This article is a collective response to the 2020 iteration ofThe Manifesto for Teaching Online. Originally published in 2011 as 20 simple but provocative statements, the aim was, and continues to be, to critically challenge the normalization of education as techno-corporate enterprise and the failure to properly account for digital methods in teaching in Higher Education. The 2020Manifestocontinues in the same critically provocative fashion, and, as the response collected here demonstrates, its publication could not be timelier. Though theManifestowas written before the Covid-19 pandemic, many of the responses gathered here inevitably reflect on the experiences of moving to digital, distant, online teaching under unprecedented conditions. As these contributions reveal, the challenges were many and varied, ranging from the positive, breakthrough opportunities that digital learning offered to many students, including the disabled, to the problematic, such as poor digital networks and access, and simple digital poverty. Regardless of the nature of each response, taken together, what they show is thatThe Manifesto for Teaching Onlineoffers welcome insights into and practical advice on how to teach online, and creatively confront the supremacy of face-to-face teaching.

This paper discusses the diffusion of two models of mobile learning within the educational research literature: The Framework for the Rational Analysis of Mobile Learning (FRAME) model and the 3-Level Evaluation Framework (3-LEF). The main purpose is to analyse how the two models, now over 10 years old, have been referenced in the literature and applied in research. The authors conducted a systematic review of publications that referenced the seminal papers that originally introduced the models. The research team summarized the publications by recording the abstracts and documenting how the models were cited, described, interpreted, selected, rejected, and/or modified. The summaries were then coded according to criteria such as fields of study, reasons for use, criticisms and modifications. In total, 208 publications referencing the FRAME model and 97 publications referencing the 3-LEF were included. Of these, 55 publications applied the FRAME model and 10 applied the 3-LEF in research projects. The paper concludes that these two models/frameworks were likely chosen for reasons other than philosophical commensurability. Additional studies of the uptake of other mobile learning models is recommended in order to develop an understanding of how mobile learning, as a field, is progressing theoretically.

This paper outlines a preliminary study of the kinds of strategies that master students draw upon for interpreting and enacting their identities in online learning environments. Based primarily on the seminal works of Goffman (1959) and Foucault (1988), the Web of Identity Model (Koole, 2009; Koole and Parchoma, 2012) is used as an underlying theoretical framework for this research study. The WoI model suggests that there are five major categories of “dramaturgical” strategies: technical, political, structural, cultural, and personal-agential. In the data collection, five online master of education students participated in semi-structured, online interviews. Phenomenography guided the data collection and analysis resulting in an outcome space for each strategy of the WoI model. The study results indicate that online learners actively employ a variety of strategies in interpreting and enacting their identities. The outcome spaces provide insights into ways in which online learners can manage their identity performances and strategies for ontological re-alignment (reconceptualization of oneself). Further study has the potential to elucidate how learning designers and online instructors might facilitate such identity-work in order to shape productive online environments.

For the past two decades, there has been persistent debate around whether there is a difference between the fields of instructional design (ID) and learning design (LD). While differences in the two approaches are certainly apparent, there are cross-over points that can provide ID and LD researchers and practitioners with opportunities for dialogue about the purposes and remit of research-based practices for optimal design. Though potentially disruptive, initiating dialogues among learning and instructional designers could lead to more thorough and critical analyses of both ID and LD repertoires. Should boundary crossings occur, there is a potential for a third space for the contemplation, research, and practice of design. A goal of this article is to use the notion of Van Gogh’s Yellow House as an anchoring metaphor for the third space – a location for shared discourse, inspiration, collaboration, and challenge for a community of designers of/for learning. Using the impressionist and expressionist terminology to help elucidate the ways of thinking of designers of both traditions, this article examines the history, underlying philosophical approaches, methodologies, and design goals of ID and LD. We conclude that the emergence of a third space for design can help us move beyond the LD and ID dichotomies. We suggest that a socio-materialist perspective alleviates issues of incommensurability by acknowledging ontological multiplicity.