Introduction The Role of Metaphor

Metaphors and Education

The pioneering work of Lakoff and Johnson (1980) was largely responsible for moving metaphors into a central position in understanding how people make sense of, and operate within, the world. They argued that, rather than being a tool of “the poetic imagination,” metaphors in fact are central to how people think, and our “ordinary conceptual system . . . is fundamentally metaphorical in nature” (p. 3). Because metaphors are so embedded in our language and models of thinking, we often do not even recognize something as a metaphor. Lakoff and Johnson (p. 5) provide the example of “argument is war”: we say that “your claims are indefensible” or that “I demolished their argument.” This shapes how we think about an argument—as something with an opponent, that can be won, in which there are strategies and rhetorical weapons. Metaphors shape how we act and live in this view. Sfard (1998, p. 4) contends that metaphors are “the most primitive, most elusive, and yet amazingly informative objects of analysis.” That is, they shape our language and thinking in fundamental ways but often remain hidden until coaxed into view.

The definition of “metaphor” varies according to domain, so practitioners in linguistics, psychology, literature, and anthropology might use the term slightly differently. Metaphors are a non-literal use of language; for example, when we say that “my dog flew across the garden to chase the squirrel,” we do not mean that the dog literally grew wings and flew. Metaphors can be seen as a super-category of all such uses of language, including analogy and simile. In this book, I focus on the use of metaphors as an educational tool rather than on their use in shaping our relationships with the world. In this context, metaphors act as analogies that allow us to map from a familiar domain in order to understand an unfamiliar domain. This is referred to as structure mapping, “the central idea [of which] . . . is that an analogy is a mapping of knowledge from one domain (the base) into another (the target), which conveys that a system of relations that holds among the base objects also holds among the target objects” (Gentner, 1989, p. 201).

This is a tool often used in education, for example the (rather erroneous but still useful) analogy of the structure of the atom and the solar system. In this instance, the base, or source, domain is the solar system, and the structure of the atom is the target domain. This allows relationships between elements to map across, so the sun is like the nucleus, and smaller electrons orbit around it in fixed paths like the planets. Some elements we map across from the source domain to the target domain, and others we do not (e.g., an atom does not need to have the same number of electrons as planets in the solar system). A good metaphor will help people not only to understand new concepts but also to make predictions about them, but an incorrect mapping of certain elements can similarly lead to poor conclusions.

Metaphor has been proposed as one of the main methods by which we come to understand a topic. McCloskey (2005) suggests that there are two dominant ways by which people come to understand a topic—by metaphor or through narrative (or models and histories)—and that different fields tend to be dominated by one mode; for instance, metaphors dominate physics, whereas narratives dominate biology. In 2020, I published a book, 25 Years of Ed Tech, that could be considered complementary to this book, although this is very much a stand-alone piece. Both books can be seen, though, as essentially seeking to answer the same question: “How can we better understand ed tech?” The former book can be seen as the narrative response to that question, whereas this one can be seen as the metaphorical response. Both approaches are valid but work better in particular contexts or for different audiences.

From the research on metaphors, we can extract two significant elements relevant to this book. First, they are fundamental in shaping our interactions with the world; second, they can be used to understand a new domain. This makes metaphors powerful tools in many areas, not least of which is politics, framing how we view both social policy problems and their solutions (Schön, 1993). For instance, if a politician talks about crime as a disease, then it carries with it a number of connotations from the source domain (e.g., crime can spread like an infection, but there is a cure, and so on). By shaping the argument in such a manner, politicians are in a position to present themselves, or their policies, as the solution. A different framing of the problem, for example crime as monster, carries a different set of connotations. Thibodeau et al. (2009, p. 814) tested this hypothesis by presenting a problem in terms of these two metaphors; according to which one they were presented with, people were likely to propose different solutions: “When crime was compared to a virus, participants were more likely to suggest reforming the social environment of the infected community. When crime was compared to a predator, participants were more likely to suggest attacking the problem head on—hiring more police officers and building jails.” A politician with a platform of building more jails will likely frame the problem of crime in terms of a predator or monster that needs to be controlled. The proposed solution looks more favourable than a rival proposition about investments in local communities. Similarly, shaping technology in terms of certain metaphors makes some solutions more “obvious” or suitable than others.

Metaphors, then, are a powerful means of understanding or explaining topics. Lukeš (2019) proposes three uses of metaphor in explanation.

• Metaphor as invitation. When learners are new to a subject, a metaphor can provide a route in, such as the atom and solar system example, but Lukeš argues that this type of use “does not help understanding. It just provides emotional support along the arduous journey towards that understanding.” That is, a deeper understanding of the target domain is required, and too often people stop at this stage.
• Metaphor as instrument. This involves exploring both target and domain and the connection between them and finding where the metaphor does not apply. This leads to a deeper understanding and a useful mental model.
• Metaphor as catalyst. This requires a deeper knowledge of the target domain, and here the metaphor allows manipulation of both elements, and the learner will make independent judgments and predictions.

Using this classification, the metaphors in this book aim to act as instruments, hopefully with the potential for being catalysts if readers pursue them further. My intention is to provide metaphors of sufficient richness to allow exploration, which will include considering when the metaphor does not apply, what its limits are, and a possible alternative.

Turning to the use of metaphors in ed tech itself, in 2000 Nardi and O’Day argued for the significance of metaphor in relation to how society discusses, uses, and is shaped by technology: “Metaphors matter. People who see technology as a tool see themselves controlling it. People who see technology as a system see themselves caught up inside it. We see technology as part of an ecology, surrounded by a dense network of relationships in local environments” (p. 27). Gozzi similarly argued in 1999 that metaphors were a key factor in understanding new technology and in fact were increasing in use as a consequence. For example, phrases such as “the information superhighway” and “computer virus” reveal how metaphors helped to shape our understanding of this unknown domain. Nardi and O’Day (2000) proposed four main metaphors: tool, text, system, and ecology. Mason (2018) deployed discourse analysis to extend this list by examining the literature of educational technology research in the social sciences. He found five categories of metaphor:

• manual labour—ed tech as a tool;
• construction/building—ed tech as an aid in scaffolding and constructing knowledge;
• mechanism—ed tech as a machine;
• biological life/agent—ed tech as an ecosystem or evolution; and
• journey—ed tech as a “journey leading toward greater use of new technologies which will yield positive consequences for teaching and learning” (p. 545).

There will be examples of these metaphors in many articles and reports on different forms of technology. The use of such metaphors is perfectly valid, and no single metaphor is necessarily better than another. But it is important to realize how each one frames the view of technology, how it is used, what it should do, and what its benefits and drawbacks are. These metaphors are often used without realizing that they are in fact metaphors—they seem to be “common sense”—or acknowledging their power in shaping our concepts of technology. It is not just that we can or should use metaphors in thinking creatively about technology but also that we do so all the time, and by acknowledging them we can, as Schön (1993) argues, become critically aware of them.

Education itself is couched deeply in terms of metaphors. Wilson (1995) proposes four fundamental metaphors for learning: the classroom, product delivery, system definitions, and process definitions. Depending on which model a software developer adheres to will influence the type of educational technology developed or how it is deployed in an institution. If you see learning as product delivery, then the sort of technology favoured will be focused on organizing and managing content that can be delivered to learners. If, however, the dominant metaphor is one of process, then the technology will support different stages in a learning process. Similarly, Botha (2009) proposes nine uses of metaphor in education, including how we shape educational policy (e.g., student as consumer), how we view the learning process (e.g., learner as sponge), how we frame teachers (e.g., teacher as guide), and how we talk about education in society. Metaphors, then, are key to how we think about, implement, practise, and evaluate education and thus the role that we see for technology within it. Sfard (1998) suggests a distinction between two basic learning metaphors—acquisition and participation. Acquisition is characterized by knowledge and concepts constructed by the learner, with the teacher involved in activities such as delivering content or facilitating learning. Participation involves ideas of apprenticeship and communities of practice in which learning is “not considered separately from the context within which it takes place” (p. 6). Sfard contends that we need both metaphors to develop meaningful learning, and the idea that metaphors need not be exclusive, or that one is superior to another, is important to keep in mind.

This work on metaphors highlights the motivation for this book and why the consideration of metaphors in ed tech is worthy of attention. Since I will focus on metaphors of educational technology, it is worth defining what the term “educational technology” refers to in this respect. It has a long history and can include any technology used in an educational context, from chalk and blackboard to virtual reality. It can also include related technology, for instance surveillance software. There is a joke about the only educational technology known to work is the school bus, which indicates that the definition can be broad indeed. In this book, though, my focus is on digital, networked technology used within higher education. Educational technology in schools is an important topic but closely allied with national or regional policies and directives. Some of the metaphors in this book will be applicable at this level also, but the tertiary education sector is the scope of most of the chapters.

I propose three reasons why metaphors in ed tech are worth exploring.

1. Educational technology is a relatively new field compared with the longer tradition of face-to-face, classroom teaching. Its implications, impacts, possibilities, and problems are aspects that researchers are still trying to comprehend. Metaphors therefore provide a useful means of understanding this new field.
2. The use of metaphors shapes how ed tech is deployed. As with the example of politicians, the control of language is important. If ed tech vendors describe technological change as an “avalanche,” for instance (Barber et al., 2013), then it seems to be substantial, unavoidable, and catastrophic (at least if nothing is changed). It is important, then, to appreciate when metaphors are being used and for what purposes. Therefore, I will explore some of the metaphors that shape ed tech and why they can often be damaging or limiting to the implementation of technology to the benefit of learners.
3. Metaphors allow us to reason in a different manner about technology. Using a metaphor, particularly an unusual one, we can see different aspects of something, which can challenge our original thinking. Through the use of metaphors, we can think creatively when considering ed tech. I would argue that much of our relationship with ed tech is quotidian and pragmatic. A practical approach to technology is fundamental, but there is also room for imagination, creativity, and even playfulness when we consider it.

About This Book

My intention in this book is to explore each of these three elements through a number of different metaphors. The preceding discussion of metaphors is brief but hopefully sufficient enough to provide an adequate overview. I could devote the whole book to an exploration of the research on metaphors for technology, but that is not my aim. This is not primarily a book about metaphors, or metaphorical reasoning, but a book of metaphors. They have usually arisen from my blog (blog.edtechie.net) over the past decade or so, where I often use metaphors to explore aspects of ed tech. Metaphors are an appropriate tool to use in writing a blog since they are distinct and allow for some playful thinking, which suits the medium. I have continued that approach here, so many of the metaphors in this book are rather stretched or intended lightly. I have deliberately avoided political metaphors where the source domain (e.g., Brexit) carries so many connotations that it overshadows any mapping to a target domain. It is also true that some of the metaphors here run contrary to the mapping process set out above in that the source domain might be as unfamiliar as the target domain. For example, when I use the purpose of a Welsh castle to examine the reasons for investment in ed tech, it requires a certain level of initial explanation. This is an example of an interactive metaphor, in which it is a matter not of mapping and substitution between domains but of interaction between them. Botha (2009, p. 432) claims that “in a metaphor an interaction takes place between two semantic fields. This leads to the creation of a novel meaning.” It is this creation of novel meaning and understanding that is the intention of the metaphors in this book. The second type of metaphor that I explore is currently used for aspects of ed tech, and by examining such metaphors I explore their connotations and, as with the “crime” metaphor, how they are used to shape solutions.

I hope that the metaphors in this book offer something in terms of how we approach and think about educational technology and our relationship with it. Some of these you will undoubtedly find more fruitful than others, but each chapter is largely independent, so you can skip to a different metaphor if you prefer. In examining a broad range of metaphors, I am aware that I could be guilty of dilettantism, cultural appropriation, or a version of what Primo Levi (1986) called “literary lechery.” I have therefore tried to draw from areas that I know well for the metaphors; for example, you will find a reasonable number of references to Wales since it is where I live. Yet the metaphors end up being rather Western or Global North–centric. I am not sure how to square this circle, but I hope that, where I have used metaphors outside my immediate experience (e.g., some borrow from aspects of religion), I have done so appropriately and that, even if the metaphors are not sufficiently global in their perspective, their range is sufficient to create interest for most readers or at least to suggest ones that might be more applicable in their own context. I hope to have demonstrated that there is no boundary to what constitutes a useful metaphor and that this freedom is one way of reshaping our relationship with technology.

I also created a tool similarly playful in tone that generates metaphors for ed tech (http://metaphor.edtechie.net/). Using this method of thinking, which might seem to be trivial on the surface, provides a route to exploring and discussing the application of technology that often brings serious issues into focus. My aim in this book is to draw attention to the benefits and dangers of metaphorical approaches to ed tech and thereby to give us a better understanding of what we want from technology and how best to realize it.

The book is divided into chapters that group metaphors of a similar nature together. They all relate to some aspect of ed tech, although what qualifies as educational technology is given a loose definition. It is probably worth briefly addressing some of the terms before we continue since many of them overlap, have varying definitions, and are sometimes used by particular groups in specific ways.

Distance learning: this term refers to education in which educator and learner are not physically co-located. The UK Open University and similar institutions were founded as distance-learning institutions with the specific intention of removing distance as a barrier to education. Although it is usually delivered online, this is not necessarily the case, and it can deploy a number of methods, including online, correspondence, and broadcast media.

Online learning: this term applies when the primary method of learning is realized via the internet. It often overlaps with distance learning but highlights the aspect of technology. As noted, distance learning can utilize methods that are not online (e.g., printed materials mailed to students), and online learning can involve students who are co-located (e.g., in drop-in centres). The term “online learning” is largely synonymous with the term “elearning,” more popular in the late 1990s.

Blended learning: this term covers a broad range of possibilities and emphasizes the use of different elements. It can refer to a blend of technologies and media, for example printed books, online forums, computer simulations, and podcasts. It refers more commonly to teaching that combines face-to-face and online learning, for example weekly face-to-face tutorials combined with online learning completed remotely. A rise in blended learning approaches is likely to be one of the long-term impacts of the COVID-19 online pivot as HEIs develop solutions that combine the best of both elements.

Hybrid learning: this term is often used synonymously with blended learning, although it can refer to a distinct approach. Whereas blended learning combines online and face-to-face learning for students, hybrid learning refers to the combination of online and face-to-face learning at the same time, so some students will be in a classroom, laboratory, or lecture hall while others will be watching and interacting online. This approach puts pressure on the educator to create appropriate learning experiences so that the online element is not a lesser option than the face-to-face element.

Educational technology: this is the term (abbreviated as ed tech) that I have chosen to encompass all of these aspects. It encompasses all applications of technology to education, but as discussed earlier it is usually meant to address digital, networked technology. I have opted to use this term partly because of its broad coverage and partly because it is a widely used term that people generally have an instinctive appreciation of but that is not too tied down in academic camps around specific applications.

Digital scholarship: in the book The Digital Scholar (Weller, 2011), I argued that the term “digital scholarship” provides a convenient shorthand in contrast to traditional, “analogue” forms of scholarship but that “digital” is only one aspect of a trilogy. It is best viewed as the change in scholarly practice that occurs at the intersection of digital, networked, and open approaches. I use the term in this book to highlight the changes in the practices of academics, educators, and researchers. The term “open practice,” which encompasses academic activities based upon online sharing, is not quite synonymous but related.

The chapters in this book explore different aspects of all of these terms. The chapters are as follows.

• “An Example of Metaphorical Thinking”: using visual metaphors created for the multidisciplinary program at the UK Open University, how metaphors can reveal different aspects of education is highlighted to provide an example of its application.
• “Thinking about Ed Tech”: setting the basis for the book, metaphors that help us to think about ed tech in general and its role in higher education are explored.
• “Ed Tech as an Undiscipline”: following from the previous chapter, there are some metaphors that examine the concept of thinking about ed tech as a discipline or field of research.
• “Specific Ed Tech”: the metaphors in this chapter narrow the focus from the broader field of ed tech to specific technologies such as massive open online courses (MOOCs) and learning analytics.
• “Ed Tech Criticism”: the business of educational technology is one in which metaphors are often used to frame an argument. In this chapter, some of these metaphors, such as “Uber for education,” are examined and their implications considered.
• “Open Practice”: aspects of openness such as open access publishing and digital scholarship are often difficult to consider since they offer new opportunities and problems. In this chapter, a number of positive and negative aspects are considered via metaphors.
• “Coronavirus and the Online Pivot”: the shift to online learning presented issues for many educators and institutions, such as how to develop resilient models should a new outbreak occur, and this chapter uses metaphors to explore some of the issues raised by the online pivot.
• “Online Pedagogy”: the dominance of the lecture as the model for higher education has highlighted the paucity of other models, so in this chapter metaphors related to teaching methods are explored.
• “Conclusion: Using Metaphor Appropriately”: this chapter examines some of the dangers of metaphor and draws together some of the themes that have arisen throughout the book.