Skills for Learning 2.0

I have been thinking and writing about 'Learning 2.0' for some time now. This is the argument that there has been a paradigm shift in the way students learn - from 1.0 to 2.0, from passive to active, from individual to social and from consumer to producer. This shift seems to run parallel to the development of the web over the last decade, and resonates with many who observe 21st century, digitally mediated learning in all its forms.

The University of Toronto's Mark Federman is a major contributor to this discourse. The writings of Federman's late Canadian compatriot Marshall McLuhan clearly pervades his work. During a live television programme on 21st Century learning recently, he was asked whether the three 'R's (Reading, Writing and aRithmetic) would still be relevant to this generation of learners. Federman's response was slick and insightful, even though it had probably been scripted well in advance of the TV show. He declared confidently that for this generation, the three 'R's would not be as important as the four 'C's. Asked to expand on this, he listed the four 'C's: Connection, Context, Complexity and Connotation. Although these are essentially characteristics of modern life, we can contextualise them as skills or literacies. Here are my thoughts and  interpretation of Federman's framework, illustrated above with one of my most recent slide graphics.

Firstly, learners need to be able to connect. In today's fast paced and change ridden world, learners need now, like never before, to be able to connect through technology to peers, experts, content and services. One of the most valuable assets a 21st Century learner has is their personal learning network (PLN). And we are all 21st Century learners, even if we are not enrolled on an accredited study programme. A lot of what is learned (some claim up to 70 per cent) is informal, and with a powerful enough network of connections to a PLN, there is no limit to what a learner can achieve.

Secondly, learners need to be able to contextualise their learning. Bill Gates once famously stated that content was king. This is no longer the case. Now context is king, because situated learning is powerful, and access to content is just the start of learning. Learning can be contextualised in so many different ways, and this is why personal learning tools are so important. The capability to personalise learning environments, exercise agency over the tools and systems you wish to use, and the ability to apply learning to your own individual situation, are extremely important components of successful learning today.

Thirdly, learners need to be able to work with complexity and be able to interpret, filter out extraneous content, and make meaning. They need to be prepared for uncertain futures, none of which can be accurately predicted. In short, they need to be able to see the wood from the trees. There are many tools available today that learners can use to harness the power of web based content, including aggregation, curation and tagging tools, all of which can simplify complexity and allow learners to gain a purchase on chaos.

Finally, learners today need to be able to make meaning from the mass of content they are bombarded with each and every day. Many learners make meaning through discussion, but increasingly we are witnessing a shift toward user generated content, where learners are creating their own videos, blogs, podcasts, slidesets and other digital artefacts to make meaning.

Graphic by Steve Wheeler


Skills for Learning 2.0 by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Theories for the digital age: Self regulated learning

Informal and self regulated learning are defining characteristics of 21^st Century education. Various commentators suggest that as much as seventy percent of learning occurs outside of formal educational settings (Cofer, 2000; Dobbs, 2000; Cross, 2006). If these are accurate statistics, they present a significant challenge to schools, colleges and universities. One challenge for education providers is to decide whether they will support the desire of students to self regulate their learning activities using personal technologies. Institutes that discourage the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) movement may be perceived by their students as anachronistic. Those who do support BYOD for students and staff will need to invest significant time and resources into ensuring cross platform operability and seamless delivery to students’ personal technologies.

Self regulation of learning is thought to be a characteristic of individual students (Beishuizen, 2008) but increasingly can be contextualised within social learning environments. A number of collaborative and social networking tools regularly play a role within the average student PLE. Self regulation has been shown to enhance and improve learning outcomes (Paris & Byrnes, 1989; Steffens, 2008), enabling learners to achieve their full potential (Delfino et al, 2008).  Personal technologies are thought to enable self-regulation at a number of levels, including the ‘object’ and ‘meta’ levels of learning, supporting maintenance, adaptation, monitoring and control of a variety of higher level cognitive processes (Nelson & Narens, 1990). By using personal devices as ‘mindtools’ to offload simple cognitive tasks, students can extend their own memories (Jonassen  et al,1999), build their confidence, and increase their motivation levels (Goldsworthy et al, 2006). Further, personal devices enable individuals to gain access and to participate at many levels within their communities of practice, from ‘entering by learning’ through to ‘transcending by developing’ (Ryberg & Christiansen, 2008). All of this is often achieved by students outside the formal surroundings of school or university, with no time or location constraints.

Moreover, there is a sense that personal technologies encourage learners to be self-determined in their approach to education. Hase and Kenyon’s (2007) conceptualisation of self determined learning - or heutagogy- places the emphasis on non-linear, self-directed forms of learning, and embraces both formal and informal education contexts. The central tenet of heutagogy is that people inherently know how to learn. The role of formal education is to enable them to confidently develop these skills, encouraging them to critically evaluate and interpret their own personal reality according to their own personal skills and competencies. The ethos of heutagogy extends to learner choice, where students can create their own programmes of study, a feature often seen in the loose and unstructured aspects of some Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs). In many ways, heutagogy is aligned to other digital age theories, in that it places an importance on ‘learning to learn’, and the sharing rather than hoarding of that knowledge. It is not difficult to see that such sharing of knowledge can be easily achieved through social media and the use of personal digital technologies. 

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

References

Beishuizen, J. (2008) Does a community of learners foster self-regulated learning? Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17 (3), 183-193.

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

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

Delfino, M., Dettori, G. and Persico, D. (2008) Self-Regulated Learning in Communities. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17 (3), 195-205.

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

Goldsworthy, S., Lawrence, N. and Goodman, W. (2006) The use of Personal Digital Assistants at the Point of Care in an Undergraduate Nursing Program. Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 24 (3), 138-143.

Hase, S. and Kenyon, C. (2007) Heutagogy: A Child of Complexity Theory, Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4 (1), 111–118.

Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. and Wilson, B. G. (1999) Learning with technology: A constructivist approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Nelson, T. O. and Nehrens, L. (1990) Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.) The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, New York, NY: Academic Press.

Paris, S. G. and Byrnes, J. P. (1989) The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning in the classroom. In B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk (Eds.) Self Regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theory, Research and Practice. New York, NY: Springer.  

Ryberg, T. and Christiansen, E. (2008) Community and social network sites as Technology Enhanced Learning Environments. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17 (3), 207-220. 

Steffens, K. (2008) Technology Enhanced Learning Environments for self-regulated learning: A framework for research. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 17 (3), 221-232.  

Drawing Hands by M C Escher 

Theories for the digital age: Self regulated learning 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.

Teacher or educator?

Everyone is a teacher. We all have the ability to help others to learn. This is exactly what Vygotsky had in mind when he proposed his famous Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) theory. Children (and adults too) can learn more broadly, deeply and extensively if they have a knowledgeable person by their side, than they can on their own. In our society, we often think of that knowledgeable other person as a professional educator, a tutor, lecturer or classroom teacher. But it need not be. Not everyone is cut out to be a professional educator, but anyone can teach and most of us do exactly that, just about every day. The artistry of a good educator though is to continually engage students in learning, to inspire them to persist in their studies and to transfer their own personal passion to that student's learning. The art of education is to draw out the very best from learners, to encourage them to excel at what interests them, and to instill this within them so they continue to do so for the rest of their time on this planet. The very, very best teachers can do all these things, and usually instinctively.

We learn in a multitude of ways, some within formal settings, others less formally. How did you learn to tie your shoelaces? Most people would remember a friend, or a parent showing them how it was done. Then it was practice, practice, practice, until you could do it without thinking. Your first language was acquired naturally before you ever went to school. You learnt informally, listening to your family members speak and then engaging with them as you built your vocabulary. One of the great, unchanging roles of a parent is to be an informal teacher of their children, and older siblings also take a hand. Children today learn a lot of social rules and mores through informal play, long before they ever see a school playground.

If there is any difference at all between formal and informal learning, it is where that learning is heading. What is the study for? In formal learning contexts, learning is usually aimed toward obtaining some kind of qualification, an accreditation of a skill or knowledge. In informal contexts, it's simply about living. Going to school or college can be a real effort, day in, day out. Formalised learning can be a chore, but it need not be. This is where the skilled teacher can make learning engaging and fun, and motivate students to arrive each day anticipating something special. It takes passion, dedication, drive, tenacity and self-belief to become a professional educator. That's the difference between education and teaching, and it is why, although there are 7 billion teachers in the world, only a very few ever go on to become skilled educators.

Image by Momento Mori

This post was first published on August 1, 2011.

Seven billion teachers by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

New blends in learning

I started a discussion on Twitter today about blended learning, after reading an exchange between @simfin and @whitec. Unfortunately, the limit of 140 characters, on this occasion at least, badly let me down. Now look, just like any other academic, I don't mind a bit of a verbal punch-up, in fact I relish it. If you want an argument, I'll give you one, and just when you think it's all over, I'll come back for some more. But what I don't enjoy under any circumstances being misunderstood. Today's discussion about blended learning on Twitter was for me at least, somewhat unsatisfactory. I was away for some of the time, engaged in editorial work, and as I wasn't able to make my point clearly, I didn't persist. But, knowing me like you do, you know it's not over. So I'm using this blog to elaborate on my ideas in the hope that a more informed discussion can ensue and that this time I will not be misunderstood. Here's what I originally tweeted:



By this statement I meant this: Blended learning (in the established, traditional sense) means a mix of learning activities that involved students learning both in the classroom, and at a distance from the classroom, usually mediated through technology. I am claiming that this type of blended learning - in concept at least - is now outmoded because the boundaries between local and remote have now been substantially blurred. The tyranny of distance has been fractured. My students now learn across a continuum that encompasses the classroom, home and all points in between, any time, any place. They use the same or similar technologies in the classroom as they do at home, as they do on the bus, as they do... you get the idea. Geography (location of study) matters less and less as technology becomes more familiar, transparent and affordable, and students are connected with their peers, tutors and content in continually new and dynamic ways. This is why blended learning, in the old traditional sense is now a fairly meaningless term.

The second part of my statement was more contentious to those who responded to my tweet. I said that the 'new blend is to blur formal and informal learning.' This provoked a storm of responses. Someone said that the idea of formal/informal learning wasn't 'new'. Let me clarify - by 'new' I meant it's a new challenge for teachers. It means they may have to consider replacing some of their practices and it means that schools may need to revise some of their rules. Let me explain again:
Young people now bring so much informal technology into the classroom (mobile phones, handheld games consoles, etc), which they use constantly outside the formal boundaries of formal learning. Without really thinking about it, they use these tools to create and share content, connect, communicate and collaborate for their informal learning. Presently many schools simply ask their students to 'turn off' the devices when they arrive in school, because there are concerns about innappropriate use (cheating, bullying, recording and posting images or videos, etc). One challenge for school leaders today is to balance the risks against the benefits and decide what role if any these informal tools have in a formal context. The major challenge for educators then is to decide whether they wish to harness the power, excitement and allure of these informal technologies with a formal context.

A point was made by Anne-Marie Cunningham that the formal and informal have always been naturally blended by students, and it's nothing new, and to a great extent this is true. However, there is something new we need to consider. With the advent of emerging digital technologies, there are now more opportunities than ever to exploit the potential blend between formal and informal learning. To simply say that it's not new, has always been there, and therefore we don't need to be concerned with it, is ignoring the incredible potential we now have within our grasp to enrich, enhance and extend student experiences.

Mike John implied that because there is only learning and teaching (of which of course I agree) we shouldn't be labelling it with other terminology, because in doing so, we are 'taking our eye off the ball.' I know what he's getting at - the learner should be central - but I counter this by pointing out that if you are discussing the pedagogical theories behind the multitude of different practices observed in the classrom every day (my stock-in-trade) you need different words to engage fully and effectively in the discourse. Differentiating these practices necessitates giving them terms that describe, define and delineate them from each other. Yes, in the final analysis there is only learning and teaching, but we are not taking our eye off the ball in this discussion, we are merely finding out how many ways there are of kicking the ball. Education would be poorer without variety.

Finally, I want to make the point that blended learning in the new sense will also see the boundaries between teacher and learner blurring. I believe the two are a part of a continuum, because we learn by teaching. Sure, the teacher will be paid to develop and facilitate learning processes, but they will accompany students rather than leading them, and students in turn will surely teach each other more. We know that one of the most powerful and persistently positive learning outcomes in all sectors of education arises when reciprocal teaching is employed - the metastudies of John Hattie have established this across multiple contexts. So my prediction is that learning and teaching as activities will blend too. So there you have it. Blended learning as a concept is outmoded, and the new challenge for educators is to bring the excitement and affordances of informal technologies into the formal context. Other boundaries will blur as teaching and learning begin to coalesce. I hope I have been clear, and I'm quite happy to debate this further. Am I right or am I wrong? You tell me.



New blends in learning by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

2020 learning technologies

When I try to gaze into the future I hurt my eyes. It's difficult to see much beyond the end of the year, so trying to predict what technologies we might see in schools by 2020 is like staring into a very strong spotlight. We can merely speculate. It's not even worth trying to extrapolate trends based on developments from the previous 10 years. Change is not linear, it's exponential. That means that the change that has happened over the last decade, rapid as it has been, will in no way compare realistically with the changes we can expect over the next decade. But I'm going to stick my neck out anyway .... so how about this for a prediction?

It is highly likely that more informal tools and technologies, such as handheld devices, mobile phones and games consoles will take an increasing role in formal education. I can say this with some confidence, because there are already some signs of this happening in some schools. We don't know what informal personal technologies will look like in 2020. But teachers and education leaders are beginning to realise that there is a huge untapped potential in today's personal technologies. For example, the Nintendo Dual Screen and Wii games technologies are already being used effectively for teaching in some schools. iPod tools are connecting learners with content outside the walls of the school. The GPS capability in mobile phones has enormous potential for the teaching of geography, while the context aware facilities in smart mobile phones can extend the classroom beyond its traditional walls and out into the world, embracing history, natural sciences, citizenship and art/design. Imagine children using their context and location aware devices to access information about art or natural history exhibits in a gallery or museum. Imagine them capturing images of the places they visit which they can later upload onto their blogs, or videos they can create of real-time events beyond the classroom. Imagine the impact of augmented reality (AR) overlays on live images from an iPhone camera, feeding children with information about the world as they move through it, exploring. All of these things are already happening in a limited way, and we can imagine that such applications will and must spread, as smart phones become cheaper, more reliable and more powerful.

Some cynics might predict that there will be little change over the next few years in schools, because a) they are conservative organisations b) there is very little money available to invest in new technologies in schools and c) when introduced, new technologies are seldom successful in schools across the board unless a government initiative forces them to be adopted (see for example Interactive White Boards and school VLEs). Pragmatists might also point out that even if new technologies are introduced into formal learning spaces, they are often applied poorly and innappropriately, or are used in ways that fall short of their true potential. There is also the question of whether all children will have access to personal tools such as smart phones. Schools don't have budgets to ensure that all children have a personal technology. The only way this will happen is when they become as affordable to purchase and use as a ball-point pen or a pencil.

I'm going to conclude this blogpost by predicting that in school, children will one day use personal technologies in a similar way to the way they now use pens and pencils. We won't be seeing ICT suites in the future, anymore than we see pencil suites now. We need a seamless provision that blurs the boundaries between what children use to learn when they are in school and when they are outside the school gates. We need to be in a position where the excitement of informal learning and the powerful richness of social media, personal gaming and instant messaging can continue inside the formal learning space. The sooner this happens, the better.

Image source by Mac.Merc (Modified)

2020 learning technology by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Counting the cost

When we talk about the future of learning, we talk about the future of society. Most will agree that good education contributes significantly toward the wellbeing and prosperity of society. Without a trained, educated work force, nation states are not in a position to compete within the global economy. You only have to look at any emerging nation of the world where there is poor or partial compulsory education provision to see exactly how its economy is faring. Moreover, the higher the number of people unemployed, the more drain there will be on the economic and social resources of the state. This is the main reason why successive governments load their deck so heavily in favour of improved educational provision. It is politically expedient and it is also socially and economically desirable to seek to improve the state funded education provision. And it is why most changes imposed by governments don't actually work. This is because the governments of the world often remain blinded by economic considerations, and fail to see the true value of good education. Our leaders know the price of education, but have no idea about its true value.

Education is not just about preparing children for a world of work, and it is more than an organised attempt to secure the economic future of the nation. Education is far more valuable than that. How can we ignore the simple joy of learning? How can we measure the cultural value of learning about art, music, science, faith - the world around us? What price can we place on leading young people to maturity of thought, where they become discerning and critically aware individuals, able to decide for themselves what is right or wrong in the world? How do we place a price tag on enabling children to channel their fertile imaginations into precious, creative, transformative outcomes?

The answer is, we can't ... and we shouldn't. When the world falls apart around us, what we will be left with - is what we have learnt. And while the good people of Christchurch, New Zealand, are struggling to come to terms with their tragic losses, resulting from yesterday's devastating earthquake, what will they be doing? They will be surviving, escaping, organising, caring, sharing, coping, communicating, collaborating, rebuilding, reflecting and reappraising, and drawing on many other valuable skills they have learnt. Skills that go way beyond the mere acquisition of facts and knowledge. They will be drawing upon their emotional and intellectual resources which do not result solely from immersion in a 'curriculum', but rather through their exposure to the values and mores of their community.

As the news of the Christchurch earthquake broke yesterday, many people drew on their social media communication skills to connect with each other, providing vital information and sharing news, in a virtual community that spanned the globe. They achieved this without the help of the broadcast media, who were once again hours behind in reporting from the scene. We received reports from citizen journalists, people caught up in the drama of the moment, using their mobile phones to send out their pleas for help, and their remarkable but disturbing pictures and videos of the scenes they were witnessing before them. Such actions cannot be taught. There is no curriculum that can be developed to give us an appreciation of what we should do in a disaster or a crisis, no way to teach how we can communicate human tragedy as it unfolds. We learn by doing and we learn by being exposed to these experiences. And as we learn, others learn with us and from us. As a community, we somehow survive and ultimately, thrive. Lifelong learning is what education is made of. It was never about knowing what, always about knowing how. Let us never confuse schooling with education. If we do, what will be our future?

Dedicated to the memory of those lost in the Christchurch earthquake of 22 February, 2011.

Donate to the Red Cross NZ Earthquake victims fund

Image source by Martin Luff


Counting the cost by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Lunatic fringe?

Ivan Illich once argued that schools were like funnels, a transmission system - an industrialised, impersonal process that created more problems than solutions. His alternative to funnels was to establish 'learning webs' where students could share their expertise within their communities and learn from each other as the need arose, and as their interests drove them. For Illich, informal learning was more appropriately situated than formal learning, and therefore more relevant for lifelong learning. The work of Paulo Freire holds a particular significance to this discourse - he argued that dialogue was more powerful than curriculum, because it is the essence of informal learning, driven by interests rather than the expediences of the state. Einstein was an echo of these sentiments. He once said: 'Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learnt at school'.

During a presentation in Manchester two years ago, I happened to mention that Illich's 1970s notion of deschooling society could now be achieved through new web based tools, but that we were in danger of turning the Web back into a funnel if we persisted with wholesale implementation of institutional VLEs that constrained rather than liberated learning. He is one of my favourite anarchists, I said.

In an online discussion group later, someone suggested that my mention of Illich was enough to brand me as a member of the 'lunatic fringe'. I smiled, because I wasn't offended by this, but genuinely encouraged. A similar thing happened to me during the plenary session of the ICL conference in Austria. I asked a question of one of the keynote speakers, and cited Illich's deschooling position. He lost his cool and declared "No-one quotes Illich anymore!" It's not always a bad thing to be labelled a lunatic. It often means that people just don't fully understand what has been said. It's the same when someone is labelled an anarchist. It is often used as a perjorative description, without a clear understanding of what it actually means.

The Sex Pistols sang 'I am an anarchist', but I'm not convinced they were really aware of the true connotations of their lyrics. One of the conference delegates at my Manchester presentation asked me to explain my statement that Illich was 'one of my favourite anarchists'. He asked me to say what 'other anarchists' I admired. I responded with a list of people including: Jesus Christ, Mozart, Picasso, Van Gogh, Stockhausen, Einstein, The Beatles and Dylan Thomas. A surprising list perhaps? Few of these, if asked, would have classified themselves as anarchists in the sense that they wished to 'destroy the world'. They didn't of course. Most of them were criticised for being mad, deluded, drug-crazed or drunken, but each of them in their own way broke out from the mould, enabling us to see the world in a new way. They created new concepts that made us rethink our representations of reality. To me, that is what true anarchism is. Not being satisfied with the present, anarchy is about challenging, subverting, removing and ultimately replacing the tired, creaking old structures - a kind of 'destructive creativity' perhaps. It may not all be about smashing the system. It may be about repurposing it - just take a closer look at Illich's ideas:

Here is what Illich (pictured left) actually said: “A…major illusion on which the school system rests is that most learning is the result of teaching. Teaching, it is true, may contribute to certain kinds of learning under certain circumstances. But most people acquire most of their knowledge outside school, and in school only insofar as school, in a few rich countries, has become their place of confinement during an increasing part of their lives".

Illich was not saying 'destroy school'. He was saying that the ills of the current state funded school system (read 1971, or 2011 - it makes no difference) far outweigh the good. School is creating far more societal problems than it is solving, he believed. His notion of 'learning webs' reflects his concern that we become more community focused and able to respond to changes, whilst his critique of 'funnels' shows his concern for the bland, homogenous and often irrelevant curricula of his own time and the impersonal, behaviouristic manner in which it was delivered.

On his blog, Bill Ellis provides us with useful insight into the motivation behind Illich's thesis: "Deschooling Society was more about society than about schools. Society needed deschooling because it was a mime of the school system that it engendered and that engendered it. In our current society individuals are expected to work in dull and stultifying jobs for future rewards. This they are trained to do in schools. They go to school so that they can get a job to work for future rewards".

We are seeing some green shoots. Creative curricula and personalised learning environments are the start of the deschooling process Illich called for. The formation of loose networks of practice and virtual communities, professional learning networks (PLNs) and 'user groups' on the Social Web is another. Retiring school systems that inhibit creative expression and individualism, and introducing new forms of assessment that support learning rather than measure it are also the start of the deschooling process. Using appropriate digital media that connect people into expert webs and enable them to negotiate meaning that is relevant to their own specific contexts is infinitely better than direct instruction. I can't see us demolishing the school or university building. What we should see happening though, is building the essence of all that is good from the school and university into each personal learning space, wherever that may be, and whatever form it might take. You can read more about the Deschooling Society ideas of Ivan Illich.

Images: Moon source. Illich source.

Lunatic fringe? by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

The future of learning

The Future of Learning

View more presentations from Steve Wheeler.

What is the future of education? With the upsurge in ownership of smart mobile devices such as iPhones, Androids and Blackberries, the rapid social penetration of touchscreen computers such as iPads, and an increase in the purchase of Kindles and other e-reader devices, the future of learning is definitely smart mobile. 80 per cent or so of the learning that most of us engage in is of an informal nature. Informal learning is becoming an increasingly enriched experience with personal tools, and there is improved connectivity too, ensuring that anyone who has a mobile smart device is more likely to be able to connect to the Internet quickly and seamlessly. Social networking sites and online media sharing sites are also enjoying exponential increases in membership, leading to the supposition that this generation is a profoundly connected generation. Students will use Facebook when they want to, and their institutional managed learning environment when they have to.

It is clear that education will not share the same future as the state funded school, because education and school are not synonymous. It doesn't end at school either. Those who pursue formal learning to the level of further and higher education will experience a growing gulf between the capabilities of the technology they arrive with in their hands, and technology that is provided in the classroom. They are different tools, for different purposes. The Blackberry or iPhone will be used to connect to informal learning and friends, for fun, entertainment and social purposes. The institutional system will be used for connecting to formal learning, and activities that are more formalised and by their nature, less entertaining and engaging. The personal technologies will be sleek, attractive, must-have, rapid action and intuitive devices, while the institutional systems will be rule-bound, clunky, opaque and bland. It follows that many students will prefer to access learning resources, their tutors and peers through their own personal technologies. We will thus witness a gradual decline in on-campus learning, with an increasing number of blended programmes made available to meet the demand of an increasingly mobile student population. Because students will increasingly rely on smart mobile tools for learning, FE and HE institutions may agree special arrangements with telecommunications companies to offset the call cost for students, as a trade off to the money the save by reducing their on-campus operations.

The blended learning courses of the future will be those that combine formal and informal learning features. Formal learning will be undertaken mainly for the purpose of gaining accreditation, informal learning will be engaged with for the remainder of the waking hours. Unless we can harness the power, excitement and richness of the informal personalised learning experience and translate it into formalised settings, we will continue to see a widening rift between school and education. The slideshow above - a part of the keynote speech I gave at LearnTEC in Karlsruhe, Germany, earlier this month - illustrates these and other thoughts about what we might see in the future of learning.


The future of learning by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Bridging the divide

The United Kingdom is one of the richest countries in the world, and yet, in the second decade of the 21st Century, it still has one million children without access to computers and 2 million with no access to the Internet. The digital divide is real. A Guardian article today reads:

"More than one million children in Britain live in homes without computers and a further two million have no internet connection at home, a charity said yesterday). The e-Learning Foundation said it feared the gap between rich and poor pupils' performance at school would widen unless more was done to ensure that every child can use a computer at home".

This has always been one of the most trenchant problems with technology. The divide between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' may be economic, but it has far reaching social, cultural and political consequences. Relatively, the UK is better off than most other countries in the world, but as the BBC News website reports, there are still a million children who are being left behind. As affluent as it is, the UK still cannot claim to have provided universal access to one of the most basic educational resources. The connection has already been made between access to home computers and learning excellence. It is patently clear that children who do not have home computer/internet access are at a disadvantage when it comes to completing homework, researching assignments and sustaining informal learning. In the last two decades there have been many initiatives in the UK and elsewhere to establish ubiquitous access to the web. It's an essential tool for learning. It seems these initiatives have only been partially successful, and we are still failing many of our children through lack of vision. What should be done next to bridge the digital divide?

Image source


Bridging the digital divide by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Turn and face the strain

Below is an extract from a forthcoming chapter I'm publishing soon in a book edited by Manuela Repetto and Guglielmo Trentin, on Web Enhanced Learning. My chapter is all about change that is brought about by the introduction of new technologies in formal learning settings, and how it affects learning and teaching. It has the optimistic title of: Teacher resistance to new technologies: How barriers to Web Enhanced Learning can be overcome.

Abstract

This chapter will address the question of how a transformation in teachers' use of information and communication technology can be achieved. There is evidence to suggest that the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in higher education can enhance and extend the learning experience. There is also evidence that although many teachers recognise this, many resist using ICT in formal education contexts, resulting in a shortfall in the adoption of technologies. An analysis of the barriers and constraints, and how they might be managed and overcome will feature during the discussion. A particular emphasis on Web Enhanced Learning (WEL) approaches will be made and strategies for university-wide adoption of social software (Web 2.0) tools and services will be presented.

The Nature of Change

Change is often painful, and most people avoid it if they can. This is human nature. People feel more comfortable with routines they have developed, and trust their own methods before they will trust those of another. Notwithstanding, Web Enhanced Learning (WEL) has the potential to revolutionise higher education at a number of levels.

At the pedagogical level – where we are concerned with how learning takes place – there are indicators that WEL and other technology enhanced approaches have the potential to transform the quality of learning. WEL provides a flexibility of pace and space that was previously unattainable. Further, WEL enables students to more directly participate in, and take control and responsibility over, their own learning processes.

Formal and Informal Learning

This emerges through formal and informal learner activities such as online discussion, user generated content, active social tagging and the sharing and exchanging of digital artefacts direct from user to user. We can observe this in the interpersonal dialogue that is common on social networking sites such as Facebook, in the user generated encyclopaedia pages of Wikipedia and on video and photo-sharing sites such as YouTube and Flickr. Not only do students enjoy using these tools informally, they also use them within formal education contexts, and often during lessons or for the purposes of completing their assignments. Engagement with learning at this level is a departure from the didactic, passive, instructional methods often seen in higher education. Students are now using WEL tools to engage more deeply and actively with their learning, and through their quick and easy to set up social networks, can call upon help and support to collaborate while they learn. It seems a shame that there appears to be a gulf growing between the expectations and activities of students within the social web, and the expectations and practices of university staff within the lecture room.

The book will be published soon, and I'm looking forward to reading the chapters by the other authors in the volume.

Image by Banksy: source

Turn and face the strain by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Outrageous alternatives

What is the most outrageous alternative education scenario you could imagine? Children not attending school, but instead learning from home? Done it. Got the t-shirt. Distance education in the outback of Australia and other large area countries has been there for years, and so has home schooling in all its hues and colours. OK. What about no school at all then? Children going straight to work as soon as they are able to walk? Well, the sweat shops in the Far East can easily lay claim to that one. And of course, in Europe in the last century but one, it was prevalent for all but the very well off. It may be radical, but anyone who advocates it deserves a size 12 boot up their backside.

OK, what about children taking control of the curriculum, controlling discipline, and deciding what the teachers should teach them? Nope, completely passe. T'was done by Summerhill School and a number of other progressive, humanist schools in the 1960s in England and elsewhere. How about something a little less radical then? Teachers stepping back out of the way, so that the child takes centre stage and learning is focused on their personal development? No again - Montessori schools have been taking the approach for years. How about a more balanced curriculum then, where academic topics are equally weighted with artistic, aesthetic and social skills? Close, but no cigar - the Rudolf Steiner school movement has cornered 'head, hearts and hands' education for some time. Are we running out of alternatives? Is there any radical approach that has not been tried and tested? Are we doomed to continue with a rusty, creaking, increasingly outmoded national curriculum which every day becomes more and more irrelevant to the needs of the modern, fast changing, digitally-rich world of the information society? Are we?

Well, there is 'deschooling' of course. Deschooling in the sense that Ivan Illich proposed in the early 70s. No need to panic. It's not doing away with schools, as most people think when they hear the phrase 'deschooling'. No, it's more a philosophy premised on the assumption that universal education is simply not possible, nor is it desirable. We don't all need to know the same stuff, therefore why should we all sit together in the same room, at great public expense, for so many thousand hours of our young lives, to be forced to learn it all? Illich was also concerned that we should do away with 'funnels' - he talked about 'learning webs' that enabled every child (and indeed every adult) to learn what they personally needed to survive, thrive, care and share in the society they found themselves in. His idea of 'peer matching' was radical:

The operation of a peer-matching network would be simple. The user would identify himself by name and address and describe the activity for which he sought a peer. A computer would send him back the names and addresses of all those who had inserted the same description. It is amazing that such a simple utility has never been used on a broad scale for publicly valued activity. (Illich, 1971)

Hmmm. Impossible? Under the current funding regimes of mass public education, and in the present ethos of rigid curricula and control freakery of Western governments, trying to formalise something like this is difficult. But when we consider that 80 per cent of what we learn is achieved primarily outside the school gates, I am sure we might agree there are some potential loopholes to exploit. So let's see - how radical can we get with education? What if every child had their own device to connect to the world of knowledge and what if it was actually fun. What if they could search for any topic they wanted to know about and find complete resources on it in seconds, on a screen right in front of them? What if children could match their interests and knowledge needs with others who they could link with around the globe? What if children could learn from each other in this way using social networks and massively online role playing games? What if each child could create his own personal learning environment using tools that were free, scalable and open for all to use without any concerns about personal safety? What if this kind of learning was formally accreditable in such a way that employers would recognise it? What if the learning webs that Illich dreamed of were actually a reality, brought to us through easy to use personal devices, connected anytime, any place, and totally free to use?

So why aren't we doing it?

Image source

Outrageous alternatives by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Blurring the boundaries

I'm increasingly conscious of the blurring of boundaries between formal and informal learning contexts. We spend much of our time in formal settings such as classrooms, training rooms and 'on the job' training, to learn the stuff that gets accredited through academic or vocational qualifications bodies. And yet, this generally accounts for only around 20 per cent of our lifelong learning time. The remaining 80 per cent of lifelong learning occurs as a result of informal, and often random kinds of learning experiences (Cofer, 2000).

It's not an 'either/or' equation, and I don't want people to think I am advocating doing away with schools and formal learning. The two complement each other. Much of random informal learning suits the human mind, because it differs so much to linear forms of learning that predominate the formal learning environment of school, college and university. Non-linear pathways map neatly across the topography of the human brain with its galaxy of connections. And yet we need the discipline of formal learning so we are able to organise our thoughts and think rationally and critically. Random forms of learning, or to use Deleuze and Guattari's term - rhizomatic learning - are often serendipitous. Jay Cross (2007) called it 'rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and performance'. Sometimes, by going off on a hyperlinked tangent, learners come across websites that they would never have encountered any other way but through random jumping across cyberspace. But this is of course, a very hit and miss kind of learning, and often, informal learners can waste a lot of their time, and become hopelessly sidetracked away from what they are actually interested in.

Through the use of new and emerging technologies, this may all change. Creating, organising and sharing content within a defined community of interest is the way forward, and all of these are achievable through social media. I have previously outlined my views on what a personal learning environment should contain - its functional components, or the anatomy and physiology of a PLE. Every learner has one. With the added power of the smart mobile phone, informal learning can now take place anywhere and at any time - the web in the palm of your hand. With new semantic based technologies, predictive software, augmented reality and geomashups increasingly available, informal learning will not only be less haphazard, it will also be more intuitive and intelligent, delivering what the learner wants, when and where they ask for it, based on previously learned patterns of behaviour and use.

All of this won't replace the teacher, nor will it replace the formal learning contexts of school, college or university. One of my favourite quotes of the moment is that 'Doctors save lives, but teachers make lives'. What the technology will do, is supplement, extend and enhance lifelong learning for those who have access to the technology and are able to use it. And there's our next challenge.

References

Cofer, D. (2000) Informal Workplace Learning. Practice Application Brief. NO 10. U.S. Department of Education: Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.
Cross, J. (2007) Informal Learning: Rediscovering the Natural Pathways That Inspire Innovation and Performance. New York: Pfeiffer & Company


Blurring the boundaries by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Hanging in there

Socrates once said: 'I cannot teach anyone anything, all I can do is make them think'. And then there was Andrew Carnegie who said: 'People who can't motivate themselves must be content with mediocrity, no matter how impressive their other talents.' Some teachers struggle to motivate their students, and some students find it hard to concentrate for long enough to learn anything. So what is this slippery, elusive thing we call motivation? We certainly need it to do anything, anything at all. But where does motivation to learn come from and how can we capture it?

One of our Atlantis University team, Tillman Swinke, recently published a blog post called 'This time it's personal' where he deals with the subject of motivation in relation to informal learning. He remarks that learning always starts at the personal level (correct) and argues that therefore, informal forms of learning should assume more importance. Tillman then goes on to describe some of the most motivational ways to learn (e.g. my girlfriend only speaks Chinese, therefore I am motivated to learn to speak Chinese). He argues that informal learning has both intrinsic (self motivated) and extrinsic (externally imposed demands) motivation. I tend to agree but will maintain that informal learning is more reliant upon an individual's intrinsic motivation than it is by any external pressures. In other words, we learn because we are interested. When we move into the more formal aspects of learning, there the extrinsic motivation begins to be applied through a need to achieve good grades, complete successful projects and avoid falling behind your peers. The trick is to maintain an intrinsic motivation that is just as strong as if one were still learning informally.

This is one reason, I think, why personal learning environments (which tend to heavily represent informal learning approaches and are intrinsically motivated) are assuming an ever increasing importance in education. For it is within the PLE that students can truly pursue their own interests, motivate themselves to learn and generally capitalise on their personal talents and skills. It is the PLE that enables learners to transcend the often stifling nature of the institutional VLE to make their own creative choices about tool selection and formation of digital presence and identity. Now that's interesting....

Related posts

Intrinsic & extrinsic motivation and informal learning (DPhil Stuff)

What's in it for me? (Social eLearning)

There's no LMS in my PLE (Shelley Gibb @mollybob)

It’s Personal: Learning Spaces, Learning Webs

It’s Personal: Learning Spaces, Learning Webs

View more presentations from Steve Wheeler.

My slides for the upcoming PLE/PLN Online Symposium hosted by the University of Manitoba are now available for viewing above. In 'It's Personal: Learning Spaces, Learning Webs', I attempt to compare and contrast a number of learning philosophies, and define some of the (un)boundaries of informal and self organised learning - the fertile ground within which personal learning approaches flourish. Above is the scary baby from the cover slide: I will present this slide show with live commentary on Thursday from the Cork Institute of Technology over the Elluminate platform. I'm looking forward to hearing comments from those who are interested in this fascinating area of learning development.

Slugs and snails and social enzymes

Learning has rarely been a solo activity. I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I have learnt something significant without the help or influence of others (and counting on my fingers wasn't learnt without help, believe me). No, we are not isolated learners, but learn our most important lessons whilst in conversation with others. Conversation is of course often technologically mediated in this digital age. You and I no longer need to occupy the same location to converse. We can use text, audio or video in a number of modes and through a mind dazzling range of technologies. And there is a record - an archive - of our conversation if we want one.

This is how the current tools and services found on the Web are being used in so many new ways to connect, share and converse. Wikis, blogs, podcasts, social bookmarking, RSS feeds, microblogs, social networking... all are very powerful tools for people to use to make connections with each other... and to learn.

Formal learning is not the only type of learning possible, you see. More often, we are learning informally, while playing a massively multi-player online role playing game for example, or listening to a podcast about a news item. You are learning something new now by reading this blog post, and I learnt something new while I was writing it. We are aware of each other. When we search for an item on the web and get sidetracked down one or more other routes because they look more interesting... we are informally learning something new. When we eavesdrop on Twitter conversations, and simply 'lurk', we are learning informally. When we watch a YouTube video because several thousand people have already given it 5 stars .... we are learning informally. You may see this as serendipity - a kind of happy accident - and you may be right. Informal learning, more often than not, is unplanned. But that does not make it less worthwhile than formalised methods of learning.

The rhizomatic nature of Web 2.0 is making it easier for all of us to connect together, and to learn informally within a socially rich environment which is strewn liberally with the digital footprints of those who have gone before us. We are in effect, constructing our own informal learning pathways simply by following what others have done before - and here is the neatest trick. When we take what others have created (thanks to creative commons and a loosening of the grip or ownership and copyright) and we repurpose them for our own use, our own informal learning... we are creating new footprints for the next informal learner to follow. And on it goes. Informal learning and Web 2.0 need each other. They have synergy and we should not forget the social dimensions each relies upon for their success.

Andy Clark provides a very evocative metaphor when he talks about snail trails in his book 'Natural Born Cyborgs'. Clark shows that snails and slugs lay down slime trails that are rich in enzymes as they seek food sources. The second gastropod that follows the trail expends less energy and enzymes to reach the food, and so on until by the time the tenth snail slides down the pathway, the journey is almost effortless. In the same way, as we travel down digital pathways we leave a trail - perhaps a social bookmark, a Delicious tag, a Stumbled Upon note - which points the way for others to find your nugget of information. WE are in Michael Wesch's terms 'teaching the machine'. But we are also teaching each other. The more we lay down these pathways, the more we are building the community of practice that is Web 2.0.

Right. That's this blog post finished. I'm off now to lay down some social enzymes.

Learning futures festival

I'm a guest speaker at the University of Leicester Learning Futures Festival which kicks off on 11th November. I will be sharing a session with Steven Warburton (Kings College London) and Ricardo Torres Kompen, (Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Spain) where together we will be addressing the topic of the 'Social Web for Formal and Informal Learning'. I am still debating whether to wear formal or informal attire for the presentation, but in the final analysis it probably won't matter to anyone but me. Y'see the sessions will be delivered synchronously online through Elluminate, so I can dress how I want on this occasion.

Here's the blurb on the session: The Social web, also known as Web 2.0 technologies and services that enables the lay-person to be actively and collaboratively participate on the Internet has received much attention in the recent years. Educators, researchers, practitioners and technologists are keen to harness the potential of social web for learning. This two hour seminar and discussion forum will explore the potential of social web for both formal and informal learning.

The session is on 19th November 2008 between 14:00 - 16:00 (GMT) and will be live on Elluminate. Here's hoping you can join us!

Paradise gained

EDEN conference day two, and a good start from one of our keynotes, the OU's Grainne Conole who spoke on the learner experience and raised several key issues of support, peer networking and 'net generation' response to new and emerging technologies.

Talks that have stood out above the rest are: Niall Sclater (Open University - check out his blog) who spoke about collaborative learning using wikis, Catherine McLoughlin (Australian Catholic University) on podcasting and its use to motivate distance learners and Gottfried Csanyi (Vienna University of Technology) who covered the topic of ICT and informal learning.

I still maintain that although the content at EDEN is improving year on year, there is still a quality gap - most papers were 'this is what we did, and this is how we did it...' - and little in the way of critical evaluation and research based analysis. Most people go to EDEN to network, and I suppose this is its great success story. More from the conference next week when I have had time to reflect a little more, and am a little less travel weary....