ACADEMIA Letters

21st Century Teaching and Learning with Technology: A

Critical Commentary
Ksenija Laskova

1. Background

Preparing the current demographic cohort of whom most are generation Z (also known as
zoomers and net generation) for learning in posthuman higher education and future learn-
ing which presumes independence, I argue that teaching professionals should strive to teach
in personalised ways that would promote intrinsic motivation, agency, self-direction, self-
regulation and life-long learning and continuous development.
For the new generation of zoomers, the notion of individual and individualism has become
a central issue which in its turn is central to democratic and self-directed learning but can
also be a dangerous spur to narcissism (Grubbs & Riley, 2018). In the technology-oriented
age and age of individualism, it is fundamental to understand how an educator can strike a
balance and encourage sustainable and interdependent learning model, i.e., Education 4.0 1
of an individual human learner in the present society being ‘on the doorstep’ of the Fourth
Industrial Revolution (or Industry 4.0). 2
1
A response to the needs of Industry 4.0 where human and machine learning are interwoven to enable new
possibilities (Hussin, A. 2018)
2
An ongoing process of systemic societal change ‘characterised by a ubiquitous and mobile internet, by smaller
and more powerful sensors, by artificial intelligence and machine learning […], a process that enables the absolute
customization of products and the creation of the new operating models.’ (Schwab, 2017).

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Ksenija Laskova, [email protected]

Citation: Laskova, K. (2021). 21st Century Teaching and Learning with Technology: A Critical Commentary.
Academia Letters, Article 2090. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL2090.

1
 Who are the students of the future? How are they going to learn? How to employ in-
novation in my practice to prepare the current learning demographic for posthuman higher
education? The literature chosen in this critical commentary has been selected in an attempt
to provide the reader with up-to-date essential definitions and research but, more importantly,
to spark debate and make a case for future research needed. To develop an argument, the
topics in the sections to follow that will be covered in this commentary include digital natives
as learners and technology in education followed by a conclusion.

2. 21st century individual as a learner

Learners of the 21st century are either millennials or children of millennials – zoomers. Zoomers
is the first generation in the Western world to be considered digital natives (also known as a
net generation) or to be digitally savvy self-starters and born between the mid-to-late 1990s
and the early 2010s (Tapscott, 1998). How does such an individual manifest himself or herself
in various contexts such as e.g. e-learning environments in posthuman times? (Rosi Braidotti,
2019) Does technology de-centre an individual? Who is ultimately benefiting from the out-
comes? (Selwyn et al., 2020) Does technology promote hyper individualisation of education?
(Castañeda & Selwyn, 2018)
In the literature, the term ‘digital natives’ is sometimes equated with the new generation
of learners to be born into the technology-oriented world and having elaborate technology
skills. A severe weakness with this statement, however, is that while we know that technology
is ingrained in the lives of digital natives, the use of technology and level of skill are not
uniform (Bennett et al., 2008). Since the definition of digital natives is somewhat problematic,
it is essential to look beyond this term. Here, I suggest considering an onto-epistemological
state where the subject is an individual human learner whose body is physically there while
learning face-to-face but also one whose identity has been fabricated by design in the human-
machine interface, who may or may not feel more real in cyberspaces as one has been seduced
by technology into its generation (Zylinska & Zylinska, 2002).

3. Disruptive innovation: will technology save the education sec-

tor?
Many myths surround online education calling e-learning a disruptive innovation }footnote A
term of art coined by Clayton Christensen, describes a process by which a product or service
takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Ksenija Laskova, [email protected]

Citation: Laskova, K. (2021). 21st Century Teaching and Learning with Technology: A Critical Commentary.
Academia Letters, Article 2090. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL2090.

2
upmarket, eventually displacing established competitors (‘Disruptive Innovation’, 2012). or
solution to the current rather disappointing and broken education system. The term was ap-
propriated by the educational technologists who believed that online education practices are
an act of salvation to the so-called ‘educational apocalypse’. Christensen predicted that
by 2019 half of all high school classes would be taught online (Christensen, 2011), Khan
Academy and flipped and blended learning are to ‘change the rules of education’ (Thomp-
son, 2011). It is worth noting that although not all of the predictions made by Christensen
and Horn came true 3 , we are noticing how such predictions and their appropriation have
shaped the politics, culture and administration concerning online education or learning with
technologies.
It seems that overreliance on the idea of technology to save education has its flaws. In
his humanist position (Zylinska & Zylinska, 2002), Weller (Weller, n.d.) suggests that there
are several weaknesses in such an argument. One is that it is merely ‘lazy’ to assume and
not back such big claims with systematic empirical research. The second is that such a view
frames technological change in education as a crisis - a negative view and not an opportunity –
a positive view. Finally, those suggesting that the current education system is broken are likely
to proclaim this as they are to experience personal gain from the acceptance of technology as
saviour (e.g., industry tech companies trying to sell a product, i.e., a solution to the leadership
of schools). Besides, there seems to be a lack of empirical evidence to suggest that digital
natives learn in different ways or using other styles – those that we never observed previously.
Bennett et al. (2008) conclude that a more rigorous investigation that considers students and
teachers perspectives and provides in-depth contextual descriptions must be called for ahead
of the proclamation of the need for systemic change in education across the board.
Alternative visions for technology in the education sector including implications of neu-
roscience, phenomenological interpretations, pedagogical analysis and others were compiled
by Castañeda and Selwyn (Castañeda & Selwyn, 2018) for purposes of suggestions directions
for future discussions and debates. Focusing on practices in higher education, authors con-
clude that the role of technology is complicated, dangerous and should be approached with
vigilance and activism. Seemingly, we have not yet reached an agreement on what technology-
enhanced learning is, no profound and ground-breaking theory of digital learning (e.g., con-
nectivism or connected learning) has been conceived of yet, nor pedagogical underpinnings
in working with technology have been researched and analysed enough. It is important to
3
E.g., state schools and universities aren’t in total bankruptcy although amid the Covid-19 crisis many UK uni-
versities did experience considerable and unexpected financial losses due to decline in international students. UK
introduced University Support Package (Government to Protect UK Research Jobs with Major Support Package,
2020).

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Ksenija Laskova, [email protected]

Citation: Laskova, K. (2021). 21st Century Teaching and Learning with Technology: A Critical Commentary.
Academia Letters, Article 2090. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL2090.

3
note that in this paper, human learner – a profoundly emotional being engages in educational
processes with another human or a piece of technology with feelings, emotions and affect,
some perspectives tend to “denaturalise technology-based education and deny that it remains
a human endeavour shaped by basic human characteristics” (Castañeda & Selwyn, 2018).
Bower (2019) further adds that while we know technology-enhanced learning research re-
lies on ‘pre-digital theoretical frameworks of analysis, it seems that since much of the research
focused on specific aspects of the usage of technology in education, this resulted in learning
technology research being fragmented and under-theorised. He further points out that since
the term technology-enhanced learning implies that technology will enhance learning which
by no means is not the case, this thus involves an inherent bias. This should instead be clarified
and referred to what researchers are interested in more is how technology facilitates learning.

4. Conclusion
While we move away from such questions as ‘what works?’ and ‘how can technology fix edu-
cation?’ it seems more instrumental to conduct empirical research investigating posthumanist
positions of technology-facilitated human learning. It is crucial that we gain more insights
into such pertinent questions, as does the technology change human learning intrinsically?
Does learning change technology intrinsically? Is technology-facilitated learning a deeper
means for deeper learning? In conclusion, one could imply that what needs to drive the design
of practice is the symbiosis of human and machine learning.
The discussion presented in this paper contributes towards the debate on technology in ed-
ucation by shifting the focus towards the facilitation of learner’s self-regulation in technology-
mediated environments and design-based thinking. It could be argued that such thinking stim-
ulates transformation and interdepended positive change of both, humans and machines, and
learning and teaching practices within the age of posthumanism.
Further, such thinking and design should take into account the complex triangulated net-
work of an individual human learner, human facilitator and facilitating technology. Finally,
when many aspects of our being are thrown into question, challenges that require more ex-
ploration are ones concerning re-imagination of not only the teaching practices that ensure
that learning in posthuman times is first and foremost serving the needs of the learner but also
engagement in post-qualitative research methodologies and forms of inquiry.

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Ksenija Laskova, [email protected]

Citation: Laskova, K. (2021). 21st Century Teaching and Learning with Technology: A Critical Commentary.
Academia Letters, Article 2090. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL2090.

4
References
Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review
of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x

Bower, M. (2019). Technology-mediated learning theory. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 50(3), 1035–1048. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12771

Castañeda, L., & Selwyn, N. (2018). More than tools? Making sense of the ongoing digiti-
zations of higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher
Education, 15(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0109-y

Christensen, C. M. (2011). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way
the world learns / Clayton M. Christensen, Michael B. Horn, Curtis W. Johnson. (Updated
and expanded new ed.). New York, N.Y.

Disruptive Innovation. (2012, July 10). Clayton Christensen. //claytonchristensen.com/key-

concepts/

Government to protect UK research jobs with major support package. (2020, June 27).
GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-protect-uk-research-jobs-
with-major-support-package

Grubbs, J. B., & Riley, A. C. (2018). Generational Differences in Narcissism and Narcissistic
Traits. In A. D. Hermann, A. B. Brunell, & J. D. Foster (Eds.), Handbook of Trait Nar-
cissism: Key Advances, Research Methods, and Controversies (pp. 183–191). Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92171-6_20

Rosi Braidotti, B. (2019). Posthuman knowledge. Polity Press.

Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. Portfolio Penguin.

Selwyn, N., Hillman, T., Eynon, R., Ferreira, G., Knox, J., Macgilchrist, F., & Sancho-Gil, J.
M. (2020). What’s next for Ed-Tech? Critical hopes and concerns for the 2020s. Learning,
Media and Technology, 45(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2020.1694945

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the Net generation / Don Tapscott. New
York.

Thompson, C. (2011). How Khan Academy Is Changing the Rules of Education. 6.

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Ksenija Laskova, [email protected]

Citation: Laskova, K. (2021). 21st Century Teaching and Learning with Technology: A Critical Commentary.
Academia Letters, Article 2090. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL2090.

5
Weller, M. (n.d.). Education in ‘not broken’ shock. The Ed Techie. Retrieved 18 Novem-
ber 2020, from https://nogoodreason.typepad.co.uk/no_good_reason/2012/12/education-
in-not-broken-shock.html

Zylinska, J., & Zylinska, D. J. (2002). The Cyborg Experiments: The Extensions of the Body
in the Media Age. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/cam/
detail.action?docID=437048

Academia Letters, July 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0

Corresponding Author: Ksenija Laskova, [email protected]

Citation: Laskova, K. (2021). 21st Century Teaching and Learning with Technology: A Critical Commentary.
Academia Letters, Article 2090. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL2090.