Theories for the digital age: Paragogy

In previous posts in this series I have explored some of the characteristics of learning in the digital age. One more notable feature of 21^st Century learning is peer learning. Highlighting the fast paced nature of the web, Thomas and Seely-Brown (2011) suggest that peer learning can be both timely and transient. They show that never before has access to information and people been so easy and so widespread, and that we make connections with people who can help us manage, organize, disseminate and make sense of the resources. Such interconnectedness and willingness to share creates a new kind of peer mentoring that operates at multiple levels and many degrees of expertise, supporting learning in all its complexity. The notion of ‘paragogy’ (Corneli and Danoff, 2011) relates to the peer production of learning but as Corneli (2012) warns, such an agenda may be at odds with established educational systems in some respects, and may even be opposed by some. This is due to the challenge that ‘students teaching themselves’ might pose to the privileged knowledge and power structures many formal educational institutions continue to hold in such high regard.

In essence, Corneli and Danoff’s paragogy thesis is premised on the argument that online environments are now sufficiently developed to support peer production of content which can be shared freely and widely, and can promote learning for all within any given community. Again, this echoes the connectionist and heutagogic ideals earlier discussed in previous posts, whilst at the same time presenting a challenge in terms of the quality, reliability and provenance of content. The user generated content currently available on the web has been criticised for its inconsistent quality (Carr, 2010) and its potential to encourage plagiarism, piracy and a host of other nefarious practices (Keen, 2007). User generated content has also attracted criticism over issues of mediocrity, lack of accuracy and superficial scholarship (Brabazon, 2002; 2007). Notwithstanding, many are now turning to web based user generated content to educate themselves and to share their learning. In many ways, the ability to use personal technologies to create, organise, share and repurpose content, in many formats across the global web environment has become a democratising, liberating factor in education. There are now a variety of new ways we can create peer networks, learn from each other and share our ideas. In so doing, we are building what Illich (1971) once termed ‘the learning webs’ that will enable each of us to defines ourselves by both learning, and contributing to the learning of others.     

References

Brabazon, T. (2002) Digital Hemlock: Internet Education and the Poisoning of Teaching. University of South Wales, Australia.

Brabazon, T. (2007) University of Google: Education in the (Post) Information Age. Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing. 

Carr, N. (2010) The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

Corneli, J. and Danoff, C. J. (2011) Paragogy. In: Proceedings of the 6th Open Knowledge Conference, Berlin, Germany.

Corneli, J. (2012) Paragogical Praxis, E-Learning and Digital Media, 9(3), 267-272

Illich, I. (1971) Deschooling Society. London: Calder and Boyers.

Keen, A. (2007) The Cult of the Amateur: How today’s Internet is killing our culture and assaulting our economy. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.    

Thomas, D. and Brown, J. S. (2011) A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant Change.Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown. 

Image source

Theories for the digital age: Paragogy by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Theories for the digital age: Connectivism

Learning in the industrialised world can now be contextualised within a largely technological landscape, where the use of digital media is assuming increasing importance.  Much of this learning is informal, (Commentators such as Cofer (2000), Cross (2006) and Dobbs (2000) place the proportion of informal learning at around 70%) and is also generally location independent.

The present technology rich learning environment is characterised by a sustained use of digital media, their integration into formal contexts, and a shift toward personalisation of learning. These facets of modern life in combination have led educators to question the validity of pre-digital age learning theories. In recent years a variety of new explanatory theories have been generated that can be applied as lenses to critically view, analyse and problematise new and emerging forms of learning. 

One highly visible theory is Connectivism (Siemens, 2004). Connectivism has been lauded as a ‘learning theory for the digital age’, and as such seeks to describe how students who use personalised, online and collaborative tools learn in different ways to previous generations of students. The essence of Siemens’ argument is that today, learning is lifelong, largely informal, and that previous human-led pedagogical roles and processes can be off-loaded onto technology. Siemens also criticises the three dominant learning theories, namely behaviourism, cognitivism, and constructivism, suggesting that they all locate learning inside the learner. His counterargument is that through the use of networked technologies, learning can now be distributed outside the learner, within personal learning communities and across social networks.

Perhaps the most significant contribution of Connectivist theory is the premise that declarative knowledge is now supplemented or even supplanted by knowing where knowledge can be found. In a nutshell, connectivism argues that digital media have caused knowledge to be more distributed than ever, and it is now more important for students to know where to find knowledge they require, than it is for them to internalise it. This places the onus firmly upon each student to develop their own personalised learning tools, environments, learning networks and communities within which they can ‘store their knowledge’ (Siemens, 2004). In McLuhan’s view, as we embrace technology, ‘our central nervous system is technologically extended to involve us in the whole of mankind and to incorporate the whole of mankind in us’ (McLuhan, 1964, p. 4). Clearly our social and cultural worlds are influenced by new technology, but are there also biological implications?

References

Cross, J. (2006) Informal Learning: Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and performance. London: John Wiley and Sons. 

Cofer, D. (2000) Informal Workplace Learning. Practice Application Brief No. 10, U.S. Department of Education: Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

Dobbs, K. (2000) Simple Moments of Learning. Training, 35 (1), 52-58.

McLuhan, M. (1964) Understanding Media. London: McGraw Hill.
Siemens, G. (2004) Connectivism: A LearningTheory for the Digital Age. eLearnspace. 

Image source

[This is an excerpt from a forthcoming publication entitled: Personal Technologies in Education: Issues, Theories and Debates]


Theories for the digital age: Connectivism by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

New ideas in a digital age

How are new ideas spread through society? Before the digital age, we had mass media to do the job - TV, radio and newspapers and prior to that, more primitive technologies were employed to spread news. But these media were used to spread ideas, news, and views that were often sanctioned by the broadcasting channel or publisher. We can go right back to the oral cultures where stories were told to preserve cultural values and tribal history from generation to generation. This kind of transmission of ideas was less filtered and more closely aligned to the culture it was aimed at. Today we are more and more reliant on social media channels to access ideas and news. Because this content is often crowd sourced and relatively unfiltered, it is arguably closer to the oral culture of ideas transmission than the mass media that dominated during the last century. One of the best explanatory models I have ever seen about the diffusion of ideas was devised by American sociologist Everett Rogers. In his famous 1962 model (in the figure below) Rogers synthesised the work of over 500 published innovation studies, and identified five phases of innovation diffusion, which are represented in the model as adoption types.

An interesting feature of the model is a gap or chasm between the early adopters and the early majority, which has been referred to as the 'bowling alley'. This concept was elaborated further by Geoffrey A. Moore in his 1991 book 'Crossing the Chasm'. For some ideas, this chasm can be difficult to bridge but must be if the idea is to achieve critical mass and penetrate sufficiently into the collective consciousness of the target society or community. This means that enough people have to subscribe to the idea before it becomes acceptable and desirable for the majority of that society. In most cases, 16 per cent is simply not enough. This model is a useful explanatory framework not only for ideas, but also for new technologies.

If we apply Rogers' model to technology in schools it follows that newer technologies such as tablets, games consoles or 3D televisions need to be purchased by enough schools for manufacturers to earn enough income to establish scalability of production, hopefully lowering their prices in the process. Another social effect is the self-help user groups that spring up to support the product and its application.

Image source 

In the digital age however, many have questioned whether Rogers' model still has any traction. One critic of the model is Rudi Dornbusch, who argues that change does not always occur along the trajectory that Rogers describes. Why might this be? In a time where the power and reach of mass media is beginning to ebb, and instantaneous global communication is now possible; and where individuals have the power to engage immense audiences through handheld tools, does the model still hold any significance?

Several years ago I published an edited volume entitled Transforming Primary ICT (Wheeler, Ed: 2005). In the opening chapter I attempted to provide a 21st Century contextualisation of Rogers' model. Essentially, I reasoned that the categories of Rogers' innovation adoption model could be reframed to enable a better understanding of how people adopt new technologies in the fast moving and hype-ridden age of disposable devices.

We know that the innovators identified in Rogers' model are those who generally adopt new ideas with little difficulty. Some may stand waiting outside a store for hours before the doors open, so they can be the first to own a new device the moment it is released for sale. For the digital age, I thought of this group as 'techno-romantics' because many who fall into the innovator zone tend to see technology as 'the answer'.

The next group - the early adopters - are often opinion leaders within a community, and in this position of respect, they can influence behaviour. They are a little more pragmatic in their outlook, and tend to buy into a new idea or technology when they see its momentum growing. They may also be 'technophiles', in that they have an affinity with new technology and perceive no particular threat to their way of working, but rather embrace it as a means to enhance or extend their practice.

The early majority are the 'techno-realists' - people who deliberate their decisions about purchase of technology and who carefully watch what the technophiles do, before eventually buying into the trend. By the time this section of society adopts the new idea, prices have already begun to fall due to manufaturing economies of scale, and at this point in the lifecycle, version two has probably been released. At this time, the new technology is no longer seen as a fad, or a gimmick, and probably has earned a certain amount of kudos as a desirable device or tool to use.

By the time the late majority have adopted the technology it is no longer new. The late majority are the 'techno-sceptics' who prefer to remain at the periphery of innovation, and only buy into a new device when it has been long established, and there is evidence of good use, and a large enough support network.

The final group, which Rogers calls the 'laggards' are those who never, or only rarely adopt a new idea or technology. They are in digital terms 'techno-luddites', and in Rogers' terms, this group tend to have no opinions leaders within their ranks, but if provoked or threatened by the new tools, may actually take some form of negative action. According to Venezky (2004) this model can explain the adoption of ICT in schools, and holds true in many countries. Although Rogers' model of diffusion of ideas is now more thanfive decades old, I believe it still has a place in our understanding of how technology is adopted.

References

Moore, G. A. (1991) Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and selling high-tech products to mainstream customers. New York: Harper Business Essentials.
Rogers, E. (1962) Diffusion of Innovations. Glencoe: Free Press.
Venezky, R. L. (2004) Introductory Paper: Technology in the classroom: Steps toward a new vision. Education, Communication and Information, 4(1), 2-22.
Wheeler, S. (Ed: 2005) Transforming Primary ICT. Exeter: Learning Matters.

Main image source


New ideas in a digital age by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

I store my knowledge with my friends

I'm at Colchester Institute on Friday to present a workshop entitled: Communities, Spaces and Pedagogies for the Digital Age. It's for a Learning and Teaching development day the Institute is holding where they will explore the theme of Transformational Learning and Teaching. I have spoken several times on transformation learning, and a few years ago actually brought out a book about the transformational power of ICT in education. It's not an easy subject to tackle, particularly in conservative organisations such as schools and colleges, where change of any kind is looked on either with horror (I don't like change) or a jaundiced eye - (yeah right, as if that's going to make any difference...)

During my workshop, which I'm running twice, I'm going to explore how Web 2.0 tools and new approaches to creating learning space might transform the learning experience of students. I'm going to draw on all I have learnt from my recent overseas trips to challenge the audience to think differently, and in so doing, explore what might be possible in both physical and virtual spaces. The notion of community too, will come under scrutiny - what is it that learning in a social world can offer, and how can we foster communities of practice and interest with our students, not only within groups but across entire continents? I'm going to touch on a number of theories, not least Social Constructivism, but also Connectivism, a theory for the digital age.

I have an excellent quote from Karen Stephenson on Connectivist theory: She says: "Since we cannot experience everything, other people’s experiences, and hence other people, become the surrogate for knowledge". In practice, if you put a number of people in the same room and set them a task, they will all apply their own individual knowledge and experience, and in so doing, the sum of the collective effort will be greater than that which each individual could bring to bear on the task - it's known as distributed cognition - that is, no-one can know everything.

Distributed cognition is a multiplier - as some of the exercises I will facilitate will demonstrate. Stephenson goes on to say: ‘I store my knowledge in my friends’ is an axiom for collecting knowledge through collecting people. Wow - this is just the kind of stuff I do within my own community of practice and it's the social web that helps me to achieve this kind of learning. Notably, on Twitter or other social networking services, we all now have the capability to build up and maintain our own personal learning networks (PLNs) which we can draw upon like a water well, when we need it, with specific questions, whilst at the same time, sharing our own ideas, knowledge and expertise, and in so doing, enriching the distributed knowledge of the entire community.

Applying all of this in practice in authentic learning and teaching situations is the real trick.

Image source

I store my knowledge with my friends by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Barking at ants

On Wednesday 3rd February I gave a presentation to staff at the University of Brighton, on an invite from my old mate Asher Rospigliosi. His blog on learning using the Internet is worth a read. Below is the abstract of my presentation to staff in the Brighton Business School:

New Pedagogies for the Digital Age

The rapid emergence of new, participative and social media in higher education has caused teachers to question what they have previously believed about university teaching. Students also have different expectations when they arrive on the university campus. The proliferation of handheld and mobile devices, smart phones, ubiquitous computing and broadband networked technologies, interactive whiteboards, touch screen and wireless technologies is bewildering, and on the back of these developments, many academics also find it difficult to come to terms with the new digital cultures and values their students bring to the lecture room. In this presentation I will explore these tensions, discuss the potential and actual applications of new technologies, and examine how they are changing and challenging our traditional notions of pedagogy. I will speculate on how the digital age is causing us to reappraise and re-examine our own personal and professional values, and approaches to the business of learning and teaching. I will offer some simple, practical examples of how to integrate new social media into formal learning contexts and provide some insight into these processes from my own reflections on professional practice in teacher education.

Here is my slideshow:

New Pedagogies For The Digital Age

View more presentations from Steve Wheeler.

It has been a long time since I was in Brighton. When I was last in Brighton I was an undergraduate student of psychology. I studied at Lancaster House, the cognitive science centre of the University of Sussex. I remember vividly visiting the funfair on the end of Brighton Pier one evening, and took a ride on the waltzers. I had just enjoyed a rather large dinner at a local Tex-mex. It wasn't a smart thing to do. Spicy food, cider and fast whirling things is not a very comfortable combination. The inevitable happened. I experienced a technicolour yawn - I won't go into any more details. I managed to avoid barking at ants again by steering clear of all the fast whirling things when I was there this time.

Image source

Opening the gates

One of my recent publications is entitled: 'E's of Access: e-Learning and Widening Participation in Education. It turns up in an edited volume on Participation and Inclusion in Education, and I was asked by the editors to write a reflective author piece at the end. I would like to share it with you:

I have been priviledged to be an eye-witness to the rapid evolution of new learning technologies over the past thiry years, and have watched as we have been ushered into the Information Age. Throughout my career I have taken on the role of change agent - it has been my job to introduce emerging digital technologies into the classroom and to train teachers to get the best out of them. It now appears that just about everything found within the classroom can be delivered or managed through digital technology. However, this has come at a price.

I was there when the first personal computers were introduced into schools, and heard some teachers express their fears about being 'replaced'. To assuage their fears I remember quoting the celebrated science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke, who declared 'Any teacher who can be replaced by a computer ... should be.' It hit home, and the teachers realized that computers were there to support them, not supplant them. I believe also that this was the first time I myself began clearly to appreciate that learning technologies (what we also refer to as information and communication technologies or ICTs) were merly tools to enable and facilitate learning. They are very sophisticated and powerful tools, but still tools nevertheless. I was also there when the World Wide Web was birthed, and watched as it quickly became the 'killer application' that would replace many other well-established learning resources. Now I am witnessing the deep and far-reaching impact of mobile and wireless technologies, social networking services and classroom-based technologies such as the interactive whiteboard. As I observe, I notice that professional practice, teacher roles and student experiences are all being transformed.

These changes are all-pervasive and, to many teachers, just as disconcerting as the time the first computers were introduced into the classroom. When I first entered the world of learning technologies, I knew very little, and my learning curve was steep. I felt like an outsider looking in, and worked hard to 'learn my trade'. Thirty years on, the learning curve is still rising, and I find that I have to run hard in order to keep up with the pace of the change. I am expected to, because I am an ICT specialist, an insider. This leads to a number of problems, one of which is my need to continually update myself on 'what is new'. Because I am now 'inside' I often risk losing sight of the 'big picture' as I focus on new technologies. I constantly have to remind myself that ICTs are still only tools and that the 'learning' comes before 'technology' for a very good reason. They are tools that have inherent advantages and disadvantages, and they still have the power to exclude or include. They are tools that evoke a number of emotional responses from students and staff alike, some positive and some less so.

ICTs are tools for learning and for teaching, tools that enable better communication, quicker access to resources and, ultimately, tools that have the potential to include everyone in the wonderful experience of learning something new. Although I am now an insider, I know that there are many who feel themselves to be outsiders. Whatever the 'e' stands for in e-learning, it certainly stands for 'eclectic' for there have never been so many methods of delivery available to the teacher as there are today. If there is a strap line to my chapter, it is this: as well as the power to widen participation, e-learning has the potential to marginalize some students and teachers, and it is the wise practitioner who realizes this and manages to use technology appropriately.

Wheeler, S. (2009) 'E's of Access: e-Learning and widening participation in education. In S. Gibson and J. Haynes (Eds.) Perspectives on Participation and Inclusion: Engaging Education. London: Continuum. pp 134-146.

Image source

Digistraction and action

Over in Germany, Sigi Jakob-Kuhn (Twitter: @Networking_Lady) has alerted me to another excellent buzz word which belongs to 2008 - Digistraction. The word was coined by Jochen Lueders, Munich and is the 'capability of digital media, particularly the Internet, to draw someone’s attention away from something by making them look at something else, often a succession of other things, e.g. web sites'. Reading this definition reminds me of a superb book I read earlier this year by Mark Curtis entitled 'Distraction: Being Human in the Digital Age', which tackles the same issues from a slightly different perspective.

Curtis writes: 'The explosion of new communications technology - the internet and mobile phones - means we've reached a social tipping point of no return: for we are becoming 'always on'. Not only connected all the time to the 'network', but distributing ourselves to others through it'.

On Twitter just a few hours ago Nergiz Kern (Twitter: @NergizK) who is in Turkey remarked that 'Twitter is such a distraction :-) I want to get some work done but always get side-tracked. I still love you all ;)' She seemed mindful (as should we all) that although Twitter was distracting her from her work, she did not wish to alienate herself from her 'network' of friends. I suppose that all of us in the coming year who are distributing ourselves across social networks will need to discover that fine balance between digistraction and action.