Sullivan Florence R
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, W244 Furcolo Hall, 813 N. Pleasant St., Amherst, MA 01003 USA.
Educ Technol Res Dev. 2021;69(1):21-24. doi: 10.1007/s11423-020-09864-4. Epub 2020 Nov 9.
This paper provides a response to the work of Philipsen et al. (Educ Technol Res Dev 67:1145-1174, Philipsen et al., Educational Technology, Research and Development 67:1145-1174, 2019), from a critical pedagogy perspective. Here, critical pedagogy is defined from a post-colonial framework focused on liberation. From this perspective, the value of Philipsen et al.'s paper is in its implicit alignment with critical methodologies, including how liberatory ideas are embedded in the TPD for OBL framework. In a response to Philipsen et al.'s work, this paper provides advice on practical actions teachers can take to develop their ability to engage in critical pedagogy, both from the TPD for OBL lens and from an equity lens. This paper concludes with a discussion of the limitations of the meta-aggregative review, including the lack of an explicitly critical framework, and it provides suggestions for how the work could be improved, especially as regards a discussion of equity for teachers and students. Future research in this area should focus on methods for disrupting educational inequity regarding online and blended learning.
本文从批判教育学的视角回应了菲利普森等人（《教育技术研究与发展》第67卷：1145 - 1174页，菲利普森等人，《教育技术、研究与发展》第67卷：1145 - 1174页，2019年）的研究成果。在此，批判教育学是从聚焦解放的后殖民框架来定义的。从这个视角来看，菲利普森等人论文的价值在于它与批判方法的隐性契合，包括解放性理念如何融入面向在线学习成果的教师专业发展（TPD for OBL）框架之中。作为对菲利普森等人研究的回应，本文从面向在线学习成果的教师专业发展视角以及公平视角，就教师为培养参与批判教育学的能力可采取的实际行动提供了建议。本文最后讨论了元聚合性综述的局限性，包括缺乏明确的批判框架，并就如何改进这项研究提出了建议，特别是在关于教师和学生公平性的讨论方面。该领域未来的研究应聚焦于消除在线学习和混合式学习中教育不公平现象的方法。
