During my reading of Selwyns very interesting article, I tried to find out how the role of the teacher is to be understood in concrete terms, and what concrete activities or actions result from this role. I think he describes this more or less specifically on pages 120 and 121.

The first point he mentions is the embodiment and the social in education, which is not simply taken over or replaced by technology. Interestingly, however, Selwyn does not go beyond the importance of co-presence (of students and teachers?) and embodiment (of the role?), as he underlines with a quote from Dreyfus. Consequently he argues that Blended Learning would be a possible way to go, so that students can profit from a physcally present teacher we well as of technology. He does not go into why this is so. In my view, techonlogy does not have to replace people, does it? Should this really be the idea behind digital education? Anyway, I haven’t understood it that way so far. For me, the integration of technology in education has been a completely new element that changes everything in a systemic sense. I agree with Selwyn that technology does not ‘replace’ the human ‘teacher’.

Secondly – according to Selwyn – the role of the teacher in this new environment is that of the orchestrator, the curator. They provide the ‘initial impetus’ for collaboative activities of students in the environment. Teachers have the task of ‘arranging the furniture in technology-based learning’, says Selwyn, quoting Crook. With Laudrillard he cites the shift in teaching from ‘narrative, interactive and communicative uses of technology, to adaptive, productive and collaborative uses’ as fundamental. The question for me here is what exactly orchestration or curation means. Under this point it is now more about didactic design, about the environment that wants to be designed in such a way that education is possible.

As a third point, Selwyn again mentions the importance of the teacher in technology-enhanced environments, and he argues that ‘online education demands a ‘considerably different set of pedagogical practices,’ namely ‘narrative and interactivity'(p. 122). He relates these different practices to the different spaces in which education takes place: online and offline spaces. He perceives the virtual space (‘the internet’) as networked, with more dialogue and interaction taking place, whereas in f2f-session the instructive predominates. However, I think that even in F2F-settings there is more than only instruction, and in the virtual is more that only networking and dialogue.
With ‘space’ I would expect the term of ‘presence’ besides the ‘roles’: How do we move through these spaces what are we doing in a certain environment and how is ‘education’ happening? How are we “present” physically, cognitively, emotionally, socially? Is this how the ‘considerably different pedagogic design’ has to be thought of?

I am especially interested in the term of ‘space’. The designation of space as third pedagogue (Malaguzzi) points to the insight that the spatial situation – whether virtual or material – plays a formative role in the design of learning environments. The term ‘environment’ taken up by Selwyn is a spatial notion: ‘space’ or ‘environment’ as a place of living together, of working together, of learning together. Who does what in which role is decisive for the didactic setting, in addition to the spatial dimension is decisive for educational design. The actors in their specific roles at a certain moment in time (students and teachers, tutors, mentors, coaches) have a certain ‘presence’ in those environments, a social presence, an emotional presence, a cognitive presence and a physical or virzual presence. In my context of work we often talk about ‘hybrid space’.  Hybrid means the simultaneity of materiality, virtuality and society or social components (see illustration below, in German). So Can we say that Selwyn’s ’embodiment’ or ‘the social’ corresponds to the social space in our hybrid model? The role of ‘orchestrator’ or ‘curator’, can it be seen as a part of a certain presence with a certain task in hybrid space? And thirdly: the importance of the teacher using a certain narrative and  interaction in and between online and offline space. Isn’t it the simultaneity of online and offline space which allows us to change the didactical setting for education?
Every kind of space in terms of architecture is designed for some form of social existence, either online or offline. Schools are traditionally built for classes, where a certain number of students of the same age is working together with their teacher(s). So a class is always a social entity or structure, as well as families, singles and so on. Our material world (material space) is surrounded and interwoven by virtual space, the Internet and the (social) networks that are created in it. The third form of space is social space, which exists in both the material and virtual worlds: Every material space is built for forms of social coexistence, and the virtual space is also made up of relationships and networks. Our material world (material space) is surrounded and interwoven by virtual space, the Internet and the (social) networks that are created in it. The third form of space is social space, which exists in both the material and virtual worlds: Every material space is built for forms of social coexistence, and the virtual space is also made up of relationships and networks.

We constantly move around in hybrid space. How can we use this concept for educational design? How do relationships between students and teachers as well as learning or education ‘happen’?

Quelle: https://blog.edu-ict.ch/thirdspace/

In German we say ‘didactic’ design for a design that is created for learning and teaching. Is this a common adjective in English? Or what would be the appropriate word in English?

Comment by James Lamb on February 21, 2020:

‘The question for me here is what exactly orchestration or curation means. Under this point it is now more about didactic design, about the environment that wants to be designed in such a way that education is possible.’

I have the same question. It seems that in recent years ‘curation’ has become an increasingly fashionable way for people beyond those working in the arts and culture to describe their work. At times it does seem to have become used as a more sophisticated-sounding replacement for ‘collecting’ or ‘presenting’ in a way that dilutes the knowledge and expertise and skill of the curator working in a museum or gallery.

But actually, I do think it sits well to describe the educator. I would see as a teacher ideally having a broad understanding of the field, an in-depth knowledge of her chosen sub-fields, a talent for choosing what to include and leave aside, and then how these resources might be presented to best help the understanding of a wider audience? Which isn’t to say that every teacher will display all of these qualities, of course. I wonder then how this translates to the online setting? It might involve moving around the furniture but surely much else besides, not least having a sense of what the presence and placement of different resources (the ‘orchestration’ of the virtual classroom?) might have upon teaching and learning?

I’m going to have to give this some more thought, but the ‘curator’ and ‘orchestrator’ does seem provide some really interesting ways of interrogating the nature of the online teacher, doesn’t it?