LAUSR

When I started studying biology there was a clear dichotomy within the subject: Zoology – Botany. The idea of ‘dichotomies’ was also reinforced by the hours I spent grappling with the dichotomous keys used to identify specimens during fieldwork (e.g. Clapham, Tutin, and Warburg 1962). Further dichotomies within Biology have been stressed over the years, such as relating theory with practical work. Similar scenarios have developed within educational research, and perhaps the most pronounced of these has been the continued dichotomy between deep and surface learning (Marton and Säljö 1976). One of the most evident dichotomies in the current educational literature concerns the perceived differences in the learning environment created by the application of digital technologies, with the notion of the ‘flipped classroom’ being centre stage (e.g. O’Flaherty and Phillips 2015). However, in the context of technology-enhanced learning Jones and Bennett (2017) have cast doubt on the use of what they term ‘misleading dualisms in education discourse’ that lead us to focus on mechanisms of delivery rather than on pedagogical quality. They urge us to ‘deconstruct binary thinking and to recognise online and offline as elements of the same pedagogical space’. Others have also suggested that the learning gains observed in flipped scenarios may simply be due to the active learning that is promoted in these classrooms (e.g. Jensen, Kummer, and Godoy 2015; Stockwell et al. 2015). The value of active learning has been recognised in Biology for a long time. This is why we spend time and energy organising practical lessons and fieldwork for our students. The move into online learning is just another part of that ‘pedagogical space’ – one in which the principles of active learning are still valid. Perhaps it is a biologist’s tendency to construct dichotomies which makes the online components of teaching feel alien to some of us? Maybe this is a point where constructing a dichotomy (online/offline) is not helpful.