Cited by 159Digital Education and SocietyOnline and Blended LearningEducational Innovations and Challenges

The Manifesto for Teaching Online

Open access
Bayne, Siân, Evans, Peter, Ewins, Rory, Knox, Jeremy, Lamb, James, Macleod, Hamish, O'Shea, Clara, Ross, Jen +3 more·2020·The MIT Press eBooks

Abstract

An update to a provocative manifesto intended to serve as a platform for debate and as a resource and inspiration for those teaching in online environments. In 2011, a group of scholars associated with the Centre for Research in Digital Education at the University of Edinburgh released “The Manifesto for Teaching Online,” a series of provocative statements intended to articulate their pedagogical philosophy. In the original manifesto and a 2016 update, the authors counter both the “impoverished” vision of education being advanced by corporate and governmental edtech and higher education's traditional view of online students and teachers as second-class citizens. The two versions of the manifesto were much discussed, shared, and debated. In this book, Siân Bayne, Peter Evans, Rory Ewins, Jeremy Knox, James Lamb, Hamish Macleod, Clara O'Shea, Jen Ross, Philippa Sheail and Christine Sinclair have expanded the text of the 2016 manifesto, revealing the sources and larger arguments behind the abbreviated provocations. The book groups the twenty-one statements (“Openness is neither neutral nor natural: it creates and depends on closures”; “Don't succumb to campus envy: we are the campus”) into five thematic sections examining place and identity, politics and instrumentality, the primacy of text and the ethics of remixing, the way algorithms and analytics “recode” educational intent, and how surveillance culture can be resisted. Much like the original manifestos, this book is intende…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7551/mitpress/11840.001.0001

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI-enabled assessment constitutes an administrative-rather than a pedagogic-gaze, impinging on the fragile conditions of trust that most educators see as underpinning the teacher/student relationship.

    “In this sense, it could be argued that AI-enabled assessment constitutes an administrative-rather than a pedagogic-gaze, impinging on the fragile conditions of trust that most educators see as underpinning the teacher/student relationship: … in higher education settings, a culture of surveillance, facilitated and intensified by technology, risks creating conditions that are highly risk averse and”

    From Assessment in the age of artificial intelligence (2022) · cites this paper as Bayne et al., 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bayne, S., Evans, P., Ewins, R., Knox, J., Lamb, J., Macleod, H., O'Shea, C., Ross, J., Sheail, P., Sinclair, C., & Johnston, K.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Venue
The MIT Press eBooks
Publisher
The MIT Press
Published
2020-09-15
OpenAlex
W2339811320
Cited by
159
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
33.40
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-sa
Locations
  • The MIT Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Education and Society
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Innovations and Challenges
Keywords
online learning, digital education, philosophy of education, higher education, campus identity, politics of education, remix, algorithmic surveillance, educational analytics, COVID-19 pandemic, teaching quality, inclusion, access to education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review