POSTHUMAN PEDAGOGY

PONDERING A POSTHUMAN PEDAGOGY
REDEFINING LEARNER IN THE AI ERA

Ryan Straight, Ph.D

ryanstraight@arizona.edu

University of Arizona

Angela Gunder, Ph.D

agunder@arizona.edu

Online Learning Consortium

University of Arizona

OUR AGENDA

The Plan for Today

Introductions: 2 mins

Posthuman Learners: 18 mins

5 minutes: Lighting Talk
10 minutes: Group Discussions
3 minutes: Share-Out

AI Implications: 18 mins

5 minutes: Lightning Talk
10 minutes: Group Discussion
3 minutes: Share-Out

Wrap-up: 5 mins

Scan this to follow along on your device!

INTRODUCTIONS

02:00

Ryan Straight, Ph.D
Honors/Assistant Professor in Cyber, Intel, & Information Operations
Director, MA{VR}X Lab
College of Applied Science and Technology
University of Arizona

Angela Gunder, Ph.D
Chief Academic Officer
Online Learning Consortium
Instructional Designer & Adjunct Lecturer
University of Arizona

POSTHUMAN LEARNERS

Posthuman

Posthuman Pedagogy

Posthuman Learner

05:00

Posthumanism

Posthumanism is a perspective that challenges the traditional humanist view of the learner as a bounded, autonomous subject distinct from technology.

It emphasizes the entanglement and co-constitution of learners and technology, moving beyond learner-technology binaries.

In the contemporary university, learners’ textual practices (their work, basically) have become saturated by digital mediation, demonstrating the usefulness of a posthuman perspective.

Posthumanism re-centers ways of knowing that have been marginalized, dismissed, or elided by dominant approaches, arguing for the significance of matter – objects, environments, technology, and materials that are ‘more-’ or ‘other-than’ human.

By recognizing the complex assemblages of human and nonhuman actors that shape learning experiences, posthumanism invites us to rethink the boundaries and relationships between learners, educators, and technologies.

This perspective is essential approaching the future of education. We argue, anyway.

Posthuman Pedagogy

Posthuman pedagogy is an approach that attends to the complex assemblages of human and nonhuman actors (e.g., learners, instructors, devices, platforms) that, when collected, enact learning.

It challenges traditional notions of learners as bounded “users” of neutral technological “tools.”

To get a feel for this, researchers and educators can attune to their own more-than-humanness and the role of digital technologies as agents in pedagogical practices.

This involves recognizing how devices and platforms actively shape the learning process and co-constitute educational realities.

By embracing posthuman pedagogy, educators can reimagine the learning experience and create innovative classrooms that work with, rather than against, the hybridity of humans and machines.

This is not an easy task.

Posthuman Learner

The posthuman learner is a hybrid, relational subject enacted through entanglements with digital devices, platforms, and networks, not something that comes pre-formed.

It is a direct results of these human-technology-world assemblages.

Acknowledging learners’ posthumanity is crucial for understanding how they construct knowledge, interact, and develop identity in digitally-mediated educational contexts.

It invites us to rethink traditional assumptions about learner agency, autonomy, and the boundaries of the learning self.

By embracing the concept of the posthuman learner, educators can design learning experiences that are responsive to the complex ecologies of humans and technology.

This involves creating inclusive, adaptable, and transformative learning environments.

Posthumanism, posthuman pedagogy, and the concept of the posthuman learner have the potential to be a powerful framework for reimagining education in the age of pervasive technology.

They challenge us to question traditional paradigms and embrace these complex entanglements. This leads us to ask some questions:

Discuss!

Consider these questions:

What do these phenomena mean to you?
Where do they show up in your work?
What are the challenges and opportunities?

10:00

IMPLICATIONS OF AI

AI as tool

AI as co-creator

AI as co-learner

05:00

AI as Tool

Traditionally, AI in education is viewed as a tool or instrument wielded by human learners and instructors.

However, this perspective has limitations, as it fails to account for the ways in which AI technologies actively transform meanings and practices.

By uncovering the invitational quality of AI technologies, we can understand how these tools invite or discourage certain actions and understandings.

Appreciating AI as an agent in shaping learning experiences allows us to move beyond the notion of neutral technological tools.

Reimagining AI as more than just a tool involves critically examining the assumptions and values embedded in AI technologies.

Key in this is designing educational experiences that harness their transformative potential while prioritizing learner well-being and empowerment.

AI as Co-Creator

Moving beyond the tool perspective, we can view AI as a co-creator in the educational process.

(In fact, if you’re using a large language model like ChatGPT, Gemini, and so on, you are in there somewhere. In a very real way, engaging with an AI is engaging with one’s self to a small degree.)

In this view, AI collaborates with human learners and instructors to generate content, provide feedback, and shape learning experiences, actively co-constituting our shared educational reality.

It is no longer as simple as providing a learner with an assignment and a tool that allows them to complete the assignment.

By examining how humans and AI work together and influence each other in educational settings, we can better understand how technology actively shapes the way we create meaning and understand ourselves.

Embracing AI as a co-creator invites us to reimagine the entire learning experience.

We are encouraged to ideate on innovative classroom practices that leverage the generative potential of human-AI collaboration.

That, or get left in the dust.

AI as Co-Learner

We can take the idea of AI as co-creator a step further and consider AI as a co-learner in educational contexts.

In this view, AI not only collaborates with humans but also learns and develops alongside them through shared experiences and interactions.

As you might’ve heard me prattle on about in other talks, digital devices have their own embodiments that perceive, interpret, and act on the world – a form of nonhuman “learning.”

What is “learning,” after all, if not perception, interpretation, and an evolution of one’s actions in and on the world?

By recognizing AI as a co-learner, we can gain valuable insights into learners’ lived experiences and the complex networks of human and machine learning.

(And if you want to discuss at your tables whether AI “learns,” we fully encourage that.)

This perspective has the potential to fundamentally reshape our understanding of the “who” and “what” of learning in AI-integrated educational contexts.

We can then really begin to harness the transformative potential of human-AI collaboration.

At the same time, and I’m repeating this because it’s absolutely crucial, we must critically examine the ethical implications of these new educational paradigms and prioritize the well-being and empowerment of all learners.

This may allow us to create a future of learning that is inclusive, adaptable, and transformative.

Discuss!

Consider these questions:

Is AI a tool or more than that?
How do you envision an AI as co-learner?
What does it mean to design for a human-AI hybrid learner?

10:00

BRING IT BACK

Let’s wrap up

How did it go?

What did we uncover?

What’s next?

Let’s talk!
Join the engagement session
Participate in our study

Scan this code or visit https://mavrxlab.org/pphp for details.

We’d love to gather your data!

THE END

Dr. Straight

ryanstraight.com

linkedin.com/in/ryanmstraight

azcast.arizona.edu/person/ryan-straight-phd

Dr. Gunder

angelagunder.com

linkedin.com/in/angelagunder

ischool.arizona.edu/person/angela-gunder

One final link to the deck!

References

Aagaard, J. (2017). Introducing postphenomenological research: A brief and selective sketch of phenomenological research methods. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(6), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1263884

Adams, C., & Thompson, T. L. (2016). Researching a Posthuman World. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57162-5

Adams, C., & Turville, J. (2018). Doing Postphenomenology in Education. In Postphenomenological Methodologies: New Ways in Mediating Techno-Human Relationships (pp. 3–25). Lexington Books.

Alfaro, L., Rivera, C., Luna-Urquizo, J., Castañeda, E., Zuñiga-Cueva, J., & Rivera-Chavez, M. (2020). New Trends in Pedagogical Agents in Education. 2020 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), 923–928. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCI51800.2020.00172

Hayles, N. K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. The University of Chicago Press.

Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth. Indiana University Press.

Pitt, J. C. (2011). Doing Philosophy of Technology (Vol. 3). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0820-4

Rosenberger, R. (2009). The habits of computer use. International Journal of Computing & Information Technology, 1(1), 22–28.

Rosenberger, R. (2020). On variational cross-examination: A method for postphenomenological multistability. AI & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01050-7

Rosenberger, R., & Verbeek, P. P. (Eds.). (2015). Postphenomenological Investigations: Essays on Human. Lexington Books.

Ross, N. (2021). My Octopus Teacher, Posthumanism, and Posthuman Education: A Pedagogical Conceptualization. JCT: Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 36(2), 1–15.

Taylor, C. A., & Bayley, A. (Eds.). (2020). Posthumanism and Higher Education: Reimagining Pedagogy, Practice and Research (Vol. 8). Palgrave Macmillan.

Thompson, T. L., & Adams, C. (2020). Accountabilities of posthuman research. Explorations in Media Ecology, 19(3), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1386/eme\_00050\_7

Veletsianos, G., Houlden, S., & Johnson, N. (2024). Is Artificial Intelligence in Education an Object or a Subject? Evidence from a Story Completion Exercise on Learner-AI Interactions. TechTrends. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-00942-5

Verbeek, P. P. (2008). Cyborg intentionality: Rethinking the phenomenology of human-technology relations. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-008-9099-x

Verbeek, P.-P. (2015). Toward a Theory of Technological Mediation. In J. Kyrre Berg Friis & R. P. Crease (Eds.), Technoscience and Postphenomenology: The Manhattan Papers (p. 16). Lexington Books.

Wellner, G. (2020). The Multiplicity of Multistabilities: Turning Multistability into a Multistable Concept. In G. Miller & A. Shew (Eds.), Reimagining Philosophy and Technology, Reinventing Ihde (pp. 105–122). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35967-6_7

The Plan for Today

Discuss!

Share!

Discuss!

Share!

Let’s wrap up

What’s next?

Dr. Straight

Dr. Gunder

References