p. 112), suggesting that historical analyses of how knowledge is generated is often framed as a progressive, almost linear process of maturation. Foucault (1969) wrote extensively about ‘groupings’ as discursive syntheses that are often taken for granted, and whose validity is immediately accepted without question; he compelled readers to critically examine the forces behind the creation of such ‘groupings’ to analyze how they emerged to begin with. ‘Archaeology’ analyzes a discourse’s permeability, underscoring its articulation over successive events and defining how such events are transcribed into statements; it is equipped to acknowledge and confront discontinuities, gaps, and even sudden discontinuities (Foucault, 1969). As a practical example, Mishra et al. (2018) are among few scholars to explore the complexity eLearning discourse as it pertains to “successful design… to understand both the top-down factors as well as the manner in which artifacts and processes influence experiences, systems and cultures” (p. 3). Their acknowledgement of ‘top-down’ factors is especially noteworthy, as it underscores the need to deconstruct prevailing ‘groupings’ in eLearning discourse: how they are formed and by whom. Foucault (1980) had also written extensively about notions of ‘truth’ and how they manifest in analyses of discursive power, articulating that ‘truth’ must “be understood as a system of ordered procedures for the production, regulation, distribution, circulation and operation of statements” (p. 133). He posited the concept of ‘a regime of truth’, in which truth reflects circular relations of power that produce and sustain it; this regime does not manifest only by virtue of ideological or superstructural forces, but as a prerequisite condition of capitalism (Foucault, 1980). In essence, Foucault (1980) expressed the need to detach the power of truth from forces of the current time, specifically that of hegemony, society, the economy, and culture. As capitalism underpins these forces in our current time, it is imperative to analyze the discourses that elevate and solidify their power while reconstituting them to democratize education and eLearning in particular. Discursive Formations & Problematizations Foucault described his discursive framework as a history of ‘focal points of experience’, along which he studied three main axes: knowledge, power, and ethics (Arribas-Ayllon & Walkerdine, 2017). Knowledge refers to the rules that govern truth or falsehood through discursive practices; power refers to the rationalities through which one governs the conduct of others; lastly, ethics refers to the practices through which one constitutes themselves as a subject (Arribas-Ayllon & Walkerdine, 2017). Examining subjects along these axes centrally situates them in one’s analysis, enabling their deconstruction as ‘groupings’ and conceptualizing relevant ‘problematizations’ that emerge from them; familiarization with these ‘groupings’ can thus be disrupted and reexamined. Inherent in Foucault’s method is a ‘corpus of statements’, which Arribas-Ayllon and Walkerdine (2017) define as an approach to selecting discourse samples relevant to the object of one’s inquiry. The corpus is a practical application of Foucault’s emphasis on the historicity of objects, and how they change overtime. Foucault (1980) expressed that the central question is what governs statements, and how these statements govern each other to constitute sets of acceptable propositions, capable of ‘verification’ or ‘falsification’. Foucault (1969) stated that the analysis of statements: “…is another way of attacking verbal performance, of dissociating their complexity, of isolating the terms that are entangled in its web, and of locating the various regularities they obey” (p. 121). He also articulated how significant it is to deconstruct a system of thought in accordance with dimensions aside from the linguistic, primarily the logical and psychological (Foucault, 1969). Foucault (1980) recognized that discourse does not operate on a singular level, but rather on an entire order of levels and types of events “differing in amplitude, chronological breadth, and capacity to produce effects” (p. 114). Returning to the ‘archaeological’ approach, understanding discursive formations and problematizations does not involve defining “thoughts, representations, images, themes, preoccupations that are concealed or revealed in discourses; but those discourses themselves… as practices obeying certain rules… [they refuse] to be ‘allegorical’” (p. 155). The objective is to define discourses within their given specificity and illustrate how rules are set into motion (Foucault 1969). To ‘problematize’ then is to first deconstruct an object’s logical and psychological dimensions, and subsequently consider how and for whom its ‘grouping’ is problematic. eLearning, in historical terms, is an extraordinarily new phenomenon – but this does not negate the importance of analyzing its temporality and multifaceted dimensions as an object of discursive analysis. Methodology Guidelines As there is no singular way through which FDA is conducted, Arribas-Ayllon and Walkerdine (2017) outline general methodological guidelines for how to approach it: Figure 1. Arribas-Ayllon and Walkerdine (2017). Some methodological guidelines for conducting Foucauldian discourse analysis. Retrieved January 30, 2021, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336871927_Foucauldian_Discourse_Analysis_Second_Edition. Screenshot by author. Within eLearning, notions of ‘accessibility’, ‘flexibility’ and ‘engagement’ are problematized repeatedly across historical periods and in contemporary context. The ‘lay sources’ selected for the analysis construct these objects in a multitude of ways and are regulated through ‘top-down’ discourse. The statements in eLearning have changed significantly as a direct result of the pandemic and are more recently shifting to a focus on learners and their experiences with online education, despite how the discourse is still constituted primarily through institutional and corporate entities. The selected ‘lay sources’ consist of blogs and news articles, many of which have been written by individuals who work as writers for such entities: the sources are easily locatable online. These sources were selected based on several key criteria: temporality, relevancy in the given period, and non-academic writing. Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA) Although FDA is not a strict methodology with which to examine discourses, it can be a viable tool in targeting and dissecting convergent and contradictory discourses within eLearning. His framework has a poststructuralist emphasis on subjectivity, situating social objects within specifical historical periods and examining their heterogeneous and local positions within discourse and power (Arribas-Ayllon & Walkerdine, 2017). Foucault (1969) explained that units of discursive analysis do not have fixed limits; rather they exist within “a domain of coordination and coexistence; instead of determining their identity, it places them in a space in which they are used and repeated” (p. 119). For instance, it can be argued that the earliest conceptions of eLearning were embedded with primarily technical discourses pertaining to mechanical, quantitative, and generic learning experiences. Conversely, conceptions of eLearning during and immediately prior to the pandemic are embedded with discourses pertaining to ‘accessibility’, ‘flexibility’ and ‘engagement’. Mishra et al. (2018) reinforce this by citing how discourses of design are inherent in ‘artifacts’, ‘processes’, etc., and have a direct impact on learning experiences, systems, and cultures; these embedded discourses are malleable and fluid, enabling individuals and institutions to foster systemic and cultural change through rigorous analysis. Foucault (1969) compelled those using his framework to question what he considers to be “ready-made syntheses, those groupings that we normally accept before any examination… those divisions or groupings with which we have become so familiar… such as science, literature, philosophy” (p. 24). The concept of eLearning itself invites individuals to bring up relevant yet diverse ideas, tools, and relationships inherent in it, constituting its own unique ‘grouping’ in the 21st century. ‘Corpus of Statements’: Collecting Online Resources Arribas-Ayllon and Walkerdine (2017) explain how to conduct FDA using a ‘corpus of statements’, which is “a selection of discourse samples about an object relevant to one’s inquiry… [such as] theories or discussion, governmental reports, policy statements, news articles, and interview transcripts” (p. 115). The corpus serves as a practical application of studying how objects have been historically constructed, and how they are constructed in the present. Foucault (1969) stated that the intent is not to merely examine descriptive language, but rather what is “implied by verbal performances… [and] is situated at a particular level that must be distinguished from others” (p. 121). Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA) will be employed on ‘lay sources’, compiled into a suitable ‘corpus of statements’ regarding eLearning. These sources are comprised principally of blog posts and news articles written by universities, corporations, journalists, and bloggers. As FDA’s effectiveness relies heavily on temporality, I have selected sources ranging from 2009-2021 that will demonstrate the evolution of eLearning discourse spanning over more than a decade. They will also highlight key differences in the discourse before and after the onset of the pandemic, which is why they have been divided into two sections: Pre-COVID (2009-2021) and COVID (2020-2021), respectively. I have selected a total of twenty-two such ‘lay sources’ to be subject to FDA, namely eight from corporate sources, six from higher ed. sources, and eight from blogs and news sources. As most of these sources espouse ‘top-down’ discourse (through enlisting the views of corporations and higher educational institutions) as opposed to ‘bottom-up’ discourse (the opinions and insights of learners), the FDA methodology will be able to articulate core power differentials within eLearning discourse at large. These power differentials will illuminate a central concern: whether eLearning can be truly ‘democratized’ to empower learners of diverse socioeconomic, gender, and even cultural backgrounds to participate in higher education and professional development. Summary Foucault’s influence on poststructuralist thought has been profound, as he challenged the more linear, ‘grand narrative’ understanding of power and knowledge of structuralism and Marxism. To have a thorough understanding of a subject or object, one must examine and reveal the hidden power dynamics and complexity embedded within it, paying mind to historical contingency and temporality. Employing the ‘archaeological’ approach aids in understanding the underlying rules, divisions, and systems of knowledge of a given period. Transcending linguistics, analyzing ‘top-down’ discourse and bodies of knowledge allows for the deconstruction of privileged ‘groupings’ and conception of ‘problematizations’ inherent within them. The ‘corpus of statements’ then provides an empirical method through which to fathom how dominant discourses are constituted. The selection of FDA provides an exemplary means through which to determine ‘problematizations’ and the constitution and temporality of objects in eLearning, compiling a suitable ‘corpus of statements’. Locating ‘lay sources’ (blogs and news articles) pertaining to eLearning is illustrative of Foucault’s emphasis on temporality, as these sources date from 2009-2021. Additionally, they offer a more direct, ‘real-world’ examination of how eLearning is written and thought about beyond academia. Most importantly, employing FDA will aid in the hope of reconstituting eLearning discourse in a manner that can promote ‘democratization’ within the broader world of education. Findings, Analysis & Recommendations Pre-COVID Discourse (2009-2019) Accessibility The conception of ‘accessibility’ in relation to technology and, more specifically, eLearning originates in the digital divide: it has been constituted by notions of physical access (e.g. institutional support, Internet/high-bandwidth), cost-savings and, to a lesser extent, inequality. Bailey et al. (2018) emphasize how crucial it is for institutions to provide accessible remote support structures for online learners, guiding them through the technical challenges they may encounter in the online learning space. Further, they express that ‘accessibility’ must be increased not only in a technical sense, but also for specific populations to enroll in higher education: namely female and older, working-age learners (Bailey et al., 2018). This acknowledgement is however not particularly common in the discourse within the 2009-2019 period. Moreover, Bates (2009) predicted the growing prevalence for mobile learning, as several continents including North America, Europe and Asia have more direct access to a mobile phone as opposed to ground-based Internet access, or even a home-based computer; he also predicted that mobile learning would become much more commonplace for secondary school, corporate and lifelong learners rather than for post-secondary learners. Interestingly, he did not believe that post-secondary institutions would eventually have an imperative need to transition face-to-face learning in both web-based and mobile formats. Cost-savings tend to be framed as an inherent and universal attribute of eLearning, granting unencumbered access for those of lower socioeconomic status. Bailey et al. (2019) observe that post-secondary learners who were given the opportunity to pursue part of their degree online were able to save money on tuition and fees, earn their degrees more quickly, and transition to the workforce earlier than their peers who study in fully face-to-face environments. As fully online degrees were uncommon, minimal information is available on eLearning’s capacity to reduce tuition and other substantial fees associated with pursuing post-secondary education during the 2009-2019 period. A different method of cost-saving commonly touted during this period was virtual meetings. The facilitation of virtual meetings has meant reducing or eliminating costs associated with renting physical space, presentation equipment and even training fees. Strong (2015) articulates however that many participants of virtual meetings have reported feeling that such meetings are unproductive with a high degree of disengagement, along with collaboration and communicating suffering. Inequality and its relationship with eLearning have been explored less than the preceding areas of the discourse, but some acknowledgement of it has been present during this period. Bates (2009) highlights the need to recognize university funding as an area of inequality, since more ‘elite’ institutions have access to greater financial and technological capital than their less equipped counterparts. Kronk (2019) describes the significant extent to which inequality has increased in K-12 schools, emphasizing that schools in wealthier districts are endowed with higher levels of funding, can hire more inspired educators, and instill their learners with ‘digital literacy’ aptitudes earlier in life. Such learners become better equipped not only for their post-secondary studies, but for their eventual transition into the workplace. Conversely, schools with fewer resources and inspired educators cannot achieve comparable levels of ‘digital literacy’ within their learners, hindering their progress into post-secondary studies and the workplace. Upon examination, it appears that the concept of ‘accessibility’ in eLearning discourse has referred to more of a ‘techno-financial’ understanding: one’s ability to use and afford learning technologies and the Internet more generally has tended to determine the extent to which someone can ‘access’ eLearning. The major implication seems to be that once a learner obtains a stable Internet connection, is given technical guidance, and no longer needs to pay for textbooks and other physical learning materials, then they are designated as having full ‘access’ to eLearning. Although these elements bear relevance in the discussion of ‘access’, the 2009-2019 period did not capture a more holistic conception of it. As this discourse stems from the broader discourse of the digital divide, discussions regarding socioeconomics and even gender are acknowledged in some respects; however, questions pertaining to the social dimensions of eLearning, such as culture and curriculum, were not explored in-depth. Flexibility The concept of ‘flexibility’ in relation to eLearning entails notions of geography, time, ‘unconventional’ methods of learning, globalization, and choice. These notions collectively contributed to the discourse of ‘flexibility’ during the 2009-2019 period. The period contained repeated references to eLearning and the Internet more broadly as being without geographic and time boundaries. The term eLearning originated in 1999 when it was used during a Cognitive Behavioural Theory (CBT) seminar, prompting it to be considered a new approach to learning (ispring, 2016). Although transcending geographical and time boundaries implied a greater degree of flexibility in one’s learning path, post-secondary institutions that offered fully online programs were still a minority during the 2009-2019 period. Vallance and Wilson-Keates (2018) write that Athabasca University is one of the few Canadian universities to offer high-quality undergraduate and graduate programs with flexibility for learners, enabling them to design their learning paths around full-time employment, familial commitments, and geographic location. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for flexible learning seems to have been reserved to describe ‘non-traditional’ learners whose life circumstances prevented them from pursuing full-time face-to-face instruction rather than as a viable option for any type of student. eLearning has been framed as an expression of globalization, facilitated by Learning Management Systems (LMSs), conferencing software, and other relevant technologies to foster a greater sense of flexibility. Studying with others outside of one’s own community provides a multitude of benefits to learners, as it is representative of the globalized world of the future (Gustke, 2010); the online context is purported to provide learners with a high-quality and inclusive educational experience (Vallance & Wilson-Keates, 2018). Earlier in the 2009-2019 period, Gustke (2010) observes that private providers of online courses were the ones dominating eLearning globally, and public systems would be remiss to not position themselves similarly. The acknowledgement of needing to providing flexible, high-quality eLearning was beginning to unfold prior to the pandemic, but was still regarded largely as a niche academic market Choice has been extolled as one of the strongest attributes of eLearning during the 2009-2019 period. According to CertifyMe.net (2013), approximately one quarter of employees leave their jobs due to a lack of opportunities for professional training and development. Increasingly, working professionals deferred to online learning resources offered through platforms such as Coursera, Lynda, Udemy, and Khan Academy (Khan, 2018). Course offerings through such platforms enable learners to pursue credentials aligning with their interests, skill levels, and professional goals. Schurig (2016) explains how Degreed facilitates choice through a myriad of methods, including compiling paid and open source learning tools, providing playlists and recommendations, and even a flexible spending account for employees via FlexED. Organizations partnering with companies like Degreed demonstrate a growing recognition of the significance of flexible training and development options for the retention of employees. The notion of ‘flexibility’ is a multitudinous one, encapsulating many dimensions of the learner’s experience. The major implication during the 2009-2019 period seems to be that the need for flexibility in post-secondary environments is reserved for a niche market of ‘non-traditional’ learners who required education unbound by geography and time zones. In corporate environments, the latter portion of the period represents a gradual but notable shift in the importance of investing in training and development for employees as they sought out learning solutions independently from their places of employment. Despite this development, the discourse during this period does not express a sense of urgency with respect to providing flexibility to learners; rather, it has been framed as mostly a ‘supplementary’ feature of education. Engagement The concept of ‘engagement’ in relation to eLearning during the 2009-2019 period emphasizes synchronous learning methods, namely video, virtual classrooms, and real-time interaction. However, later in the period there is a growing recognition of the value of asynchronous learning methods that aid in the reinforcement and retention of content. During this period, video is widely acknowledged as a tool of engagement for learners. Strong (2015) cites video as a means of aiding expressiveness, allowing instructors and presenters to use facial expressions and body language to convey their intended meanings. Rather than relying solely on ‘static’ content such as text, the period witnesses a gradual shift towards integrating more multimedia into eLearning. ispring (2016) observes that from 2011 onwards, eLearning production and delivery has been simplified due to the proliferation of advanced digital tools that are intuitive to use; there is also much more content and expert advice available on various subject matter, and numerous types of virtual classrooms in which learners, businesses, and trainers can participate. However, virtual classrooms and meetings often have different time zones, countries, or even cultures represented – the technology on its own does not guarantee that the exchanges will be effective (Strong, 2015). It appears that video and virtual classrooms are regarded during this period as indicative of higher engagement within eLearning but is embedded with concerns pertaining to interpersonal communication that technology alone cannot solve. Real-time interaction is another notable aspect of the discourse during the 2009-2019 period. Bailey et al. (2018) express the importance of pedagogical innovation in the design and delivery of eLearning by faculty, especially the ‘social’ dimensions of online learning experiences. To combat isolation and maintain a sense of community, many post-secondary institutions and companies encourage learners and employees respectively to participate in real-time sessions and meetings. Vallance and Wilson-Keates (2018) observe that the quality and degree of interactions in online learning are driven by the instructor, and that poorly facilitated interactions can contribute to feelings of isolation and a lack of community. Engagement is then understood as meaningful ‘social’ interaction between learners, learners and their instructors, and even learners and instructors with their institutions or companies. The reinforcement of content during and after a formal learning experience is a central concern expressed in the discourse. CertifyMe.net (2013) states that when well-designed, eLearning enhances learners’ retention of knowledge by 25% to 60%. De Smet (2010) notes that when employees learn new material, they often are not presented with the opportunity to apply it. Consequently, training and instruction becomes ineffective, and participants cannot implement new skills into practice. Reinforcing and supporting new mindsets and behaviors can aid learners in retaining what they learn if the new knowledge can be applied directly into daily activities (De Smet, 2010). To aid in reinforcement, Schurig (2016) highlights sources that can be accessed by learners for independent and personalized learning, including podcasts, videos (e.g., tutorials), books, and online articles. Engagement is enhanced when learning material is relevant, immediately applicable, and personalized. The notion of ‘engagement’ during the 2009-2019 period represents a myriad of approaches not limited solely to the synchronous nor asynchronous. The discourse indicates a recognition of the value of social interaction through video and virtual classrooms while also acknowledging interpersonal challenges that the best technological tools cannot resolve. Further, real-time interaction – if well-executed – can strengthen relationships between learners, instructors, and institutions. Lastly, the discourse emphasizes that enhancing retention of content can be achieved through reinforcement if the learning material is relevant, applicable, and personalized for learners. The discourse during this period does recognize both the opportunities and challenges presented by synchronous learning methods, but it does not explore the potential of asynchronous methods at length due to the prevailing notion that such methods are inherently less ‘social’. COVID Discourse (2020-2021) Accessibility ‘Accessibility’ with respect to eLearning during the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly broadened the discourse: it has been reconstituted to be more inclusive of adapted and newer notions, namely remote learning, inequality, limited Internet and, to a lesser extent, even content restrictions. eLearning discourse of 2020-2021 has included the transition from describing ‘online learning’ to ‘remote learning’, indicative of the massive transformation of work and study that now occurs entirely on a remote basis. Learning online was historically perceived as optional, and now it is essential. Any job that can be completed online has been transitioned to either a fully remote or hybrid model, while universities and K-12 schools have largely transitioned to fully remote learning. Henry (2021) highlights the widespread recognition of companies to invest in greater accessibility and affordability of educational materials to their learners: this is regarded as a ‘digital-first’ strategy, providing eLearning not only to their own employees, but even to the unemployed and underemployed to increase a company’s pool of potential job applicants. Benjamin (2020) explains that the highest priority for educational institutions is to instruct their learners on the technological and social dimensions of remote learning and how to succeed in such an environment. Due to the massive shift to remote learning that has been catalyzed by the pandemic, the social and cultural aspects of human interaction are considered equally as essential as the technological access and competency. Inequality in eLearning has likewise been brought to the forefront of the discourse. Li and Lalani (2020) observe that the gap between privileged and disadvantaged backgrounds is widening: in the United States, 25% of 15-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds reported having access to a computer at home to work on, while nearly 100% of the privileged learners from the same age group reported the same. Some governments and schools, such as those in New South Wales, are endeavoring to provide disadvantaged students with the technologies they require, while others such as Australia are concerned about the digital divide being exacerbated by the pandemic (Li & Lalani, 2020). Learners from poorer families without Internet access are much more likely to be denied education entirely, and it is probable that they will experience difficulties later in life with respect to jobs, income, and health (nature, 2020). Silicon Valley has attempted to ‘export’ online education more generally to developing countries worldwide, including Ghana and Brazil, to ‘democratize’ learning for everyone across socioeconomic lines; even within the developed world though, many of these resources are not equitably distributed as the lack of laptops, tablets and Wi-fi eliminate a learner’s opportunity to participate in remote learning (Emerson, 2020). Emerson (2020) notes that distracting home environments and a lack of in-person instruction for learners with disabilities are inequalities that are much more difficult to address. There is a growing recognition in the 2020-2021 period that the underlying systemic issues caused by high levels of socioeconomic disparity must be diagnosed and remedied first before ‘EdTech’ can help to achieve democratizing aspirations. Similarly to the 2009-2019 period, the pandemic has fostered greater discussion regarding how to provide learners with reliable Internet access and ensure the proper technological supports are in place for their full participation. Li and Lalani (2020) have stressed the gap across countries and between income brackets in achieving these basic provisions: 95% of Swedish, Norwegian, and Austrian learners have a computer to use for academics, whereas only 34% of Indonesian learners do. Further, for many post-secondary learners, the pandemic has compelled them to return home to either other parts of Canada or to their home countries where Internet access might be much more limited (Dupuis, 2020). Technological capacity of universities has been one of the greatest challenges posed by the pandemic, as Dupuis (2020) cites Zoom as a tool that has ameliorated many of them and enabled learners to have direct access to their instructors at no additional cost to them. A shifting focus towards how to best facilitate remote learning experiences to reach as wide of an audience as possible has helped to reshape eLearning discourse. Intriguingly, some universities have begun considering the relationship between educational subject matter and learners’ access to it. Hyslop (2020), writing for the University of British Columbia, states that learners must be mindful of which classes they enroll and participate in while living abroad, as some of the content might be considered sensitive or even illegal in other countries; this content could range from politics (e.g., human rights, freedom of speech) to gender theory (e.g., trans identity). Additionally, not every country permits access to mainstream learning platforms such as Zoom, while time differences can pose challenges for mandatory attendance of remote classes (Hyslop, 2020). Pearson (2021) encourages universities and companies alike to conduct thorough research into their learners to better understand the multifaceted demand for accessible, high-quality eLearning. Increasingly, institutions are beginning to recognize the value of asynchronous as opposed to synchronous learning methods to enable learners to study at their own pace and not comprise their ability to participate due to time differences. The concept of ‘accessibility’ in eLearning discourse has shifted away from an almost exclusively ‘techno-financial’ understanding to a more all-encompassing and nuanced one: transcending the conception of ‘access’ as one in which physical access is the primary criteria, ‘accessibility’ in the 2020-2021 period is increasingly interpreted to include greater considerations of social navigation in remote learning experiences, socioeconomic inequality, and even sensitive educational content. The discourse is beginning to capture a greater sense of social justice as it relates to ‘accessibility’ in eLearning. Flexibility ‘Flexibility’ has evolved significantly with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. The discourse has broadened to include critical conversations pertaining to online collaboration, videoconferencing and live chat, and the merits of asynchronous versus synchronous learning. Even prior to the pandemic, flexibility has been conceived primarily as ‘anytime, anywhere’ learning that enables learners to transcend the barriers of time and location; however, during the pandemic there has been an increased emphasis on the possibility of providing direct online support that learners would have had ordinarily through physical interaction (Athabasca University, 2020). There is now widespread recognition that leaving learners to their own devices to navigate more complex online systems does not constitute effective eLearning experiences. Progressively more resources are being directed to designing ‘collaboration at a distance’, meaning that learners work together virtually as part of a learning experience (Athabasca University, 2020). Furthermore, the prominence of collaboration in eLearning also extends to collaboration between learners and instructors in the delivery of curricula, with creativity, equity, and flexibility serving as the foundations of such endeavors (Ramsey, 2020). Dupuis (2020) agrees that remote learning must be underscored with flexibility and creativity, but without compromising on the quality of the academic content. A shift in the discourse towards collaboration has transformed the idea of a single learner pursuing eLearning as an independent pursuit into a broader social ecosystem that requires meaningful participation among learners, instructors, and administrators. Kshirsagar et al. (2020) observe that the pandemic has catalyzed the proliferation of digital tools to facilitate greater degrees of collaboration and learning for those working remotely or across disparate time zones, such as videoconferencing and live chat. Such tools include, but are not limited to Zoom, Slack, and Microsoft Teams. When ‘live’ sessions are preferred among colleagues and/or learners, these tools can quickly and easily accommodate. Conversely, when colleagues and/or learners are dispersed across incompatible time zones for ‘live’ sessions, instructors and facilitators are often requested to deliver content without the need for attendance at a specific day and time (Dupuis, 2020). Li and Lalani (2020) express that the pandemic has illuminated the significance of disseminating knowledge and information across borders, companies, and every facet of society. Although ‘live’ sessions cannot always be facilitated, they offer learners the opportunity to connect with others in a more ‘social’ manner across geographic boundaries. The rise of discretion when selecting between asynchronous or synchronous methods indicates a growing awareness of personalized and flexible instructional design. Ramsay (2020) articulates that asynchronous and recorded elements allow learners to access academic content outside of conventional time slots, providing them the opportunity to maintain employment, tend to familial responsibilities, and balance personal obligations. With heightened demand for flexible learning across geographies and time zones, post-secondary institutions and companies have focused much more on ‘simplifying’ instructional delivery, with the inclusion of recorded lectures, chats, and discussions that enable instructors to interact with learners and even learners with each other (Dupuis, 2020). The ‘forced’ migration of in-person instruction to the online sphere catalyzed by the pandemic has transformed the learning experience entirely; now, instructors can create a more collaborative and interactive social learning experience, blending asynchronous and synchronous methods that consider personalization in learners’ paths (Kshirsagar et al., 2020). At the heart of modern instructional design for eLearning is the central consideration of the learner and their experience: selecting appropriate asynchronous and/or synchronous methods will profoundly influence how well the learner can adapt and participate in eLearning during and post-COVID. The concept of ‘flexibility’ in eLearning discourse during the 2020-2021 period has transcended notions of geographical and time boundaries to include considerations of direct online support for learners, ‘collaboration at a distance’, ‘live’ sessions with learners and colleagues, synchronous learning for greater ‘social’ interaction, and asynchronous learning for those not operating on a ‘traditional’ schedule. Flexibility is now discussed as a facet of eLearning that requires wider considerations about designing social ecosystems that enable learners to choose how they can meaningfully interact with each other, their instructors, and administrators. Additionally, such ecosystems can help them to maximize their own autonomy while pursuing their studies, build a sense of confidence, and enhance their overall flexibility within eLearning. Engagement ‘Engagement’ in eLearning discourse has been expanded beyond primarily synchronous methods of communication between learners, instructors, and institutions. In the era of COVID- 19, the discourse now prominently features more sophisticated learning technologies, blended and social learning methods, and upskilling and reskilling. Henry (2021) acknowledges that EdTech platforms are demonstrating a greater interest in curating learning content and cultivating an engaging experience for learners, including the use of augmented-reality (AR) training, microlearning, and gaming. When designed with sound pedagogy, these more sophisticated tools can be employed for adult learners for everything from safety training to accounting practices. As digital learning skills are becoming increasingly essential for lifelong learning, instilling both technical and social skills in online environments will create better virtual citizens (Athabasca University, 2020). Additionally, when sophisticated tools are delivered in conjunction with suitable sources (e.g., experts, mentors, and peers), learners can effectively connect theory with application in their daily lives (Henry, 2021). Advanced learning technologies can incite interest in prospective learners, but do not constitute effective learning on their own: they must be complemented with a broader social ecosystem to foster higher engagement. The role of blended learning has been explored more during the pandemic; blended learning combines both online and ‘traditional’ face-to-face learning methods to create multifaceted and engaging learning experiences. Athabasca University (2020) expresses that blended learning provides increased interactivity between learners, as well as between learners and instructors. The pandemic has compelled instructors and even administrators to design new models for learner and instructor interaction, providing new platforms for social connection, new online spaces to discuss learning material, and facilitating opportunities for mentorship, guidance, and even friendship for learners (Ramsay, 2020). Further, Schultz (2021) emphasizes the capacity for enhanced learning experiences when content can be easily shared among learners. The social aspect of learning has been reoriented, necessitating pedagogical innovation for both blended and fully online solutions: what is typically achieved face-to-face must now have an online counterpart that can deliver similar results. Upskilling refers to the process of someone acquiring new skills to perform better in their position, whereas reskilling refers to learning new skills to prepare someone for a different position altogether. Companies that offer upskilling, reskilling, coaching, and continuous professional advice tend to effectively bridge the needs of both employers and employees (Henry, 2021). Pivoting upskilling and reskilling to prepare employees for new projects or positions is critical to heightening motivation and engagement; when learning is personalized, simplified, and curated based on employee’s interests and needs, engagement is augmented (Schultz, 2021). Kshirsagar et al. (2020) explain that when social learning components are integrated into one’s learning (e.g., virtual group projects), learning becomes more engaging, connected, and directly applicable. For companies and post-secondary institutions to design engaging learning solutions, Pearson (2021) states that their ‘brands’ must recognize their own strengths, differentiators, reputation, culture, and capacity to deliver. In essence, there is a widespread recognition of the importance of cultivating a maintaining a robust learning culture within organizations. The concept of ‘engagement’ in eLearning discourse during the 2020-2021 period has shifted to be inclusive of more diverse learning tools and methods to enhance learner engagement. Advancements in learning technologies are welcome developments but must be underpinned by effective pedagogical methods to resonate with learners, including careful considerations of social dimensions. Blended and social learning approaches tend to increase interactivity between learners, as well as learners and instructors; however, anything ordinarily delivered face-to-face necessitates an online equivalent. Both the 2020-2021 and 2009-2019 periods recognize the importance of integrating the social dimensions of learning. However, the former placed great importance on synchronous methods while the 2020-2021 discourse demonstrates a broader recognition of asynchronous methods to enhance the social dimensions of learning. Lastly, the 2020-2021 period recognizes broader learning cultures and the significance of embracing an innovative one for any organization to enhance and retain learner engagement. Recommendations Policymakers The foremost consideration for policymakers in the pursuit of ‘democratizing’ eLearning during and after COVID-19 is to prioritize the implementation of measures to close the digital divide, particularly for younger age groups. As evidenced in the literature review, without a solid foundation in digital literacy skills young learners will inevitably fall behind and continue to struggle with academic and professional pursuits as they enter adulthood. More empirical research must be conducted on how other vulnerable populations, including low-income households, marginalized gender identities, racial groups, etc. are uniquely affected by the digital divide within their community, province/state, and nation at large, and how those challenges have been exacerbated by the pandemic. No meaningful social change can be achieved without first confronting the challenges of the digital divide and placing equity at the heart of it. An overarching strategy to combat the digital divide is required, with specialized concerns around eLearning – namely modern notions of ‘access’, ‘flexibility’, and ‘engagement’ – tailored to suit the needs of these diverse communities and include their contributions to the eLearning discourse. This approach ensures that eLearning discourse is not constituted in an exclusively ‘top-down’ manner. Moreover, policymakers must implore governments to invest more heavily into financial, technological, and human resources across K-12 schools and postsecondary institutions, and even professional and career training initiatives as an integral part of the strategy. Policymakers must also establish qualitative and quantitative methods for monitoring progress and effectiveness, with special consideration given to vulnerable populations. Post-Secondary Institutions As post-secondary institutions operate with strong cultures of academic capitalism, they undoubtedly face adversity in the pursuit of ‘democratizing’ eLearning for their learners during and after COVID-19. However, they can inspire spaces of resistance within the institution in numerous ways. They can empower professors to craft and deliver impactful learning experiences by equipping them with continuous training on effective pedagogical and technical approaches to eLearning. This training will need to embody the principles espoused within it: for instance, if the concept of the ‘flipped classroom’ is introduced in which learners read material on their own time then engage in problem-solving during a class, the training should employ the same method. Further, it is insufficient to only address concepts of ‘equity’ and ‘inclusion’ in an abstract sense; they must be integral elements of the training being delivered to professors. Post-secondary institutions must also enable professors and learners to provide informed feedback on the delivery capacity and quality of the eLearning respectively, embedded with the ability to provide recommendations to the institution. Post-secondary institutions should also consider ways in which they can amplify learners’ voices to ensure that eLearning discourse is not exclusively ‘top-down’. They could consider creating learner-centered committees, campus groups, events, and even publications that are focused on learners’ experiences with the institution’s eLearning. This could address everything from UX/UI considerations to the technical infrastructure of the LMS. Learners could serve as primary speakers and presenters, volunteers, advocates, and writers. Offering learners substantial opportunities to articulate their experiences not only with eLearning but with their broader educational experience is a meaningful approach to enhancing ‘democratization’. Companies Akin to post-secondary institutions, private companies will likely encounter difficulties in ‘democratizing’ eLearning for their employees during and after COVID-19. Depending upon the size of the company, the number of employees, the various career trajectories, budgetary restraints, privacy considerations, etc. companies will need to critically examine what their eLearning needs are and how they can ensure that employees are satisfied with the instruction they receive. If a company elects to enlist a third-party vendor to provide and even create eLearning material for their employees, they must ensure that the trainers and instructional designers’ knowledge and skills align well with their needs. Enlisting in-house expertise is often more ideal but is not always feasible. Whether the training provided is synchronous or asynchronous, companies must enable employees to provide feedback on their eLearning experiences and to provide anonymous recommendations to both the trainers/instructional designers and the company. For companies to ensure that eLearning discourse is not ‘top-down’, they should consider creating focus groups, committees, publications, and even remote ‘channels’ on platforms such as Teams to share their insights on corporate eLearning. These initiatives would not be dominated by executives, but rather would include employees that are representative of different career paths, skill sets, and identities (e.g., gender, race). Placing a diverse set of employees at the heart of eLearning discourse within companies would embody a heightened sense of ‘democratization’ overall. Summary ‘Democratizing’ eLearning is a remarkably multifaceted and complex pursuit. Policymakers must draw greater attention to the digital divide and compel governments to develop and overarching strategy to combat it across communities, while simultaneously addressing vulnerable populations’ experience with ‘access’, ‘flexibility’, and ‘engagement’ with eLearning. Post-secondary institutions need to instill strong pedagogical and technical skills in their professors and provide ongoing professional development in eLearning delivery. Further, if they effectively create learner-centered initiatives focused on eLearning experiences, learners can contribute to the discourse. Lastly, companies must consider whether to enlist third-party or in-house trainers and instructional designers for their eLearning; like post-secondary institutions, they can create employee-centered initiatives pertaining to corporate eLearning experiences to empower employee voices in the discourse. Policymakers, post-secondary institutions, and companies must all be cognizant of the importance of monitoring progress in their respective environments, and consistently prioritize learners and their development above all else. Conclusion Summary ‘Democratizing’ eLearning entails solutions that transcend matters of technological access or cost reduction. Underlying systemic issues related to the neoliberal economy, the digital divide, social justice in curricula, socioeconomics, gender, and other issues not directly addressed in this paper necessitate amelioration to enhance participation and inclusivity within eLearning. The application of FDA had provided greater context to eLearning discourse before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, in addition to recognizing that the process of ‘democratization’ requires continuous reexamination and reconstitution of the discourses involving ‘accessibility’, ‘flexibility’, and ‘engagement’. At present, these discourses reflect the prevalence and influence of institutional power rather than that of the central stakeholders in both academic and professional contexts: learners. It is incumbent upon policymakers, post-secondary institutions, and companies to cultivate and maintain inclusive learning cultures by creating initiatives designed to augment learners’ voices and continuously monitor their progress overtime. Additionally, the creation of such initiatives will enable learners to contribute to the reconstitution of eLearning discourse during and post-COVID: only under this circumstance does eLearning discourse have the potential to be ‘democratized’ to a greater extent than it is at present. References Albert, L. J., & Johnson, C. S. (2011). Socioeconomic status– and Gender‐Based differences in students’ perceptions of E‐Learning systems. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 9(3), 421-436. Doi:10.1111/j.1540-4609.2011.00320.x Arribas-Ayllon, M. & Walkerdine, V. (2017). Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (Second Edition). In Sage. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology. (pp. 110-123). ResearchGate. Athabasca University. (2020, March 27). Benefits to fully online learning. Athabasca University, The Hub. https://news.athabascau.ca/faculty/faculty-of-humanities-social-sciences/benefits-to-fully-online-learning Au, W. (2006). Against economic determinism: Revisiting the roots of neo-Marxism in critical educational theory. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 4(2). Retrieved from http://www.jceps.com/?pageID=article&articleID=66 Bailey, A., Vaduganathan, N., Henry, T., and Laverdiere, R. (2018, April 17). Making digital learning work. Boston Consulting Group. https://www.bcg.com/en-us/industries/education/making-digital-learning-work Bates, T. (2009, December 30). Great expectations for e-learning in 2010. Online Learning and Distance Education Resources. https://www.tonybates.ca/2009/12/30/great-expectations-for-e-learning-in-2010/ Benjamin, G. (2020, August 14). ‘It’s been a busy summer’: Acadia University prepares for challenging academic year. Global News. https://globalnews.ca/news/7276522/acadia-university-prepares-academic-year/ CertifyMe.net (2013, March 5). Important eLearning statistics for 2013. CertifyMe.net https://www.certifyme.net/osha-blog/elearning-statistics-2013/ Cuisia-Villanueva, M.T, & Nuñez, J. (2020) A Study on the Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Emergency Electronic Learning during the Coronavirus Lockdown. (ERIC Number: ED607644). University of the Philippines, Open University. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED607644.pdf De Smet, A., Mcgurk, M., and Schwartz, E. (2010, October 1). Getting more from your training programs. McKinsey Quarterly. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/getting-more-from-your-training-programs Dupuis, J. (2020, March 26). School’s in! Remote learning to begin on Monday, March 30. McGill Reporter. https://reporter.mcgill.ca/schools-in-remote-learning-to-begin-on-monday-march-30/ Emerson, S. (2020, April 9). Online learning was supposed to democratize education. Coronavirus shows it hasn’t. https://onezero.medium.com/online-learning-was-supposed-to-democratize-education-coronavirus-shows-it-hasnt-cf07a604a474 Foucault, Michel. (1969). Archaeology of Knowledge. Abingdon: Routledge Classics. Foucault, M., & Gordon, C. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books. Gustke, C. (2010, April 23). E-Learning hits barriers to expansion. Education Week, Special Report. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/e-learning-hits-barriers-to-expansion/2010/04 Hansen, J. D., & Reich, J. (2015). Democratizing education? examining access and usage patterns in massive open online courses. Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science), 350(6265), 1245-1248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab3782 Henry, T. (2021, February 23). Lessons in corporate learning for education technology companies. Boston Consulting Group. https://www.bcg.com/en-us/publications/2021/corporate-learning-in-ed-tech Hyslop, K. (2020, September 4). UBC warns international students about online course dangers. The Tyee. https://thetyee.ca/News/2020/09/04/UBC-Warns-International-Students-Online-Course-Dangers/ ispring. (2016, February 19). The evolution of eLearning: From baby steps to giant leaps. ispring, eLearning Blog. https://www.ispringsolutions.com/blog/the-evolution-of-e-learning-from-baby-steps-to-giant-leaps Jaggars, S. S., & Columbia University, Community College Research Center. (2011). Online learning: Does it help low-income and underprepared students? CCRC working paper no. 26. assessment of evidence series. Community College Research Center. Journell, W. (2007). The inequalities of the digital divide: Is E-Learning a solution? E-Learning and Digital Media, 4(2), 138-149. https://doi.org/10.2304/elea.2007.4.2.138 Khan, I. (2018). 10 Top eLearning resources that help you learn anything today. eLearning Industry. https://elearningindustry.com/top-elearning-resources-help-learn-anything-today-10 Kronk, H. (2019, December 23). EdTech and education in the 2010s: A lost decade or a period of progress? ELearning Inside. https://news.elearninginside.com/edtech-and-education-in-the-2010s-a-lost-decade-or-a-period-of-progress/ Kshirsagar, A., Mansour, T., McNally, L., and Metakis, M. (2020, March 17). Adapting workplace learning in the time of coronavirus. McKinsey Accelerate. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-accelerate/our-insights/adapting-workplace-learning-in-the-time-of-coronavirus Li, C. and Lalani, F. (2020, April 29). The COVID-19 pandemic has changed education forever. This is how. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-education-global-covid19-online-digital-learning/ Mishra, P., Scragg, B., & Warr, M.C. (October 15, 2018). The 5 discourses of design in e-Learning [Paper Presentation]. E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Las Vegas, NV. https://punyamishra.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/5design-discourses-Mishra-Scragg-Warr.pdf nature. (2020, September 23). Online learning cannot just be for those who can afford its technology. nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02709-3 Ochieng, V. O., & Gyasi, R. M. (2021). Open educational resources and social justice: Potentials and implications for research productivity in higher educational institutions. E-Learning and Digital Media, 18(2), 105-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753021989467 Oztok, M. (2019). The hidden curriculum of online learning: Understanding Social Justice through Critical Pedagogy. Routledge. Passantino, F. (2021). Reflections: Diversity, inclusion and belonging in education post-covid. Intercultural Education (London, England), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2021.1857575 Pearson. (2021, January 12). The 2 biggest considerations for going online. Pearson. https://www.pearsoned.com/2-biggest-considerations-for-growing-your-online-program/ Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. (Capital in the Twenty-First Century.) Cambridge Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Ramsey, M. (2020, September 2). Online learning and the student experience for Fall 2020. UBC News. https://news.ubc.ca/2020/09/02/online-learning-ubc-2020/ Schultz, T. (2021, January 13). How Visa created a learning culture for 20,000+ people. Degreed. https://blog.degreed.com/how-visa-created-a-learning-culture-for-20000-people/ Schurig, S. (2016, July 14). How to connect the world’s best learning experience. Degreed. https://blog.degreed.com/how-to-connect-the-worlds-best-learning-experiences/ Sims, J., Vidgen, R., & Powell, P. (2008). E-learning and the digital divide: Perpetuating cultural and socio-economic elitism in higher education. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 22, 25. Doi:10.17705/1CAIS.02223 Smith-Doerr, L., & Croissant, J. (2011). A feminist approach to university-industry relations: integrating theories of gender, knowledge, and capital. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 17(3), 251–269. Strong, E. (2015, April 16). Virtual presence: Inspire and engage in the classroom and beyond. Pearson. https://www.pearsoned.com/virtual-presence-inspire-and-engage-in-the-classroom-and-beyond/ Vallance, J. and Wilson-Keates, B. (2018, June 18). Dispelling the misconceptions of online learning. Athabasca University, The Hub. https://news.athabascau.ca/faculty/faculty-of-health-disciplines/dispelling-misconceptions-of-online-education/ Wallace, A., & Panteli, N. (2018). Bringing relevance to eLearning - a gender perspective. Studies in Higher Education (Dorchester-on-Thames), 43(2), 292-304. doi:10.1080/03075079.2016.1166483
Other
eng
Unreviewed
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
University of British Columbia. ETEC 580
accessibility, flexibility, engagement, democratization, eLearning, the digital divide, inequality, equity, equality, socioeconomics, gender, social justice, Foucault, Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA), COVID-19, 21st century
accessibility
flexibility
engagement
democratization
eLearning
the digital divide
inequality
equity
equality
socioeconomics
gender
social justice
Foucault
Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA)
COVID-19
21st century
Democratization in eLearning Before and During COVID-19 : A Foucauldian Discourse Analysis
Text