Next generation learning

In my previous blog post, the architecture of learning, I outlined some of the key characteristics of learning in a digital age, and started to identify some of the main differences between Learning 1.0 (before social media) and Learning 2.0. In the summary of the article, I suggested that the distinct differences between the two types of learning are mostly based on how learners are changing the ways they interact, and their increased ability to create, share and organise their own learning. Learning 2.0 is socially much richer and more participatory, and relies more on interaction with other learners than any previous learning approach. This change has been realised through access to inexpensive internet tools that offer easy ways to connect with others of similar interest. There is a growing understanding that it's not so much what you know anymore, but who you know. No longer is the computer your only mind tool and extension of your memory - now you can also call on everyone else in the world. Social media are enabling learners everywhere to connect and work together with each other, forming convenient communities and networks of shared interest. The full power of the Learning 2.0 approach has yet to be realised, but already we are seeing radical shifts in the way learning is conducted. I also argued that if we view sequenced versions of the Web, based on the way learners use it, we will inevitably have to think of Learning 3.0, and beyond. This led me to think about what we might see in the future of learning, based on present trends, and our anticipation of what new technologies and approaches we think are on the horizon. So here we go - Learning 3.0...

Learning 3.0, if we are to believe all the hype, will be located within a semantic based architecture of webs - a 'meta-web'. I see it arising partly from what is happening on the web right now, but also as a result of new intelligent filtering tools. Increasingly, as users contribute to the content, links and pathways of the social web, it will become more 'intelligent', and will recommend to its users the best ways to find what they are looking for. It will also recommend things that users don't know they need yet, predicting their 'needs' based on their previous behaviour and choices. Learning 3.0 will see learners using sophisticated new web tools that are intricately connected to each other, are context aware, and are accessed through intuitive and natural interfaces. Here we begin to think not only of voice activated, gestural controlled interfaces, but we also need to start considering biometric recognition systems such as retinal scanning, facial recognition and even directly implanted devices that allow us to control our devices merely by thinking (see the table below). Where Learning 1.0 was organised around taxonomies and content was largely expert generated, Learning 2.0 has seen as shift toward user generated content, and the emergent property of folksonomies. We have known for some time that people learn better when they are actively engaged in making things, solving problems and engaging with others. Social media have provided the tools to achieve this on a global level.

Learning 3.0 will be user and machine generated, and will in all respects be represented in what I will call  'rhizonomies'. The rhizonomic organisation of content will emerge from chaotic, multi-dimensional and multi-nodal organisation of content, giving rise to an infinite number of possibilities and choices for learners. As learners choose their own self determined routes through the content, so context will change and new nodes and connections will be created in what will become a massive, dynamic, synthetic 'hive mind'. Here I do not refer to any strong artificial intelligence model of computation, but rather a description of the manner in which networked, intelligent systems respond to the needs of individual learners within vast, ever expanding communities of practice. Each learner will become a nexus of knowledge, and a node of content production. Extending the rhizome metaphor further, learners will act as the reproduction mechanisms that sustain the growth of the semantic web, but will also in turn be nurtured by it. Learning 3.0 will be a facet of an ongoing, limitless symbiotic relationship between human and machine.

Whatever Learning 3.0 is or will become, we can be assured it will be completely different to what has preceded it. We will witness new modes of learning, new ways of interacting and new ways of representing knowledge that will be both robust and mutable, personally contextualised, but without boundaries. I believe the future of learning is going to be very exciting indeed.

Postcript: My thinking in this blogpost is embryonic and is as ever, open to challenge. I may be hopelessly off target here, because this is uncharted territory for me. But I am taking the risk to air my views in public about this topic just to see what feedback I will receive from my professional learning network. I therefore value any dialogue (on this blog and elsewhere), corrections, advice and suggestions as I attempt to navigate my way through the thinking process about what kinds of learning we might see in the future.

Image source


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

The architecture of learning

One of the characteristics of Web 2.0, according to the man who coined the phrase, is to be found in its architecture. As far as Tim O'Reilly is concerned, Web 2.0 tools are configured in such a way that they 'get smarter the more people use them.' This facet was explained very clearly in Michael Wesch's excellent video Web 2.0 .. The Machine is Us/ing Us, which shows how web tools work better the more people use them. Social tagging for example, becomes increasingly stronger as people populate it with content and links. Blogs rely not only on content, but on users, and ultimately on the dialogue that ensues between all those who read the content. In his famous Wired article, Kevin Kelly predicted this by suggesting that Web 2.0 was about leveraging collective intelligence. Web 2.0 has marked a shift in emphasis from the personal computer to the web, and the services it conveys. Web 2.0 is qualitatively different to what preceded it. Essentially, where Web 1.0 was about pushed content, and a 'sticky internet' where users could change very little, the evolution of the web into Web 2.0 has been viewed as epitomising the power of participation, and arguably, it's also about the democratisation of the internet.

So how does Learning 2.0 fit into this landscape? In order to deconstruct Learning 2.0 - Stephen Downes was the first to coin the phrase eLearning 2.0 - we first need to decide what we mean by Learning 1.0. For me, Learning 1.0 (if there ever was such a thing and it can be equated to Web 1.0) represents a relatively passive individual learning mode where expert generated content is pushed at the learner. It represents a top-down, hierarchical delivery of content (and content really is king in this mode), which ideally demands specific (observable) behaviours from the learner that can be measured and assessed objectively.  Behaviourism and Cognitivism are theories that could comfortably be applied to describe the activities seen within a Learning 1.0 scenario. Bloom's taxonomy is also a framework that might be applied to underpin and explain the levels of activity that would ensue from Learning 1.0 type activities. It is reminiscent of the 1980s Computer Assisted Learning model, where learners sat at a computer, received linear sequences of content, responded to it by answering multiple choice questions, and were presented with remedial loops or 'relearning' when they failed to reach the required standard of understanding.

By contrast, Learning 2.0 is recognised by more active and participatory modes of learning, and they are rarely isolated learning activities. As Web 2.0 has evolved, we have seen an increasing amount of interactive content becoming available. This content is generated not only by the experts, but also increasingly by the learners themselves, and tends to be organised by the community rather than by the experts. It is not a hierarchy and it does not obey top down rules, but in more likely to be a heterarchy. The emergent properties of content organisation are folksonomies, and are the product of loose organisation that is bottom-up rather than top-down. One of the best theories to describe how learning is organised in Web 2.0 environments is social constructivism, because learners increasingly rely on social interaction, and appropriate tools to mediate dialogue. Collaborative, shared online learning spaces such as wikis and discussion forums are characteristic meeting places where content can be created and shared, and the community also organises and moderates this content using specialised services such as aggregation, curation and tagging tools.

When we talk about web versions, we inevitably travel down a road where significant step changes in the evolution of the web mark new ways of using it. If there really is a Web 1.0 and a Web 2.0, then we can expect eventually to see a Web 3.0, and can expect to see new forms of learning and social interaction advancing as a result. In my next blog post, I will try to describe what we can expect from Learning 3.0 using a similar explanatory framework.

Photo by Steve Wheeler


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

The future of gaming

Games based learning is one of the most important strategies for 21st Century education. We have enjoyed playing games since time immemorial, and video arcade games such as Asteroids and Space Invaders of the 1970's were just the start of the emergence of digital games. Recently, with the development of handheld controls (such as the Nintendo Wii), 3D screens (Nintendo 3DS) and non touch gestural and voice controls (Microsoft's XBox 360 Kinect) games have become increasingly captivating, and have an immersive quality. Games, whether digital or analogue, have the capability to motivate learners, challenge them to improve their dexterity, problem solving and reasoning skills, encourage teamwork and collaboration (Nemerow, 1996) - especially social games such as World of Warcraft or Call of Duty - and performance is under constant peer review. These match some of the key skills required to succeed in the world of work where digital technology is prevalent. Thiagarajan (1998) believes that games have five major characteristics that are important for learning, These are conflict, control, closure, contrivance, and competency. Clearly, digital games have a great deal to offer the future of learning. So what can we expect of games based learning in the future?

Recent interviews in the magazine Short List by Ellison (2012) feature the opinions of several acknowledged video games experts. Ben Wilson, editor of Official Playstation Magazine UK believes that games will continue to improve in quality, with characters exhibiting more realistic human behaviour. Drivers in racing games for example, 'could be pressurised into making errors, footballers might make more realistic runs, or be angered into reacting to a late lunge or a dig in the ribs.' David Darling, who is one of the co-founders of Codemasters, sees games consoles becoming even smaller, and agrees with Wilson that the resolution of graphics will continue to improve. His main contention though is that games will become more augmented, and tied into the human emotions via retinal projection. Darling sees us playing games in the near future by proxy, controlling our avatars from a distance, with our senses stimulated so that we feel we are 'virtually there.'

Brain control is also something predicted by David Cage. The visionary designer who is behind PS3 games such as Heavy Rain and Beyond: Two Souls, believes that in the future, games playing will be radically different, requiring no controls. We will simply think our way around the game using our mind power, using directly implanted sensors. Jon Hicks, editor of Official Xbox 360 Magazine also takes a futuristic view. He feels that we have just about reached the limits of what we can achieve with screens and controllers. The next stage, he says, is to place the gamer even deeper into the virtual world. He believes that motion sensors will use information about our body postures, facial expressions and biofeedback to tap into our emotions, and then do 'amazing or even terrifying things with that information'. Combine this emotion tracking with augmented reality and we are approaching the ultimate experience. 'Imagine a Silent Hill game that can work out how scared you are, and change accordingly' he says, ominously.  

Whatever the future holds for gamers, we can be sure it will be different, more enhanced and more realistic than it is right now. So remember, the next time you venture into Azeroth, or don the hood of Connor Kenway, you may be taking your first steps toward a brave (and very scary) new world where reality blurs with fantasy, and where your learning will never be the same again.

References

Nemerow, L. G. (1996) Do classroom games improve motivation and learning? Teaching and Change, 3 (4), 356-361.
Ellison, J. (2012) You're going to need a bigger living room. ShortList, 8 November, 250, 49-52.
Thiagarajan, S. (1998) Ask Thiagi. Thiagi Game Letter, 1 (4), 6.

Photo by Steve Wheeler



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

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.

Be open

In Lord of the Rings, the wizard Gandalf deliberated and wrestled long and hard to open the doors to the mines of Moria. In the story of Ali Baba and the 40 thieves, the mouth of the cave was opened by uttering the phrase iftaḥ ya simsim - 'Open Sesame'. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ healed a deaf girl by uttering the word 'Ephratha' - meaning 'be opened'. All through our history and popular culture we hear stories about difficult problems or barriers being solved or overcome. There are many, many problems in the world, some of which are impossible to solve. Others appear to be impossible to solve until someone comes up with a solution, and then we all say - ah yes, I can see the answer now. 

One problem we face in the 21st Century is how to educate everyone. If we believe education is a fundamental human right, then we go all out to provide good, affordable, accessible opportunities to learn the important things we will need to survive in an uncertain world. And yet, 500 million children remain outside of education because they cannot afford to attend. We have enough money to make it happen. But it stays the same old problem. In the speech below, which I gave at the Solstice Conference in June 2012 at Edge Hill University, I argue that we need to be more open about our content and tools, ownership of learning, intellectual property and even the very practices we participate in on a daily basis - open scholarship if you will. I talk about Creative Commons, open source software, open access journals, open educational resources, community led initiatives such as MOOCs and the whole idea about being open and sharing your learning. These ideas may not fully address the problem of how to educate everyone, but at least we will make a start by making learning more accessible.

Knowledge is like love. You can give it away as much as you like, but you never lose it. The more we give away our knowledge, the more we are educating our world. So be open. You know you want to.





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

Digital Learnscapes

It's that time of the year again where we are planning for the Pelecon - the Plymouth Enhanced Learning Conference - that we hold each year in April at Plymouth University. Pelecon 2012 was probably our best conference yet. Many have said that Pelecon events inspire and energise delegates and challenge perspectives on education, learning and development, and the role of technology. Others have said that Pelecon is one of the best forums for informal debate on the learning technology conference circuit. The Pelecon conference is for teachers and learning professionals in all sectors of education and training, and attracts delegates from all over the world. Pelecon 2012 was the seventh conference, and featured invited speakers including Alec Couros (Canada), Leigh Graves Wolf (USA), Helen Keegan, Simon Finch, Keri Facer, David Mitchell and Jane Hart. Pelecon 2013 will maintain the pace and dynamism of this year's event, and already several well known keynotes have been announced. Go to this link to keep up to date as we make further keynote speaker announcements over the next two weeks. The call for papers for Pelecon 13: Digital Learnscapes is now live, and is summarised below:

We live in a period of change and uncertainty. Many are bewildered by these changes and find it difficult to keep up, particularly in the education and training sectors. The ability to anticipate and prepare for change is the mark of innovative educators, as is the skill of harnessing new and emerging tools to promote good learning.

At Pelecon 13 we want to provide learning professionals with opportunities to explore, discover and discuss new approaches, new technologies and new ideas to enhance, enrich and extend their own professional practice. There will be particular emphasis this year on simulations and games, personal learning tools, new pedagogies and practices, learner and teacher voice, and digital literacies.

The deadline for submission of workshop, paper and demonstration proposals is January 25, 2013 and you can submit your abstracts here. We invite submissions from primary, secondary and tertiary education, as well as from learning and development and other training sectors. Just to whet your appetite and pique four interest, below is a teaser video made by our very own maestro Dr Jason Truscott. We hope to see you at the Pelecon in April!




Digital Learnscapes 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.