Three things

There are three things we need to know about learning for this generation. The first is that learning needs to be personalised. As I argued in a previous post, learning must be differentiated, because one size does not fit all, and standardised curricula and testing are not fit for purpose in the 21st Century. Personal learning is unique to each learner. The tools and devices students choose, and the pathways they decide to take are in many ways beginning to challenge the synchronised and homogenised approaches we still practice in schools, universities and organisations.

Secondly, learning needs to be social. Much of what we learn comes from contact and communication with others. Increasingly, such contact and communication is mediated through technology, and social media tools are ideal for this purpose. The celebrated Russian psychologist Lev Vygotskii proposed the idea of learning being extended when children are mentored by a knowledgeable other person. His Zone of Proximal Development theory has been central to our understanding of how we learn in social contexts. Yet in recent years, with the proliferation and equalisation of knowledge and the strengthening of social connections through digital media, new theories such as connectivism and paragogy have emerged to challenge the central place of ZPD in contemporary pedagogical theory. We need to ask whether we now need knowledgeable others such as subject experts to help us extend our learning when we have all knowledge at our fingertips. Now many learners are exploiting the power of social media to build and engage with equals in personal learning networks.

Thirdly, learning needs to be globalised. As we develop personal expertise, and begin to practice it in applied contexts, we need to connect with global communities. Students who share their content online can reach a worldwide audience who can act as a peer network to provide constructive feedback. Teachers can crowd-source their ideas and share their content in professional forums and global learning collectives, or harness the power of social media to access thought leaders in their particular field of expertise. Scholars who are not connected into the global community are increasingly isolated and will in time be left behind as the world of education advances ever onward.

Photo by Steve Wheeler


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

Game changers in the Training Zone

This week, ahead of my speech at the Learning Technologies Conference I recorded a 10 minute podcast interview for the Training Zone. You can listen by clicking on the embedded link below. If the link below doesn't work for you, try this one. My interview is at 18.45 in the podcast. To give you a taste of what was discussed, here is some of what I said in an excerpt from the transcript:

Q: What are the big technological developments we can expect to see implemented in 2013?

Steve: I think there are several that we have to look at as changing practice. I'm talking about disruptive technologies, things that will change probably forever - irrevocably - what we do in the workplace and in learning in particular. So for instance, one of the big developments I'm seeing happening right now is the move from keyboards and mice to touch screens and maybe even non-touch technologies.

One of the examples I've seen recently at the CES - the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas - it was reported that there was a new touch screen device which goes 'lumpy' when you want to put a keyboard up on it. The keyboard actually appears but it's through crystallisation within the screen. The keys are actually surrounded by raised areas so that people with visual impairment for instance can use the touch screen tablet. So there are really practical developments coming out which I think are going to improve working conditions for lots of people with visual impairment.

But I think for all of us touch screen technology is already revolutionising the way we do things. Some people say that you will never see the death of the computer keyboard, but I'm not so sure. I think that in a few years time maybe our grandchildren are going to sit on our knees and say 'did you really have to touch a computer to make it work?' So I think touch screens and non-touch technologies, things like the Xbox 360 Kinect, technology with a depth camera and an infra red camera, I think is going to change forever the way we interact with technology. We are going very quickly towards the Tom Cruise Minority Report data manipulation.

I think another big development is going to be larger screens, flatter screens, in fact screens that are flexible. Screens that you can stick onto any surface so that you can make the whole of the wall of your office or your workplace into a television screen which doubles up as a computer screen and for data manipulation. And I think this is coming, I think it is going to be quicker than we think as well, these are some of the developments we are looking at.

I think ultimately, the biggest game changer which has been going on for some time now, is mobile learning. Using your own personal devices to access learning, access peer groups, access social networking, access the ability to create and share content, anywhere and everywhere. As we're talking I'm watching citizen journalism going on, on the television in front of me. This London helicopter crash that has happened. Most of the pictures the BBC are actually presenting at the moment are from people who were on the scene at the time with their mobile devices. I think we're going to see that impact a whole lot more. Those are some of the trends I see happening.  

The TrainingZone podcast - January by Trainingzone on Mixcloud

Game changers in the Training Zone by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

We need a rethink

There's a very useful and refreshing article by Tom Barrett in this week's TES Magazine entitled 'Education needs to plug into Web 2.0'. Never before have I read an article that I agree with so completely. Those of us who are immersed in a world where the use of social media is so sustained, embedded and familiar, forget that many schools still ban the use of Web 2.0 type tools in their classrooms. Tom has some advice for schools who are in this category, and I quote:

"Perhaps one of the biggest barriers to engaging with the social web in schools is the perceived issue of safety: many teachers say they are left feeling helpless when pupils' work is available on the World Wide Web. I have been blogging with classes for eight years and these common-sense guidelines always work:

1) Be open to parents and allow them to share any concerns.
2) Moderate all comments before they are posted online.
3) Have a clear and robust e-safety policy.
4) Work within the school policy on images of children on blogs.
5) Publish a set of blogging guidelines on your site and share them with parents.
6) Make sure the whole school community is aware of your work."

Common sense indeed, but I would also add that schools should encourage and permit children to help teachers co-create the e-safety and school policies on social media use. They use these tools outside of the school on a daily basis and often have a sophisticated grasp on how social media work. Who better to inform schools than the users themselves?

I once spoke at an event where a school leader remarked that his school had banned access to blogging, YouTube and all other social media because 'they are dangerous'. I countered by asking him whether we should also stop teaching children how to cross the road, because traffic is dangerous too? I think he got the message. Where better to teach children about the dangers and risks of using the Internet, than in school? I think a rethink is very much overdue.

Whether this blog post, or Tom's article, or any number of other good pieces of advice will have an impact on the impasse many schools find themselves in with relation to social media use in schools, remains to be seen. But just a few moments thinking about the risks (and balancing those up against the clear benefits social media have in schools who do allow them) should convince most school leaders that adopting social media in the classroom really is the best way forward.

Image source


We need a rethink by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Global learning collectives

This is part 7 in a series of posts on the future of learning and technology. I spent the last two years of my school life at AFCENT* International School, in Brunssum, Holland. There was one word to describe AFCENT School - diversity. I remember how culturally rich the experience was, because children from all of the NATO** countries attended, and I often sat alongside American, German, Canadian, French, Norwegian and Swedish classmates.

I discovered that this school's education was far more than just the three 'R's. We learnt phrases from each other's languages (slang and swear words were particularly good fun to practice), heard about unfamiliar customs and practices, and sampled strange and wonderful food and drink from other countries. I should point out that in the 1970s Britain was far less multi-cultural than it is today. This was the age of the cold-war and our parents were serving in the military. We took part in multi-national games that went on all day, where we played the roles of politicians and generals, as we tried to avert a nuclear war. We produced and performed in musicals such as Godspell, Jesus Christ Superstar and Fiddler on the Roof in the school assembly hall. We learnt to play the games of other countries. It turned out that Baseball and American Football were less of a mystery for us Brits than Cricket was for our American counterparts. Who knew?

We learnt traditional songs and stories we would never otherwise have encountered, because each child could not avoid bringing their own personal stories, history and culture into the classroom. German Christmas, Canadian Bring 'n' Buy sales, and American cheerleaders were not something I had encountered in any English school. Believe me, if we'd had American cheer leaders at school in England, I would never have missed a lesson. At AFCENT School we literally had the best of both worlds by attending an international school. Not many school students are as privileged.

Some years ago, I saw several schools try to replicate this cultural richness through the use of video links to connect two (or more) classrooms together across distance. It was a great step beyond the pen pal letters we used to write when I was in secondary school in the 1960s. Then we had to wait for days or weeks for a reply. Now whole groups can meet and converse with each other in real time without travel. Language learning, cultural exchanges, personal stories, preparation for overseas school exchange visits and a whole host of other benefits can be realised when children collaborate and share their learning across language and cultural divides. The excitement of connecting with children in schools in other countries was tangible. Some schools who connected using videoconferencing manage to project the live video images onto big screens so that large groups could participate, and the kids loved it.

Video conferencing was just the start. We now have several alternative technologies that will allow schools to connect cheaply and easily with school children in other countries. One of the futures of education will be greater connectivity between schools around the world. Through the use of social media meeting tools such as Google Hangouts, video sharing tools such as Skype, and even massive online open games, students around the world already enjoy better chances to learn from each other and with each other, regardless of their geographical location. How will this develop? I foresee the emergence of global learning collectives where children will learn together across schools and time zones, collaborating on projects and other joint activities, and where technology will help us to once and for all bridge the great divides of geography, culture, creed and ethnicity.

*AFCENT = Allied Forces Central Europe. NATO = North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

Image source


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

Digital classrooms

This is Part 5 in my series of posts on the future of learning and technology. A few years ago Peter John and I wrote a book entitled 'The Digital Classroom'. It was published by Routledge in 2008 and is now also available as a Kindle reader version. It wasn't the first published under that title, and it probably won't be the last. The idea of a 'classroom' (regardless of how anachronistic that may sound) is appealing when it is 'digitised'. It's the old, comfortably familiar territory embellished with the new. Everyone in the world of education it seems, has an interest in how technology is going to influence what we do in the classroom. The book was received well, and we received some positive comments and feedback. Although the book is probably a little dated now, with technology advancing at rapid pace, it still set a benchmark for some of the things we could expect to see in the coming years. We talked for instance about how technology would streamline assessment, and how the curriculum might be impacted by new technologies. There were sections on digital literacies and mobile learning, both of which we considered to be important for the success of education and learning in the future. Blogs and wikis and other social media made an appearance, even though at the time they were still fairly nascent in compulsory education. We even mentioned the Semantic Web (or Web 3.0) as a potential horizon technology for learning. We spent a lot of time talking about digital cameras and interactive whiteboards, both of which have had dubious success in the school classroom.

Ultimately though, we could not have predicted the new tools and technologies that will become very much a part of normal school life in the recent and coming years. We did not foresee the touch tablets and their rapid success in schools, nor did we predict the rapid rise of smart phones and apps, or the potential of augmented reality. The non-touch motion sensing gestural interfaces now emerging (for example the Xbox 360 Kinect) and the voice activation applications were still just a gleam in the eye for many of us. Perhaps we should not have titled the book The Digital Classroom, but simply Digital Classrooms, because now we know that there are many possibilities, and that classrooms that have digital capabilities are many and varied. If I was to take a risk and suggest possibilities for the next 5 years of development, I might be right on some of my predictions, and hopelessly wrong on others, but here we go...

The signs are there that in the coming years, more gestural interface technology will be available for learners, and that advances in manufacture and design will enable the installation of screens on walls, desktop, in fact on any flat surface. The screens will be resilient and high resolution, but as thin as a sheet of card. The mouse, and keyboards such as the one in the image above, may disappear completely in favour of voice and gesture activated tools. For students with mobility issues in particular, this may turn out to be an important leveler. Smart touch devices will continue to develop too, so that every student will have the means to access all their learning resources right there in their hand, wherever they are, and whenever they need them.

Much more learning will be done outside of the classroom. Digital classrooms will become the place where learning is performed, celebrated and assessed - on large wall screens for all to enjoy. For many teachers, learner analytics will become an indispensable tool for tracking student progress and intervening when necessary. Many governments will probably insist on it and legislate accordingly when they realise just how much data can be mined from personal activities across the web. Eye tracking and attention tracking will also emerge as useful behaviour management tools for teachers in the next few years. Gamification and games based learning will establish a stronger foothold in classrooms as teachers realise just how powerful self-paced, self-assessed task oriented and problem based learning can be.

Probably the most important development I foresee though, is the emergence of student developed applications. As technology increasingly takes its hold on the school classroom, so students will become increasingly adept at coding. There is more scope than ever for children to experiment with computers. The Raspberry Pi is just the first of many tools to support this. The result will be the creation of a vast array of student games, mobile apps and eventually new forms of hardware (See this TED talk by 12-year old app developer Thomas Suarez). Many of the new apps and games will be made commercially available. Schools working in partnership with commercial companies will ensure it happens. We may even see some children achieve millionaire status before they leave school, and it will become commonplace for young people to be entrepreneurs before they reach higher education age. Now there's incentive.

A lot of learning comes from doing, making and problem solving. One of the most important contributions technology has made to education over the last decade can be found in its provisionality - that with digital, nothing is necessarily graven in stone, anything can be changed, upgraded, edited, revised, deleted. Learning in digital classrooms will be much more exciting, because learning through failure and experimentation will engage learners thoroughly in the right conditions.

Finally, a word of warning. We don't know how long these developments will take, nor do we know for sure  if they will materialise, because it is very hard to predict the future accurately, and schools are conservative places where change can be very difficult to achieve. What we do know is that the future will be very different from anything we can imagine right now. As ever, your comments and views on this article are very welcome.

Image source


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

Parabolic learning

Reflection and Amplification

Now that I have some time, I can sit down and reflect on an extraordinary two hour session with my BA Education Studies students this morning. They are only a small group of a dozen students, but over the last few months, my elearning module group has created a very large amount of content, including blogs, wiki pages and videos. The group wiki is here if anyone wishes to view some of their content. We have previously explored a number of learning theories, new learning technologies, concepts around crowdsourcing, wisdom of crowds, folksonomies and user generated content, Web 2.0, mobile learning and a whole host of other themes during the course.

Today was different, because normally I prepare thoroughly for the sessions. Today, I took the risk of going  into the room with just a germ of an idea to see how it would develop. That germ of an idea evolved over the course of the two hour session into something beyond anything I could ever have planned. It proves to me that sometimes spontaneity can pay dividends. The incorporation of a number of social media tools into the mix proved to be an amazing platform from which the students and I could reflect on the process of learning, and amplify our ideas to each other and the world.

I started the session with the aim of encouraging the group to learn deeply and critically about a particular topic - MOOCs (Massively Open Online Courses). I asked them to prepare for a debate next week, and put up the slide: 'This house believes that MOOCs will signal the demise of campus based higher education'.  I then divided the students randomly into two teams, one arguing for the motion, and the other arguing against. I asked the members of the two teams to research their arguments, with supporting evidence, and blog their ideas in preparation for next week's debate.

As a doorknob strategy, I asked two students to act as content curators. Their task would be to create a new wiki page, and begin to populate it with resources related to MOOCs. This would act as baseline reference materials for the two sides to incorporate into their arguments, but it would also mean that the two students would need to investigate both sides of the argument and post content related to the discourse around MOOCs.

I then tweeted (and encouraged the students to do the same) a few messages to the online educator community to ask them their views on the question of whether MOOCs would eventually replace traditional forms of education. This kind of crowdsourcing activity is always a risk and quite unpredictable, because you never know who will respond (if anyone) or what they will say. I added the hashtag #moocplym for good measure so we could track the conversation across the community. Next, I projected Twitterfall and VisibleTweets live backchannel feeds of responses on the large screen at the front of the classroom. Another task then came the way of the curator team. Their next challenge was to create an archive of all the tweets, blogs, and other content related to the hashtag #moocplym and maintain a chronological record throughout the week using Storify or some similar curation tool.

Over the coming week, the two teams (with the curation team in attendance) will therefore explore the history, culture, technology and pedagogy of MOOCs, a topic they are not particularly familiar with. They will critically analyse the discourse surrounding MOOCs, create and share content on their learning, and reflect on it. Their ideas, and their associated content will be presented and amplified through the social media channels, and the ultimate act will be the debate, followed by a discussion of the entire process from start to finish. There will be a lot to talk about if it all goes according to schedule. Oh, and why did I title this post parabolic learning? Because a parabolic reflector collects energy, focuses and transforms it, and then reflects it back with greater intensity. That's exactly what I want my students to do.

First image source
Second image by Steve Wheeler


Parabolic learning: reflection and amplification by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

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.

Inspired

The Plymouth University Vice Chancellor Enterprise Awards and Gala Dinner took place in a large marquee on Plymouth Hoe this weekend. It was a grand event, with chandeliers, live music and an excellent dinner, and as you can see, it was a black tie affair (you may never see me dressed so smartly again). My colleagues Peter Yeomans, Oliver Quinlan and I were delighted to be nominated for this year's inspirational teacher award, and we attended in the hope that we might be in with a chance. However, it was a very strong field, with 4 other shortlisted nominees, all doing remarkable work with their learners, and seeing incredible results. We were very proud then, when the envelope was opened, to hear our names being read out as the winners. Making our way from the very back of the hall, meandering around the tables and onto the stage to receive our award while the spotlights played upon us, it all felt a little like the Oscar ceremony, but we didn't get to make a speech, thankfully. We were doubly proud because not only had we been nominated for the award by our university colleagues, but also by our current and past students too. Here is an excerpt from the website nomination, with endorsements from a former student and a current student:

This team has been developing a collaborative, open and meaningful social media presence in e-learning and primary pedagogy. They are developing an innovative pedagogy by working to enable trainee teachers to develop their own sustainable network of professional development and the confidence to draw the best of their contacts into lectures and seminars, to enhance their own student experience. The team has inspired students to learn beyond their course, engaging with national experts and using their own personal blogs to make meaning of the learning taking place on the course. The result is a stream of nationally significant educators, willing to spend time helping our students and seeking to take our students on placements. Some students were able to showcase their dissertations as part of the international PELeCON conference. The goal of their work is to create connected students who are "hammers, not nails", with a credible and deep understanding of their own values and the purpose of education.

The team have put Plymouth on the national and international map amongst the social media in education fraternity. Regularly the team receive complements about the quality of the @plymuni experience which shared with thousands of twitter followers.

"During my time at university they inspired not only me, but many others on my course to think in a way that challenges the norm. Through their influence a generation of trainee teachers were pushed to consider the rights and needs of the children in their care above all other influences. They encouraged us all to be passionate about our work, to think creatively and to make changes to our world. For me personally they have long been a source of support, advice and inspiration. Since leaving the University they have supported me in my new career and their way of working is still a standard I hope to reach. In this way they have empowered me, and many others they work with to continue challenging ourselves to improve." - Alumni.

"They have encouraged me to do things that I never thought I could do. Firstly, I was asked to speak at an event in front of 200 professionals. I then had the opportunity to arrange a Teach Meet conference for like-minded professionals. They have opened my eyes to the world of teaching in a way that no other lecturers have been able to do. They motivate me to get involved with all aspects of University life and because of this, I am now involved in volunteer projects, arranging Teach Meets and I had the confidence to stand for secretary of the Plymouth Education Society, which I was successful with. I know that without the support and dedication that I have been given, I would still be working my way through University without taking part in all of these projects and events that really are life-changing for me." - Student.

That is why this award means so much to Peter, Oliver and I - it is recognition that we are in some small way contributing to inspiring a generation of new teachers who are, or who will soon be, let loose to teach our children, to pass on that inspiration - that zest for learning, and curiosity to ask the what if questions for the rest of their lives. Thanks to everyone who has sent us congratulatory messages. It means a lot.

Photo by Amy Parkin


Inspired by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Teacher beliefs

How can we promote successful change in education? Schools are notoriously conservative institutions, so it is often difficult to introduce new ideas. Much of the resistance to change comes from teachers who 'have always done it this way' and who have the mentality that 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Teacher beliefs about pedagogy are central to the successful integration of new technologies into schools. The extent to which they see technology skills as relevant and valuable directly relates to the extent to which these skills are practised and applied in their work. If teachers believe that technology adds no value to their teaching, they will simply not use it. New technology really has to be shown to be relevant and useful. The technology in any given school can be as high quality, shiny and compatible as you like. Technical support can be second to none, and all the support in the world on offer, but if the teacher is not convinced of its usefulness, forget it.

A long history of psychological research supports the argument that an individual is more likely to perform a behaviour when there is a high probability of a positive outcomes. See for example the work of Ajzen and Madden (1986) or Doll and Ajzen (1992). Teachers will only adopt new technology if they can see the benefits and are convinced something can be improved or enriched.

Perhaps even more important is the issue of professional practice. If teachers see no need to question or challenge their own practices, another barrier to the adoption of change arises. Reflection on practice is therefore a vital component in change management.

Put the political issues (such as regulation of activities and bans on the use of certain technology in schools) to one side for a moment. Do the same with the technical issues such as lack of bandwidth or hardware, or human issues such as lack of knowledge or skill. These have an impact on the success of technology integration in schools, but by far the biggest barrier to change lies inside the head the teacher.

More on change management in schools next time.

References
Ajzen, I. and Madden, T. (1986) Prediction of goal-directed behaviour: Attitudes, intentions and perceived behavioural control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453-474.
Doll, J. and Azjen I. (1992) Accessibility and stability of predictors in the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Behaviour, 63 (5), 754-765.

Photo by Steve Wheeler


Teacher beliefs by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

The changing Web

This is number 4 in the series of blog posts entitled 'Shaping Education for the Future.' Yesterday's post can be found at this link.

The web is constantly changing. Social media - often referred to as Web 2.0, or the participatory Web - is shaping up to be one of the most important tool sets available to support the promotion of change in education. Almost everyone, it seems, is using some element of social media in the planning, development, delivery, management or evaluation of teaching and learning. One of the greatest changes (and challenges) for education over the last few years has been the proliferation of user generated content. My own students create a lot of their own content during their study, usually in the form of podcasts, videos, wiki and blog content, and are encouraged to share these publicly online to gain additional feedback. Doing this, they tend to engage more deeply with learning, and find themselves collaborating more and learning from each other, as a result of using Web 2.0 tools. Essentially, Web 2.0 enables them to take more responsibility for their own learning. They like to share their ideas, and they enjoy playing their part in the production of knowledge. Learning is changing, and their experience is being shaped by the participatory Web. The Web is constantly changing, but it is also a change agent.

We need to acknowledge that 'Web 2.0' remains a contested label for new and emergent properties that are found on the Web. It is a complex network of dynamic resources that we all acknowledge is constantly changing to adapt to the growing demand for entertainment, communication and access to knowledge. Debate focuses on whether the emerging social applications constitute a sea change or revolution in the Web (cf. Van Dijk, 2002) or simply another phase in its relentless progress. Personally, I find myself in agreement with Brian Winston (2003) who views the Web as a facet of gradual evolution rather than symptoms of sudden revolution. Essentially, the Web has become more social. As with most other technology innovations, Web 2.0 applications have grown out of the need for people to connect together, share experiences and knowledge, enhance their experiences and open up new possibilities in learning. Social software is software that enables people to both read from, and write onto web spaces. It truly is the ‘architecture of participation’ (Barsky and Purdon, 2006) and demands active engagement as a natural part of its character (Kamel Boulos and Wheeler, 2007).

Web 2.0 tools include popular applications such as blogs, wikis and podcasting; social networking sites such as FaceBook and LinkedIn; photo and videosharing services such as Flickr and YouTube; familiar utilities such as RSS feeds, social tagging (e.g. Delicious, Diigo), microblogs such as Twitter, mashups (e.g. geotagging). Web 2.0 has spawned concepts such as folksonomy, ‘Darwikianism’ and the ‘wisdom of the crowds’ (Kamel Boulos et al, 2006). Also, we need to pay attention to the growing power, ubiquity and utility of the mobile phone and the central role it is already playing in enabling ‘anytime anyplace’ learning for students.

More is becoming known about the effects the changing Web is exerting upon teaching and learning. We know of some of the benefits and the limitations it brings to education and training. But there are still many questions to be answered. How for example, does this architecture of participation help to scaffold remote learners and how can it promote quality learning outcomes? What is the extent of the capability of social software to encourage a culture of sharing and collaboration? How much will Web 2.0 applications help to shape the education provision of the future? What roles will online games and mobile, personal technologies play in developing the skills young people need to study independently? These are questions we are beginning to address in some of our current research. More on this in future posts on this blog.

References
Barsky, E. and Purdon, M. (2006) Introducing Web 2.0: Social networking and social bookmarking for health librarians. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 27, 65-67.
Kamel Boulos, M. N., Maramba, I. and Wheeler, S. (2006) Wikis, blogs and podcasts: a new generation of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and education. BMC Medical Education, 6, 41. Retrieved 14 April, 2008 from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6920/6/41
Kamel Boulos, M. N. and Wheeler, S (2007) The emerging Web 2.0 social software: An enabling suite of sociable technologies in health and healthcare education. Health Informatics and Libraries Journal, 24(1), 2-23.
Van Dijk, J. (2002) The Network Society. London: Sage.
Winston, B. (2003) Media Technology and Society: A History: From the Telegraph to the Internet. London: Routledge.

Image source


The changing web by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

The importance of being networked

In yesterday's blogpost Separation and connection I talked about the nature of social media and their capability to amplify human contact. Specifically, I made the point that Personal Learning Networks (PLNs) are enabled and strengthened when we make connections through social media tools. One of the key reasons educators need a PLN is to keep in touch, to maintain dialogue with their community of practice. Never before have there been so many opportunities to make contact with educators world wide, many of whom have wonderful creative ideas to share. Indeed, the fact that many social media users are altruistic and are willing to share their ideas for free to their community should be enough to convince most educators to join in. Clay Shirky had it right when he wrote:

'...the use of social technology is much less determined by the tool itself; when we use a network, the most import asset we get is access to one another. We want to be connected to one another, a desire that ... our use of social media actually engages.' (Shirky, 2010: p. 14).

The last line gives it away. We have an innate need to talk to others, to share and compare, reify our own ideas, learn from each other, and gain a sense of belonging to a group of like minded others. This is a deep seated human trait that many psychologists down through the years have researched. Think of Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of human needs (1954), and note that 'belonging' to a group and gaining respect from others are fundamental to his theory. In previous blog posts I have highlighted the need for professionals to share their content for free, and many are doing so. The advantages are enormous, bringing the altruism of others into play. When I share my slides and blogposts under a Creative Commons licence that enables repurposing, somewhere, someone has translated my content into Spanish, opening up a huge new audience for me in Latin America. None of this would be possible without social media, and the ability to connect into a world wide body of colleagues who are striving for exactly the same ends as me. To enrich, extend and enhance learning experiences for their students.

References
Maslow, A. H. (1954) Motivation and Personality (Third Edition). London: Harper Row.
Shirky, C. (2010) Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. London: Allen Lane.

Image source


The importance of being networked by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Separation and connection

The Internet has taken the act of human contact and amplified it exponentially. We are witnessing a time where a mobile world wide web of connections is proliferating, and in which social mores, human relationships and communication conventions have been irrevocably changed. This is not hyperbole. At the time of writing, Facebook boasts over 845 million subscriptions and this statistics grows each month. What is even more remarkable is that these 845 million user accounts have so far generated over 100 billion connections. These connections exist not only in links between 'friends', but also in fan page membership, tags, 'likes' and comments, image uploads (at least 250 million photos each day), hyperlinks and a whole host of other digital artefacts created by people simply linking into content and interacting with it. And that's just Facebook.

In his 2003 book 'Six Degrees', Duncan Watts expounded the idea of being connected in the digital age, drawing upon the theories of psychologist Stanley Milgram. Milgram had previously postulated that although the world's population is relatively huge, person X could, through a series of links to people who 'know each other' connect with person Y. Milgram wanted to discover how many people would be in an average 'chain' of connections between X and Y. Through his research, he came up with an answer - there are six degrees of separation.

Six Degrees of Separation is a useful book because it illuminates the science behind our daily use of Facebook, Twitter and other social media. Watts, for example, discusses the nature of biological viruses and uses the concept as a means to develop his ideas and theories around social connections in a digital world. He suggests that social connections mimic biological viruses, because they have one aim - to proliferate as far as possible. He cites a number of instances where content has gone 'viral' through the use of technology, and warns that such global connection potential has the power to influence just about everything .... genetics, 'global synchrony' and political revolutions (the latter was realised during the Arab Spring uprisings, where social media played a central role in the overthrow of despotic regimes). This approach to network theory is still refreshing, almost a decade after it was written. But what does this mean for education? For me, the concept of social connection means that as an educator, I am able to discover any kind of knowledge I wish, and converse with just about anyone I choose, as long as I am locked into the appropriate social network. It also means that for learners, there is absolutely no limit to the extent they can develop their personal learning networks. They have the power in their hand to make as many connections, and create as much content as they wish, regardless of time, space or geographical location. As an observer and commentator, I believe we have not even started to scratch the surface of the massive potential of social media and mobile technology to disrupt and transform learning. That's why it's so exciting to be an educator in the digital age.

But what of the original research? In 1967, in a pre-Internet world, Milgram proposed that there were only an average of six degrees of separation between any two people in the world. The question now, in the light of the rapid penetration of social media and mobile communications, is - is that number being reduced?

Reference
Watts, D. J. (2003) Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age. London: William Heinemann.

Image by Richard Giles


Separation and connection by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Lost in the crowd?

In his 2004 book 'Distraction', author Mark Curtis argued that our sense of self - or personal identity - can become confused or challenged when we habitually use digital technology. He made several interesting points about the blurring of boundaries between public and private (think of webcams and Facebook status updates for example) and that technology tends to distract us from 'who we are'. There has been some debate over whether or not people should combine their personal and business social media identities.

Curtis argues from the position that identity is malleable, rather than fixed, and that we learn from a very early age that we can be someone else through role playing, imagination or masquerade. Our immersion in media, he argues, provides us with a myriad of alternative role models we can adopt or adapt. By the same token, social media also give us endless opportunities to engage with others, including sports stars, entertainers, politicians and other celebrities. The Curtis position is that other people's lives are more glamorous than our own, and therefore we wish we could be them to escape from the mundane, if only for a while. All very well, but I'm not convinced that this argument is applicable to everyone. Does wishing to be someone else mean that you actually adopt their identity? I think not.

Curtis also seems to be implying that people are often unwilling or at least unconscious participants in the digital obfuscation of their identities. Again, this is a far from convincing argument, but even if it were true, would it really so much of a bad thing that we are able to engage in multiple online identity performance? What dangers might there be? Also, do we really find ourselves forced into performing multiple identities against our will?

Those who follow this blog or my Twitter accounts (yes, plural) will know that I am very willing to experiment with multiple identities, because I am fascinated by the possibilities and intrigued by the psychology behind personal use of social media. However, I engage with this through choice, and I feel fully in control of what is broadcast/published.

Immersion in environments such as virtual social worlds (Curtis uses Habbo Hotel as his example) are also argued to be a means where the boundaries of identity can be blurred. He makes a useful point that in such environments you don't necessarily know the people you are interacting with, because they often hide behind pseudonyms and always represent themselves as avatars. This does not necessarily mean though, that your identity is being changed or that you are 'losing control' of who you are. It may mean though that you open yourself up to identity theft or manipulation of your public facing image by others. Curtis also makes a useful point that managing multiple identities can demand a lot of effort and therefore becomes a distraction. I have discovered the effects of this personally, because I maintain six Twitter accounts. I therefore need to be very careful especially when using Tweetdeck that I check carefully which account I'm using before I hit the send button. Do you have any thoughts on this?

Reference
Curtis, M. (2004) Distraction: Being Human in the Digital Age. London: Futuretext.

Image source


Lost in the crowd? by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

What is learning?

I was in a meeting with a prospective PhD candidate today and the conversation inevitably led to learning. He pointed out that in his lterature reviews he had uncovered a bewildering number of different, and often opposing learning theories. He was clearly impressed if not a little phased by the huge array of concepts and ideas that theorists had developed to try to explain what it means when we learn something. My response was that this was to be expected, because asking someone how they learn is similar to asking them what their favourite food is. But learning theories are variable in their significance, scope and validity. Some of the more revered theories such as social constructivism and cognitivism seem to enjoy a longevity which is evidenced in a large number of existing educational practices, including course design, learning activities, resource development, assessment and design of learning spaces. Yet in the digital age, it is probably in the area of tools selection and application that learning theories are at their most potent. Consider why the iPad and other touch screen tablet computers are becoming so popular in schools. Is this down solely to the intuitive nature of the tablet design, or do teachers see other more tacit pedagogical uses that are supported by the affordances of the tablet?

Our conceptions of learning are as individualised as our fingerprints. During a conference in Barcelona last week, I was asked what I did to make learning fun for my students. I responded by saying that I didn't always make learning fun, because sometimes learning needs to be painful. This response was met by frowns and smiles in equal distribution. Over 70 years ago, John Dewey argued that the 'educative process' consisted of 'severe discipline' to aid intellectual and moral development (Dewey, 1938). We may not be able to agree on a single definition of learning (a good thing) but we can probably all agree that learning can be as painful as it can be enjoyable, depending on the context.

A number of new 'theories' and emerging in the digital age, as people attempt to provide explanations for what is happening with learning. Some argue that learning is changing as a direct result of technology. Learners are indeed consuming, creating, organising and sharing a lot more content than they ever previously did. The exponential rise in user generated content on social media sites bears testament to this, and when these kind of activities spill over into the formal learning domain, previously well established learning theories are challenged. We now see the emergence of a number of new theories that attempt to explain learning in the 21st Century. These include heutagogy, paragogy, connectivism and rhizomatic learning. One of the characteristics of learning through digital media is the ability to crowd source content, ideas and artefacts, and to promote and participate in global discussions. That's why I want to ask the questions: What is learning? Does it differ from learning prior to the advent of global communications technology? Does learning now require new explanatory frameworks? Your comments on this blog are welcomed and discussion encouraged.

Reference

Dewey, J. (1938) Experience and education. New York: Kappa Delta Pi.

Image source


What is learning? by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Push on the door

A man checked into a hotel for the first time in his life, and went up to his room.

Five minutes later he called the reception desk and said: "You've given me a room with no exit. How do I leave?"

The desk clerk said, "Sir, that's absurd. Have you looked for the door?"

The man said, "Well, there's one door that leads to the bathroom. There's a second door that goes into the closet. And there's a door I haven't tried, but it has a 'do not disturb' sign on it."

Often we make it very difficult for ourselves. Sometimes the answer is staring us in the face, and we can't see it due to all the complexities we impose upon our lives. Just like the man in the hotel room, if we are unfamiliar with the context, we can easily overlook the obvious. While using the Smartboard during one of my teaching sessions at university this year, I was trying to erase part of the work on the screen. I was struggling, trying to erase each word as if I had an old dry wipe board in front of me. I was making the classic mistake of trying to use new technology as I would use old technology. It took one of my students to point out to me that circling the appropriate text with the wiper and then tapping in the middle was a great short cut. It seems obvious to me now, but at the time I didn't know.

The same thing happened to a lot of people last week when I tweeted that in PowerPoint's presentation mode tapping the B key blacks out the screen, and tapping the W key makes the screen go white. There are many technology shortcuts similar to these, but most of us don't know about them. More often than not it takes a friend or colleague - or more likely, a student - to point out a better way to solve a problem. That's the great thing about social media - it connects us to all kinds of useful expertise and great ideas. But for social media to change our behaviour, we have to be open, and amenable to correction. Life is an adventure, and one in which we need to be willing to take a few risks. We have to swallow our pride now and then, and admit that we don't know it all. Once in a while, we need to try all the doors... and we especially need to push on the door that says 'Do not disturb'.

Image by Steve Wheeler

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

Learning in a Digital Age: The myth and the reality

I recently gave a keynote at the eLearning 2.0 conference held at Brunel University, in West London. The presentation was a reworked version of one I gave earlier in the year in Tallinn, Estonia. In Learning in a Digital Age: The Myth and the Reality, I present a number of widespread beliefs about elearning, and challenge the provenance, reasoning and application of these theories. Learning styles, digital natives and immigrants theory, and the arguments that you cannot personalise learning in large organisations; or that SMS txting is dumbing down language; are all scrutinised and challenged. Brunel University did an excellent job of recording my voice and the slides, and synchonising them, probably using Camtasia or a similar tool. Here it is in full, for those who want to follow the arguments and discussion that ensued.



Learning in a Digital Age: The myth and the reality by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.

Manufactured education

In 1980, sociologist Alvin Toffler described a third wave of civilisation, the first two 'waves' of the agricultural, and the industrial civilisations would be swept aside by a greater, technological wave. Describing the disruptive and transformational impact of this technological wave, Toffler wrote:


"The emergent civilisation writes a new code of behaviour for us and carries us beyond standardisation, synchronisation and centralisation, beyond the concentration of energy, money and power. The new civilisation, as it challenges the old, will topple bureaucracies, reduce the role of the nation state, and give rise to semi-autonomous economies in a post imperialist world" (Toffler, 1980, p 24). 


This prescient view of the future of society has largely been realised. Toffler envisioned a world in which centralised power was dissipated, and where control was firmly in the hands of each individual. It is clear that technological developments have radically transformed the structure of society over the last few decades. As it accelerates further, and pervades more deeply into our world, technology will continue to disrupt our way of life. The advent of the World Wide Web has changed forever the way we communicate, share ideas, buy and sell, are entertained, and conduct our relationships. But technology has reached farther into our society still. The use of mobile telephones and social media has also promulgated democratic change and political upheaval in recent years. Social media played a vital role in Barack Obama's election success, and was instrumental in overthrowing governments in a number of countries during the Arab Spring. Technology can liberate ideas, amplify content and reach far into previously information poor regions of the world. The issues of standardisation, synchronisation and centralisation Toffler identified - the bastions of previous industrial age processes - are indeed being challenged as individuals within society carve their own niches in business, entertainment, government, the media and personalised learning. Very early on in the short history of the Internet, sites such as Napster began to erode the power structures enjoyed by the elite music industry giants. Similar events occurred in the film and photography industries. Nic Negroponte's prediction that atoms would be transformed into bits was realised when music and book sales flipped from CDs and paper based to downloads and e-books. Even the long lived postal delivery service has seen declining popularity as a result of the increased accessibility of e-mail and social networking services. 


And yet standardisation, synchonisation and centralisation stubbornly persist in a few notable enclaves. Perhaps the most notorious resistance to the technological wave comes from the state education systems. Synchronisation of behaviour was required in the industrial age. Industrial processes such as ship building, mining and manufacturing required workers to arrive at the gates together, work beside each other in teams and operate in specialised compartments to get the job done. It was little wonder that the schools tasked to train these workforces emulated these practices by requiring children to turn up to the gates at the same time, work together in rows, supervised by a teacher (representing the foreman), and be delivered curriculum subjects that were compartmentalised with little or no explicit linkage. Sound familiar? Well, this scenario will be as familiar to those who went to school in the 1950s and those who attend school today. Little has changed, even though, ironically, the world of production and manufacturing has gone through radical change and is now but a vestige of its former self. Technology may be in the schools, but little has changed in terms of the pedagogy practiced in many. The factory model of education persists, because in the mind of its proponents, it is still the most efficient, cost effective way to train the workforce of the future. And yet, according to critics such as Sir Ken Robinson, this is not the way forward. In e recent speech, Robinson intoned: 


"We still educate children by batches. We put them through the system by age group. Why do we do that? Why is there an assumption that the most important thing kids have in common is their date of manufacture?" The entire video can be viewed here.     


Michael Shaw, editor of TESPro, suggests that a new form of teaching - vertical teaching - can be an improvement on the failing state school factory model of batch processing by age. He does caution however, that extreme versions of the 'stage not age' education approach can result in "16 year olds being sent to university and infants sitting GCSEs." He doesn't elaborate on why he thinks that would be such a bad idea though. Shaw argues that schools continue to teach children in year groups simply because it is practical. Yet batch processing children by age leads to the inevitable issues of differentiation such as having to maintain ability sets within year groups. It also leads to demotivation, stress and a number of other negative outcomes. Whichever arguments we subscribe to, it is clear that children deserve to be educated according to their abilities, not according to their age. As it stands, the factory model of education little to provide for the needs of society, and it certainly fails to provide personalised learning for the children in our care.


Image by Freefoto


References


Negroponte, N. (1995) Being Digital. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Toffler, A. (1980) The Third Wave. London: Pan Books. 


Manufactured education by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at steve-wheeler.blogspot.com.