(Re)Framing Our Frames: Architectonics, Intertextuality, and the Scholarship of Integration in Online Education
Keywords:Architectonics, Interdisciplinary, online education theory, scholarship of integration, semiotics
The pandemic of 2020 has renewed interest in technology as an integrative agent in higher education. However, advancements in technology continue to outpace the scholarship of integration in SoTL, even though Ernest Boyer valued it as a continuous area of study. This article calls for a reconsideration of Boyer’s appreciation of integration as convergence or intertextuality. Intertextuality and its digital correlate, hypertextuality, operationalize online education. Yet, they are often ignored as models of convergence. This relational paradox signals a need for a discourse and framework that help us to conceptualize the inherently integrative nature of knowledge and online education. To address this deficit, this literature review introduces Peircean architectonics as the paradigm that reframes our understanding of convergence and illuminates its actualization in Terry Anderson’s prototype for online education. Architectonic logic enriches this model and provides us with a philosophy of convergence that revalues and advances the scholarship of integration.
Alexander, B. (2020). Academia next: The futures of higher education. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 45–74). Athabasca University Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1990). Art and answerability: Early philosophical essays by M. M. Bakhtin (M. Holquist & V. Liapunov, Eds., V. Liapunov, Trans.). University of Texas Press.
Barthes, R. (1989). The rustle of language (R. Howard, Trans.). University of California Press.
Bernauer, J. A., & Tomei, L. A. (2015). Integrating pedagogy and technology: Improving teaching and learning in higher education. Rowman & Littlefield.
Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. Harper & Row Publishers.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Jossey-Bass.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. The National Academies Press.
Chandler, D. (2002). Semiotics: The basics. Routledge.
Chick, N. L. (2013). Difference, privilege, and power in the scholarship of teaching and learning: The value of humanities SOTL. In K. McKinney (Ed.). The scholarship of teaching and learning: In and across the disciplines (pp. 15–33). Indiana University Press.
Dennis, J. (2018). The intertextualist: Future teachers, past pedagogy, and dedifferentiation in multicultural education. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, 7(1), 78–86. https://doi.org/10.32674/jise.v7i1.1062
Dennis, J. (2020a). The Kantian effect: Reconceiving the integration of knowledge in interdisciplinary theory. Journal of Interdisciplinary Sciences, 4(2), 1–14.
Dennis, J. (2020b). Languaging network learning: The emergence of connectivism in architectonic thought. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(3), 304–318. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i3.4718
Gazoni, R. M. (2016). Creative thinking in artificial intelligence: A Peircean account. In H. R. Arabnia, L. Deligiannidis, & M. Yang (Eds.), 2016 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), Las Vegas, Nevada (pp. 537–540). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Northeastern University Press.
Foucault, M. (2010). The archaeology of knowledge: And the discourse on language (A. M. S. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage Books.
Halliday, M. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.
Hawkins, D. (1994). Constructivism: Some history. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, & R. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning (pp. 9-13). The Falmer Press.
Holquist, M. (1990). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world. Routledge.
Hovestadt, L. (2010). Beyond the grid: Architecture and information technology. Applications of a digital architectonic. Birkhäuser.
Hovland, K., Anderson, C., & Ferren, A. (2015). Interrogating integrative learning. Peer Review, 16/17 (4/1). https://www.aacu.org/peerreview/2014-2015/fall-winter/ferren
Huber, M. T., & Hutchings, P. (2004). Integrative learning: Mapping the terrain. The academy in transition. Association of American Colleges & Universities and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. P. (Eds.). (2002). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground. American Association for Higher Education and The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Hutchings, P. (Ed.). (2000). Opening lines: Approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Hutchings, P., & Huber, M. T. (2008). Placing theory in the scholarship of teaching and learning. Art & Humanities in Higher Education, 7(3), 229–244.
Kant, I. (2007). Critique of pure reason (N. K. Smith, Trans.). (Rev. ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. (Original work published 1787)
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2013). Missing: Evidence of a scholarly approach to teaching and learning with technology in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2013.773419
Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. University Press of Virginia.
Klein, J. T. (2005). Integrative learning and interdisciplinary studies. Peer Review, 7(4), 8–10.
Klein, J. T. (2010). Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures: A model for strength and sustainability. John Wiley & Sons.
Kristeva, J. (1986). The Kristeva reader (T. Moi, Ed.). Columbia University Press.
Landow, G. P. (2006). Hypertext 3.0: Critical theory and new media in an era of globalization. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lemke, J. L. (1992). Intertextuality and educational research. Linguistics and Education, 4, 257–267.
Lemke, J. L. (2002). Travels in hypermodality. Visual Communications, 1(3), 299–325.
Manchester, P. (2003). Kant’s conception of architectonic in its historical context. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 41(2), 187–207.
McKeon, R. (1987). Rhetoric: Essays in invention and discovery (M. Backman, Ed.). Ox Bow.
McKinney, K. (2007). Enhancing learning through the scholarship of teaching and learning: The challenges and joys of juggling. Anker Publishing/Jossey-Bass.
Nelson, T. H. (1987). Computer lib/dream machine (2nd ed.). Tempus Books/Microsoft Press.
Orr, M. (2003). Intertextuality: Debates and contexts. Polity.
Parker, K. A. (1998). The continuity of Peirce’s thought. Vanderbilt University Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1887). Logical machines. The American Journal of Psychology, 1, 165–170.
Peirce, C. S. (1955). Philosophical writings of Peirce (J. Buchler, Ed.). Dover.
Picciano, A. (2019). Online education: Foundations, planning, and pedagogy. Routledge.
Schwab, K., & Malleret, T. (2020). Covid-19: The great reset. Forum Publishing.
Sharples, M., Taylor, J., & Vavoula, G. (2006). A theory of learning for the mobile age. In C. Haythornthwaite, R. Andrews, J. Fransman, & E. Meyers (Eds.). The Sage handbook of e-learning research (pp. 221–247). Sage.
Short, T. L. (2007). Peirce’s theory of signs. Cambridge University Press.
Watson, W. (1993). The architectonics of meaning: Foundations of the new pluralism. The University of Chicago Press.
Webb, A. S., & Welsh, A. J. (2019). Phenomenology as a methodology for scholarship of teaching and learning research. Teaching & Learning Inquiry, 7(1), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.7.1.11
Weimer, M. (2006). Enhancing scholarly work on teaching and learning: Professional literature that makes a difference. Jossey-Bass.
Werder, C. (2013). Navigating interdisciplinary riptides on the way to the scholarship of integrative learning. In K. McKinney (Ed.). The scholarship of teaching and learning: In and across the disciplines (pp. 240–252). Indiana University Press.
Witte, S. P. (1992). Context, text, intertext: Toward a constructivist semiotic of writing. Written Communication, 9(2), 237–308.
Copyright (c) 2023 Jeremy Dennis
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under an International Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (CC-BY-NC 4.0) that allows others to share the work for non-commercial purposes, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.