Stacey, you've done it again—you brought thoughtful and compelling considerations that elevated questions and thoughts to the next level. In particular, I loved how you engaged with and discussed transactional and transformational learning, as well as how you managed to dive deeply into the nuances of both approaches. Your ability to create space for these types of reflections allows for a richer and more meaningful dialogue that helps us grow as educators. Your exploration of these transactional and transformational interactions and how they unfold—within the student, between the student and the instructor, and within the broader context of the student, instructor, and institution—is especially insightful. By carefully dissecting each layer of these interactions, you highlighted the importance of understanding how these elements (the types and the layers) are interconnected.
I definitely found myself reaffirming (though it took me a while to get there in my own development) that we are not, nor should we be, in control of students' disposition or approaches to their own transformational or transactional learning.
However, institutions and the society at large does put upon instructors the responsibility of both transformational and transactional learning–we are positioned as the gatekeepers of validated (or “credit-based”) learning. And so that brings me to another consideration that came through in your post–how do we balance being educators and instructors?
Educators vs. Instructors
It struck a chord with me when you said, "As an instructor, I am looking to nurture joy, wonder, connection, and, yes, transformational outcomes. Not enforce those things or exchange grades for those things, but I do hope my students find meaningful learning in my classroom."
Nurturing joy, wonder, connection and transformational outcomes is, indeed, our role as educators. It is the very essence of what we strive to achieve—a learning environment that serves as a fertile ground for these experiences to occur naturally, rather than being singularly understood as transactional exchanges. This emphasis on nurturing intrinsic value rather than transactional metrics speaks directly to the broader aspirations of our profession.
However, as instructors representing institutions, there's an inherent tension between our roles and the institutional expectations placed upon us. Institutions often promise transformations but deliver transactions.
To be clear, I'm not trying to undermine or imply anything about people who are labelled as instructors. I'm trying to consider if the role "instructor" as designated by higher education institutions is distinguishable from what we mean when we think about ourselves as educators. One feels like a role assigned (instructors) and one feels like an identity we take on (educator).
This raises a significant question: in education, can we reliably offer, capture, or measure only transactional learning? We promise transformational learning but that is so hard to capture because it is not something that we can consistently guarantee to happen in immediate and tangible ways. We can only offer possibility–a possibility that often requires both students and educator to be ready and willing to end the transformational space.
What happens when that promise isn't fulfilled? Who bears responsibility or accountability for the costs incurred? Is it the student, the educator, the institution, or the broader educational system that must answer for this gap? This gap between expectation and delivery has consequences not just for the students, but also for the educators who internalize the failure as their own. It makes me think about how many times educators like us have faced this impossible burden—trying to promise life-changing transformations without having all the tools or systemic support to make them happen consistently.
That's why I sometimes joke, "I owe those students their money back," because, as an educator, I want to nurture joy, wonder, connection, and transformational outcomes. However, as an instructor, I am caught in a bait-and-switch situation. Universities instill educator values in instructors like me but operate with institutional priorities that often lead to burnout and disconnection.
Your reflections on this dynamic, and how some transactional boundaries could be better curated, really hit home. This tension places an unrealistic burden on instructors, who are expected to deliver transformation while adhering to transactional measures. The disconnect between our educator values and institutional realities is a core driver of the burnout so prevalent in our profession. It is imperative that we look at how institutions can recalibrate expectations to bridge this gap in a more sustainable way.
The Three Laws of EdTech
I also loved your "three laws of edtech." I feel there's potential for further exploration there, whether by you, me, or others. Your three laws— (1) edtech should build on the internal capacity of institutional faculty, staff, and students rather than outsourcing expertise; (2) edtech should remove barriers to human connection; and (3) institutional policies must help instructors avoid compliance and surveillance, especially in the edtech space—are powerful and insightful. I could largely get behind them.
In fact, each of these laws speaks to a deeper issue within education today—the need to use technology in a way that humanizes rather than dehumanizes. The emphasis on leveraging internal capacity speaks to a fundamental belief in the potential of the people within the institution.
Removing barriers to human connection reminds us that technology should be an enabler, not a detractor, of the relationships that make education impactful. And, of course, avoiding compliance and surveillance resonates deeply, as surveillance measures threaten the trust and autonomy that are crucial in fostering authentic learning experiences.
That last one, about surveillance, reminded me of a piece I wrote a few years ago called The New LMS Rule. It resonates with concerns about the role of surveillance in edtech. At the same time, your rules sparked a broader question for me: are these rules about edtech itself or about the institutions that create the environment where edtech operates?
I know that technology is not neutral and yet, find the technology focuses misses how much of higher education is driven by broader market forces or a desire for control, that ends up being the real barrier. This is where we need to be vigilant and where it gets tiring—making sure that edtech is implemented in ways that align with our educational values, rather than undermining them for the sake of compliance or efficiency.
What Could I Learn from Early-Career Lance?
This conversation has me thinking about what my own edtech laws might be. I don't think I can formulate them here, but perhaps I'll write a follow-up post and tag you to continue this dialogue. It also brought me back to a question I've been asking lately: what would my younger self teach me about my current work and how I show up today?
Looking back, my younger self had a bit more magic—intentional or not. He taught across multiple classes and found threads that wove them together. This enabled him to present interconnected ideas in ways that suited different contexts. There's something in what he was doing then that set me up for much of what I do now, albeit in non-teaching contexts. I'd love to relearn that from him. There was an element of spontaneity and flexibility that allowed for a kind of teaching that was less constrained, a freedom to explore ideas that I sometimes find harder to access now. That younger self had fewer tools and thoughtfulness about teaching but a broader sense of connecting his teaching across different domains and classes that I admire and would want to think about how to do more actively in day-to-day work.
At the same time, I think my younger self would be curious about how I got from there to here. Lately, I've been mentoring others and reflecting on this journey. While I work in a field where backward design is a hallmark, I'm not sure I could backward-design my way to this point. Much of my work over the last 15 years has been emergent, shaped by standing in the present, seeing what the next step is with some faith that the next steps will reveal themselves to me as I find myself in new contexts with new and familiar people. My younger self would recognize and connect with that but be intrigued by where it has taken me.
As I wrap up this final post, I’m thinking about your three laws of edtech and also, the dualisms that I’ve found myself explore in this conversation:
- innovation and Innovation
- transformation and transactional
- educator and instructor
First, I wonder about them as dualisms and more as continuums–or as frames that we inevitably have to take on because our roles as educators (or instructors) is never one dimensional. So, in order to move through teaching and learning effectively and with the thoughtfulness needed in the current age, they are frames that significantly make our work better–for ourselves and our students.
I don’t know–more to chew on there. Still, I’m grateful to have this exchange to help draw out these ideas that have been bouncing around in my head with a colleague and friend who can push, challenge, and expand my own thinking. Thank you for this conversation, Stacy!
And of course, if there is anyone else out there who wants to chime in about what they could learn from their early-career self, please join in the conversation! Please feel free to comment below, write up your ideas on your own blog or on social media and tag me or Lance to let us know about your contribution. You can find us on our blogs (Stacey, Lance) or on LinkedIn (Stacey, Lance).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Comments
Post a Comment