Are we up for the challenge of Learning 3.0?
I decided to write this post in response to one of the comments I received on the site relating to Learning 3.0 – the comment being, “why do we need different versions?”
The observations here are solely based on my opinions of what the future of learning could look like – what is my opinion worth?
Well, the answer is probably, not much! Although you must be interested in it, as you are reading my blog – and I thank you in advance for that.
The name Learning 3.0 may be a totally spurious attempt at aligning what is happening in the world of learning with what is happening on the web.
The question in the comments is a fair one indeed – what version are we at, at this moment?
Perhaps, we could argue that learning is always at version 1.0, whilst technology, such as the ever-omnipresent Internet, is in a state of flux and constant change – although it may take another 10 years to fully reach web 3.0 standards.
Let’s, first, take a brief look at the versions of the web that we are familiar with:
Web 1.0 was the beginning of the public Internet, where the web was dominated by just a few, notably Netscape and where individuals were able to build their own personal websites. These websites were static pages with, at times hyperlinks to inside or outside sources if they were really at the cutting edge…
Web 2.0, is probably where we are now, consisting of collaborative media through what we usually call ‘Social media’. Content is dynamically delivered through widgetisation, and API’s, linking sites such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc. – to name but three, and the full-on multimedia experience by way of video, voice, text and user generated content. Let’s not forget content curation, where hashtags and search terms can comb the net for specific, user-curated sources – Paper.li, Storify and Google Alerts etc.
There is also the aspect of virtual worlds and ‘Serious Games’ used to provide, what I call ‘learning without knowing that you are learning’ – such as virtual worlds and Second Life.
Not knowing that we are learning as opposed to not learning anything.
Serious Games, may appear to be a recent addition, but they actually go right back to the 19th century, with the use of a Prussian war game – “Kriegsspiel” and have been referred to in the 1970’s specifically by Clark Abt in his book, “Serious Games”, although he was referring to board and card games at that time.
That said, the basic principles are the same – a set of rules, some form of competition where the players are ultimately rewarded – gamification.
Some well known terms linked to learning, such as E-Learning, V-Learning (Virtual learning), B-Learning (Blended Learning – a mix of online and offline learning) and M-Learning (Mobile Learning) are probably familiar to us all.
One that we will probably be hearing a lot more about is M-Learning, which is where we are heading, or indeed, where we are at – an irresistible force … maybe, let’s see.
Enter Web 3.0 – The Semantic Web – What the bell is that?
The Semantic Web, is (or will be one day) basically a web of information that can be processed directly by machines without the need for direct human intervention, according to Tim Berners-Lee, the father of the Internet.
The idea being that machines can do the bulk of the donkey work that has thus been carried out by humans, by finding, compiling and combining information found on the net – through the automation, searching and linking of tags and XML.
Web 3.0, although it’s a case of ‘suck it and see’ at the moment, will surely combine the features of Web 2.0, with the addition of non-browser-based applications, dominated by information generation – channelled through widgets and mobile devices by machines.
Nobody really knows what Learning 3.0 will be like, but we can imagine, so let’s imagine…
Learning 3.0 will be about the ubiquitous nature of handheld devices – smartphones, tablet screens, watches, embarked devices and computing devices becoming more and more portable, with access to the Internet virtually everywhere – and learning will be accessed everywhere.
The question, which remains, largely, unanswered, is what will the impact on learners and learning professionals be – people like you and I?
If content becomes more and more user generated, will it still be robust?
Ever seen some of the information on some Wiki pages and questioned it’s accuracy?
If information is being created and then compiled by machines, how can we be sure of its reliability and the freedom of access? Can censorship be a problem here?
The reality is that we are just not there yet, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t imagine what the knock-on effects could be…
Information could be unreliable.
Learners, faced with huge amounts of information (learning big data) may have trouble sifting and filtering what they really need.
More accessibility does not guarantee more learning.
Not all will be able to adapt easily to new technologies.
Some learning styles could be penalised by new ways of accessing and leveraging information.
Screen-read information is more difficult to assimilate, than say, printed documents – research has proved that information presented on screen can have a negative effect on concentration spans and assimilation. Ever printed of a long email or a document to read offline?
Could the availability and ease of access affect funding of learning for some sectors of the population in the future? Could some of us be left with D.I.Y. learning – it’s there, use it!
Will there be any point in kids going to school, college and university in the not-so-distant future?
The challenges for learning professionals are moving fast, which necessitates a capacity and a willingness to change attitudes, behaviours, processes and mindsets – moving clearly to a full, facilitator’s role with the addition of curating learner-generated content.
The guiding and monitoring role will be important, so too will a high level of technical skills and web savvy to be able to manage forums, blogs, wikis, chatrooms, Vchats, social networks and collaborative learning environments.
The traditional fear-factor associated with online content and collaboration needs to be changed – Twitter (as an example) does not present a danger in itself – using it wrongly may pose problems though.
The extent of serendipitous learning that such sites provide is potentially huge.
Learning professionals should perhaps concentrate more energy on helping learners leverage learning from such sources rather than banning them – they’ll use them anyway.
The reality is that you are either in, or you will get left behind – it is an irresistible force – learners will and are using these tools, although I must stress that the tools are not the most important factor in learning – they will always remain, just that – tools, which will change and evolve constantly.
However, there is a possibility that there could be a sea change in ‘learning culture’ – away from individualism to a more collective, collaborative learning culture – which can only be a positive step in my view.
Learning professionals need to be able to embrace, exploit and leverage these tools to help facilitate learning, whilst adapting them to the learning contexts and learning styles of learners – this will cut the most ice.
Lifelong Learning is all about learning throughout life – sorry to state the obvious – to keep pace with the demands of technological change in the workplace and in the job market.
If we, as learning professionals, are not keeping pace with changes in technology, and ultimately in learning, we are not setting a very good example, which affects credibility in the long term, and we will, ourselves, meet the fate of the dodo.
The importance should be put on the HOW of learning and not on the WHAT, although we need to keep abreast of change, technology provides the WHAT and is an ever changing and evolving variable – the focus on the HOW learners learn is a largely stable variable.
It may be a bit premature to talk about Learning 3.0, when a whole lot of us aren’t even in to Learning 2.0 (if indeed that exists) yet, but it will almost certainly be about presence, but not so much in the sense of being present, more of being able to access learning outside of the formal learning environment.
It looks like the saying, “Content is King” is coming around again – but’s let’s see what happens – content is finite so who or what will be the next King?
One of my concerns is that this ubiquitousness and volume of learning ‘materials’ and content may, in fact go a long way to encouraging passive, surface learning – which, in my opinion, is where learning professionals need to find their place in underpinning, consolidating and ensuring that quality learning takes place in the new Learning environments.
A learning professional’s standpoint must now focus squarely on learning strategies, learning to learn and process – once these are firmly embedded then anything is possible.
I return to my original question – Are we up for the challenge of Learning 3.0?
Self concept and learning – can we teach adults anything?
Self concept is a multi-dimensional construct that entails the perception of an individual’s “self” and can be divided into a number of different characteristics, such as:
- I am big / small etc.
- Social self-concept, which is the way that we are regarded by others – I am a stickler for details etc.
- Self ideals, which refers to how or what we want to be.
- Gender roles
- Racial or national identity
- I am an HR Director etc.
These are just a few of the variable that go into the forming of our own, individual self-concept, which is not to be confused with self-esteem, self-awareness or self-perception, although each can interact in synergy.
Psychologists are concerned with the way that self-concept affects, influences and modulates behaviour and to some extent the environment around the person.
Generally, people’s self-perceptions are aligned with their thoughts, behaviour, experiences and consequently their actions in a way that is internally consistent and temporally stable.
For example the statement, “I am a perfectionist” is a self-assessment that contributes to the overall forming of the self-concept of the person as expecting the best of themselves and of others and remains relatively stable over time.
In contrast, the statement, “I am hungry” is a temporary state that does not contribute to the forming of the person’s self-concept.
However, although temporal states do have a certain aspect of semi-permanence, it is difficult to put a measure on what is temporal and what is temporary as they are in a constant state of flux.
This can lead to changes in self-esteem, self-image, self-perception and self-concept during times, which are often referred to as “identity crisis” when the concept of self is under constant internal reassessment.
Ever heard of the middle age crisis?
Coupled with this are the external and environmental pressures that cumulate in the (re) forming of self-concept, which can be from external criticism, environmental experiences that (re) shape the “self” through the internalisation of external feedback and judgments.
There are times when the internal self-concept is externally “customised” to fit in with the crowd, whether in social or professional scenarios, which leads to what Carl Rogers referred to as “incongruence”, and which, in turn can lead to anxiety, basically because we cannot be true to ourselves.
People with a positive self-concept are invariably successful in what they do purely because they believe that they will succeed, and invariably do, as their behaviour and thought eventually lead them to success.
On the other hand, people who embark on tasks expecting failure, usually fail as their actions and behaviour invariably bring about the failure that they almost predicted from the outset.
Rotter’s studies divided these two classes of individuals as “Internals”, who think of themselves as controlling events and “Externals” who viewed events as being largely out of their control – which ultimately dictates behaviours, attitudes and consequently outcomes.
Here we can see the importance of self-concept in learning and especially the importance of outside events that can shape the outcome in terms of learning.
It is similar to the image of a child carrying a glass of milk, full to the brim – if the parent says. “You’re going to spill it”?
What generally happens…
Now this may be more in line with suggestion that forms the outcome, but ultimately this is what happens in the forming of self-concept, whether it comes to us externally or is formed internally.
I had a conversation this morning with a learner during a coaching session, where he explained how difficult it was for him to learn as his “normal” role in his professional life seldom brings him in contact with “failure” (his words).
He was actually referring to the fact that he is usually ‘so’ in charge of situations in his work that he seldom doubts the outcome (clearly, or at least ostensibly, an “internal” attitude).
His perception being that in his work as a director of a company, “I use the stick, more than the carrot.” to motivate and to get results, “I am in full control.” so being, in his perception totally in full control and mastery of situations in his professional life.
Now, we could say that this would involve a certain disregard for learning events, which occur in his workplace, which by definition, usually involve mistakes being made in order for learning to happen.
In previous posts on this blog we have looked at the idea of “change” in learning and the generally mooted view that “change” is, by essence, learning.
If we take this as being true, then it would seem reasonable to assume that even a change in self-concept can be regarded as a learning event.
The question remains as to whether changes in self-concept can actually be considered as learning as a stand-alone entity.
If this is so, then do we consider that learning about oneself is tantamount to learning?
I personally consider that a shift in self-concept can facilitate the necessary behavioural acceptance that can make way for learning to occur – simply put, a static state of “I am a director.” etc. as a temporal self-concept can do little more than form a barrier to learning, due to the social constructs that could [will?] inevitably hamper learning.
It is a bit like saying. “I am this.” and “I will/can not change.” – at least at the extremes of the spectrum.
At best, it can take the guise of a toeing the line, where little more than superficial, surface learning occurs.
This is where the skills of a professional facilitator really come to the fore, in terms of the preparation and moulding of an environment and attitude in sessions [classes in school] where learners are ready and willing to review their attitudes, behaviours and beliefs about their own learning process that foster change, both in terms of learning and ultimately in self-concept.
This is one of the reasons that I firmly believe that teaching adults, in the traditional form, is a total non-starter. Mainly due to the ‘power’ dynamics in a traditional classroom scenario.
You may see some results in the short-term, but adults who aren’t fully given the responsibility for their own learning will generally show little long-term success in learning.
As learning professionals, we should strive to facilitate a (the) process of learning, which will, by definition, call into question much of the received ideas we have about our beliefs, our potential, our environment and ourselves.
The term “facilitation” can be understood more clearly from where I work, in France as the root comes from ‘facile’ – which means ‘easy’ – so the idea of facilitation is to provide the environment, the relationship and the tools to make things ‘easier’ for the learner.
This, on the face of it, doesn’t provide the full picture, as facilitation does not involve doing things in the place of the learner nor providing solutions, and just because a facilitator makes things ‘easier’ for a learner, does not mean that the process is easy – ultimately it is harder for the facilitator and the learner alike – I am talking more about access to learning being ‘easier’.
For the teacher, it is so much easier to plan a ‘lesson’ that can then be replicated for other people / groups and be so rehearsed that there is not a lot of room for error (nor for creativity, spontaneity nor adaptability).
For the learner it is a much more comfortable process, that they are fully at home with- it is what they are used to, but it takes responsibility, autonomy and accountability away from the learner.
Learning, in my view is all about responsibility and accountability – if we are accountable and responsible for the outcomes of our learning we will ensure that something happens – but we may need help from a facilitator acting as the guarantor of the process in terms of direction, feedback and structure.
This entails, in turn, a huge change in terms of attitudes to learning, to the learning process and to the relationships between learner and facilitator – in this, the power lies firmly in the hands of the learner, the facilitator may possess some of the keys, but the learner is the one who will push the door wide open.
Responsibility and accountability leads naturally to autonomy, which does not necessarily need to include any dimension of independence or isolation but more a spirit of interdependence, where collaboration and consultation actually bridge isolation. Perhaps we should specify that this means autonomy of choice.
Another point is the use of vocabulary – although this may appear to be slightly pedantic, but it is important that the vocabulary matches the situation, which in turn affects the behaviour and attitudes to learning.
For example, calling a facilitator, “a facilitator”, may at first seem strange to the point of almost splitting hairs over terms.
Whereas, calling a person who clearly uses facilitation skills “a teacher”, slightly changes both the power dynamic and the behaviour of at least one – either the learner or the facilitator, or perhaps both.
A learner instinctively knows what to expect from a teacher – they have been there before.
However, what do they expect from a facilitator?
The rules may need to be explained and drawn up – what an excellent opportunity to really delve into the real nitty-gritty of learning whilst setting the rules of engagement for both parties.
I realise that at this point, many of the people reading this will be thinking about contexts where facilitation cannot work – most of the examples that you may have in mind include technical subjects such as maths, physics and engineering.
I would just point out that I am talking about adult learners here, but I see no reason why facilitation cannot be applied to a wide range of subject matters and indeed to helping children learn effectively.
In summary, I would suggest that you cannot teach adults anything – but, you can facilitate a huge amount of learning.
Try this Bowie enthusiast’s quiz