Inherent Tensions and Systemic Integration: The Dialectical Transcendence and Logic of Quality Generation in Online Education

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jhet.202515631

Author(s)

Zirong Tang1, Lianjin Tian1,2,*

Affiliation(s)

1Institute of Teacher Education, Yibin University, Yibin, Sichuan, China 2Institute of Higher Education, Yibin University, Yibin, Sichuan, China *Corresponding Author

Abstract

This study addresses the core theoretical challenge facing online education as it becomes a mainstream form: how to transcend a purely techno-instrumental perspective, systematically resolve its inherent structural contradictions, and achieve a high-quality return to the essence of education. Employing theoretical construction and speculative analysis, and while reaffirming the constant essence of education as teacher-student interaction aimed at the "turn of the soul," this research originally proposes a three-level "Tension-Fusion" analytical framework. The framework first identifies three fundamental internal tensions arising from the conflict between the technological logic and the educational logic in online education: the tension between spatio-temporal extensibility and situational fragility, the tension between online convenience and process opacity, and the tension between learner autonomy and outcome uncertainty. The study then introduces process philosophy and situated learning theory to establish "relational becoming" as the theoretical lens for resolving these tensions. Finally, it demonstrates three paths of dialectical transcendence for achieving high-quality online education: building a teacher-student learning community to re-embody context; promoting the deep integration of content, technology, and methodology to optimize the teaching-learning process; and establishing a developmental assessment system that permeates the entire learning process to drive the continuous generation of quality. The conclusion indicates that high-quality online education is not a direct product of technology, but is dynamically constructed through sustained relational interaction and practice within a systematic framework that acknowledges tensions and actively pursues fusion. The proposed framework offers a new theoretical tool and analytical paradigm for understanding and advancing the development of online education.

Keywords

Online Education; Inherent Tensions; Dialectical Transcendence; Quality Generation; Integration Pathways

References

[1] Xin, T.; Nie, Z.; Shi, W.; Zhang, S. Integration of Learning and Assessment: The Conceptual Shift and Implementation of Educational Evaluation. Open Education Research, 2025, 31(5): 30-38. [2] Huang, D.; Xu, Z.; Gao, Z.; Zhao, W. Revisiting the Debate on Online Instruction: From Appearance to Essence. Journal of Henan Polytechnic University (Social Sciences), 2023, 24(4): 106-115. [3] National Academy of Education Administration. China Smart Education Development Report (2024-2025). 2025. Retrieved from the official website of the Ministry of Education. [4] Du, M.; Wang, S.; Wang, Z.; et al. Process Data-Driven Quality Evaluation Design for Online Open Courses. Distance Education in China, 2024, 44(9): 90-100. [5] Zhou, J.; Qian, X. The Embodied Transformation of Online Education Serving Lifelong Learning for All: Theoretical Conception and Practical Pathways. Adult Education, 2024, 44(10): 48-55. [6] Jin, L. Digital Torch: Igniting Collective Learning Wisdom and Driving Online Knowledge Co-Creation. Hebei Economic Daily (Theory Section), 2025-06-26. [7] Huang, R. Integrating Large AI Models into Education: Conceptual Shifts, Morphological Reshaping, and Key Initiatives. Academic Frontiers, 2024, (14): 23-30. [8] Waard, I. D.; Koutropoulos, A.; Hogue, R. G.; et al. Merging MOOC and MLearning for Increased Learner Interactions. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL), 2012, 4(4): 34-46. [9] Huang, R. The Internal Logic of Digital Technology Empowering Current Educational Transformation—From Environment, Resources to Digital Pedagogy. Basic Education in China, 2024, (1): 10-17. [10] Plato. The Republic. Guo, B.; Zhang, Z., Transl. The Commercial Press, 2015. [11] Rousseau, J.-J. Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men. Li, P., Transl. The Commercial Press, 2007. [12] Ruitenberg, C. Giving Place to Unforeseeable Learning: The Inhospitality of Outcomes-Based Education. Philosophy of Education Yearbook, 2009: 266-274. [13] Lukács, G. The Ontology of Social Being (Vol. 2). Chongqing Publishing House, 1993. [14] Liu, X. On the Return of Education to Its Origin from the Perspective of Action. Journal of Southwest University (Social Sciences Edition), 2024, 43(11): 66-76. [15] Shi, S.; Wegerif, R.; Yuan, L. Dialogic Educational Technology Theory in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Open Education Research, 2025, 30(1): 24-32. [16] Beck, U. Risk Society: Toward a new Modernity. Sage publications, 1992:133. [17] Postman, N. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. He, D., Transl. Peking University Press, 2007. [18] Jaspers, K. What Is Education? Zou, J., Transl. SDX Joint Publishing Company, 1991. [19] Hua, P.; You, J. Research on Factors and Shortcomings Improvement of Online Teaching Quality in Universities Based on TQM. China Educational Technology, 2021, (10): 80. [20] Brown, J.S.; Collins, A.; Duguid, P. Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning [J]. Educational Researcher, 1989, 18(1): 32-41. [21] Xu, Y.; Chen, L. Exploring the Complexity of Student-Student Interaction-Dominated Online Learning. Distance Education in China, 2021, (10): 17. [22] Cho, H.; Gay, G.; Davidson, B.; Ingraffea, A. Social Networks, Communication Styles, and Learning Performance in a CSCL Community. Computers & Education, 2007, 49(2): 309-329. [23] Russo, T. C.; Koesten, J. Prestige, Centrality, and Learning: A Social Network Analysis of an Online Class. Communication Education, 2005, 54(3): 254-261. [24] Duan, J.; Wang, X. A Study on the Social Interactive Behaviors and Participation Patterns of High- and Low-Performing Learners in the Context of Open Online Courses. e-Education Research, 2016, (11): 43-50. [25] Whitehead, A. N. Process and Reality. China City Press, 2003. [26] Dewey, J.; Boylston, J. A.; Kaplan, A. The Later Works of John Dewey. Southern Illinois University Press, 2015. [27] Dewey, J. Democracy and Education. People's Education Press, 2001. [28] Li, Y. Curriculum Evaluation. Shanghai Education Publishing House, 2002. [29] Wang, D.; Zhang, L. Blog-Integrated Formative Assessment in AI Courses: Enhancing Learning Engagement and Outcomes. Educational Sciences, 2025, 15(3): 189-203.