Issuu on Google+

Education 3.0 Jackie Gerstein


Education 3.0 User Generated Education

Jackie Gerstein


This file was generated by an automated blog to book conversion system. Its use is governed by the licensing terms of the original content hosted at usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/tag/education-3-0/.

Powered by Pothi.com http://pothi.com


Contents Education 3.0: Altering Round Peg in Round Hole Education

1

Education 3.0 and the Pedagogy (Andragogy, Heutagogy) of Mobile Learning

19

Schools are doing Education 1.0; talking about doing Education 2.0; when they should be planning Education 3.0

29


Education 3.0: Altering Round Peg in Round Hole Education June 09, 2013 What follows is my Ignite talk for ISTE 2013. It was rejected by the selection committee. As I already conceptualized the talk and think it is such an important topic, I am disseminating my text and slides via my blog and Slideshare. First, Education 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 are described. Later, I discuss the consequences of Education 1.0 vs Education 3.0 on learners (and educators!) especially those that do not fit the mold of Education 1.0.

Education 1.0 can be likened to Web 1.0 where there is a one-way dissemination of knowledge from teacher to student. It is a type of

1


essentialist, behaviorist education based on the three Rs – receiving by listening to the teacher; responding by taking notes, studying text, and doing worksheets; and regurgitating by taking standardized tests which in reality is all students taking the same test. Learners are seen as receptacles of that knowledge and as receptacles, they have no unique characteristics. All are viewed as the same. It is a standardized/one-size-fits-all education.

Derek W. Keats and J. Philipp Schmidt provide an excellent comparison of how Education 1.0 is similar to Web 1.0. Education 1.0 is, like the first generation of the Web, a largely one-way process. Students go to school to get education from teachers, who supply them with information in the form of a stand up routine that may include the use of class notes,

2


handouts, textbooks, videos, and in recent times the World Wide Web. Students are largely consumers of information resources that are delivered to them, and although they may engage in activities based around those resources, those activities are for the most part undertaken in isolation or in isolated local groups. Rarely do the results of those activities contribute back to the information resources that students consume in carrying them out. (http://p2pfoundation.net/Education_3.0)

Similar to Web 2.0, Education 2.0 includes more interaction between the teacher and student; student to student; and student to content/expert. Education 2.0, like Web 2.0, permits interactivity between the content and users, and between users themselves. Education 2.0 has progressive roots where the human element is

3


important to learning. The teacher-to-student and student-to-student relationships are considered as part of the learning process. It focuses on the three Cs – communicating, contributing, and collaborating.

Some school administrators and educators seem to have taken steps and moved into a more connected, creative Education 2.0 through using project-based and inquiry learning, cooperative learning, global learning projects, Skype in the classroom, and shared wikis, blogs and other social networking in the classroom. But in 2013, this should be the norm not the exception.

4


Education 3.0 is based on the belief that content is freely and readily available as is characteristic of Web 3.0. It is self-directed, interest-based learning where problem-solving, innovation and creativity drive education. Education 3.0 is also about the three Cs but a different set – connectors, creators, constructivists. These are qualitatively different than the three Cs of Education 2.0. Now they are nouns which translates into the art of being a self-directed learner rather than doing learning as facilitated by the educator.

5


Education 3.0 is characterized by educational opportunities where the learners themselves play a key role as creators of knowledge artifacts that are shared, and where social networking and social benefits play a strong role. The distinction between artifacts, people and process becomes blurred, as do distinctions of space and time. Institutional arrangements, including policies and strategies, change to meet the challenges of opportunities presented. There is an emphasis on learning and teaching processes with the breakdown of boundaries (between teachers and students, institutions, and disciplines (http://p2pfoundation.net/Education_3.0).

6


Education 3.0 is a constructivist, heutagogical approach to teaching and learning. The teachers, learners, networks, connections, media, resources, tools create a a unique entity that has the potential to meet individual learners’, educators’, and even societal needs. Education 3.0 recognizes that each educator’s and student’s journey is unique, personalized, and self-determined. http://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/learning-on-the-

7


So given that the that the time is ripe for Education 3.0, that we are in a perfect storm of free and available online resources, tools for creating and sharing information, and networking opportunities, what is stopping administrators and educators from implementing an Education 3.0 . . . at least some of the time? Some of the reasons educators profess include: “I don’t have enough time.”, “I don’t have enough resources.”, “I need more training.”, “I need to teach using the textbook.” ,”I need to teach to the test.”, “I might lose control of the class.”, “I have always successful taught this way.”

8


These are the symptoms of Education 1.0. Many educators feel forced into this paradigm of teaching with dire consequences to both their and their students attitudes toward education. But these are external obstacles whereby most of blame for resisting change is placed outside of educator responsibility. The result is a fixed mindset of learned helplessness, “I cannot change because the system won’t let me change.” Sometimes educators are creating some obstacles for themselves that in reality don’t exist. “Talking them into” or insisting on specific changes often creates more and stronger walls of resistance.

9


A mental shift occurs when a fixed mindset which often leads to learned helplessness is changed to a growth and positive mindset, believing that there are options; that one can grow, change, and be significant. It becomes focusing on what can work rather than what is not working. This is not to devalue the obstacles that teachers face. It becomes about noting where change is possible and making some small changes in teaching. Small changes often result in larger, more systemic change.

10


The bottom line, though, is not is what is in the best interests of the teacher, the administration, the politicians. It is what is in the best interests of the learner. The student should be central to education – not the content, not the tests, not the standards, not what we think students should know and do. Teachers did not become teachers to teach to the test, to develop practice tests or worksheets, to work with pre-scripted curriculum to meet standards. Teachers became teachers to teach students, first and foremost. The learner needs to be central to all teaching endeavors.

11


So what are the consequences of a standards-driven Education 1.0 on the learner? Education 1.0 for many students results boredom, a wasting away of their time and sometimes their minds. But there are bigger consequences than boredom. There are especially dire consequences for learners with oddly shaped minds. This is not meant to be derogatory. It just means that they see, think, hear, visualize, imagine the world a little differently than others.

12


In a system of Education 1.0, they are often seen as irregularly shaped pegs. The system doesn’t like oddly shaped pegs as oddly shaped pegs don’t adapt well to standardized. They don’t fit into any type of round or even square holes. Way too often, they system attempts to whittle away at them trying to get them to fit. The system whittles and whittles away at them until nothing may be left.

13


I am a lifelong survivor, seeking continual recovery from Education 1.0. I was different, that oddly shaped peg. Because I called out answers, questioned the content I was learning, spoke to classmates when something interested me, didn’t want to take multiple choice tests; I was yelled at, punished, kicked out of class, physically hit, embarrassed in front of peers. The damage done to me has left an indelible, lifelong legacy that I am odd, weird, not good enough.

14


Education should, at least, have the same standards as the medical field, “First, do no harm.� This is the minimal standard that should be practiced. Optimally, it should be about providing an individualized, personalized, engaging, passion-driven education that is characterized by an Education 3.0. This is ethically the right thing to do.

15


I put every kind of metaphor I could think of on this slide. Educators should assist students in catching dreams; finding their pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, being on cloud nine, reaching the top of the peak. What kind of educator do you want to be? A whittler or a dream-facilitator? You have a choice. You really do.

16


Do you want a student of yours in the future to stand on a stage like this and talk about the damage done to him or her due to your behavior or do you want him or her to talk about your being the teacher who made a difference? What type of legacy do you want to leave in the world?

17


18


Education 3.0 and the Pedagogy (Andragogy, Heutagogy) of Mobile Learning May 13, 2013 The evolution of the web from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and now to Web 3.0 can be used a metaphor of how education should also be evolving, as a movement based on the evolution from Education 1.0 to Education 3.0. I discussed this in Schools are doing Education 1.0; talking about doing Education 2.0; when they should be planning and implementing Education 3.0. Many educators are doing Education 1.0; talking about doing Education 2.0; when they should be planning and implementing Education 3.0. This post compares the developments of the Internet-Web to those of education. The Internet has become an integral thread of the tapestries of most societies throughout the globe. The web influences people’s way of thinking, doing and being; and people influence the development and content of the web. The Internet of today has become a huge picture window and portal into human perceptions, thinking, and behavior. Logically, then, it would seem that schools would follow suit in mimicking what is happening via the Internet to assist children and youth to function, learn, work, and play in a healthy, interactive, and pro-social manner in their societies-at-large. Most schools are still living within and functioning through an Education 1.0 model. They are focusing on an

19


essentialist-based curriculum with related ways of teaching and testing. Similar to Web 2.0, Education 2.0 includes more interaction between the teacher and student; student to student; and student to content/expert. Some educators have moved into a more connected, creative Education 2.0 through using cooperative learning, global learning projects, shared wikis, blogs and other social networking in the classroom. Education 3.0 is a connectivist, heutagogical approach to teaching and learning. The teachers, learners, networks, connections, media, resources, tools create a a unique entity that has the potential to meet individual learners’, educators’, and even societal needs. Many resources for Education 3.0 are literally freely available for the taking.

20


Source: http://www.slideshare.net/moravec/toward-society-30-a-new-paradigm-forTaking this one step further or from another angle, moving from Education 1.0 to Education 3.0 can be compared to moving from Pedagogy/Essentialism/Instructivism to Heutagogy/Constructivism/Connectivism. This can be looked at as a continuum going from Pedagogy to Andragogy to Heutagogy (PAH). The following graphic describes these three approaches to teaching. (I understand that educators may differ in the descriptions and definitions especially that of pedagogy).

21


http://www.blog.lindymckeown.com/?p=52 This translates into moving from an education approach driven by essentialismorinstructivismto one that is based on constructivism and connectivism. Essentialism is defined as: Essentialism tries to instill all students with the most essential or basic academic knowledge and skills and character development. In the essentialist system, students are required to master a set body of information and basic techniques for their grade level before they are promoted to the next higher grade. Essentialists argue that classrooms should be teacher-oriented. The teachers or administrators

22


decide what is most important for the students to learn with little regard to the student interests. The teachers also focus on achievement test scores as a means of evaluating progress. Source: http://www.siue.edu/~ptheodo/foundations/essentialism.html Instructivism can be described as: In the instructivist learning theory, knowledge exists independently of the learner, and is transferred to the student by the teacher. As a teacher-centered model, the instructivist view is exhibited by the dispensing of information to the student through the lecture format. This theory requires the student to passively accept information and knowledge as presented by the instructor. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1857834 These descriptions fit the characteristics of an Education 1.0 or a traditional pedagogical teaching framework. The andragogical, more constructivist orientation takes on the characteristics of Education or Web 2.0 where the principles of active, experiential, authentic, relevant, socially-networked learning experiences are built into the class or course structure. Theheutagogical, connectivist orientation is closely aligned with Education 3.0. In a heutagogical approach to teaching and learning, learners are highly autonomous and self-determined and emphasis is

23


placed on development of learner capacity and capability. The renewed interest in heutagogy is partially due to the ubiquitousness of Web 2.0, and the affordances provided by the technology. With its learner-centered design, Web 2.0 offers an environment that supports a heutagogical approach, most importantly by supporting development of learner-generated content and learner self-directedness in information discovery and in defining the learning path. Source: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1076 Even though heutagogy is usually defined and described for adult learners, given these times where we are living with open education resources andinformation abundance, learners as young as the elementary level have the potential to engage in educational experiences based on heutagogy. In other words, they can engage in self-determined and self-driven learning where they are not only deciding the direction of their learning journey but they can also produce content that adds value and worth to the related content area or field of study. Choosing the Teaching Orientation It should not be as simple as stating that one, as an educator, uses one teaching orientation over another. Educators need to examine what they are teaching and the population to whom they are teaching. For example, procedural knowledge such as how to do first aid or fix a car; or a fixed body of knowledge such as human anatomy (for the medical field) or the study of law is typically best taught through a more teacher directed, “pedagogical� style. It

24


becomes teaching with intentionality and strategically using the teaching and learning philosophies and approaches to reach desired outcomes. Applications to Mobile Learning The Pedagogy of Mobile Learning With the idea that pedagogy is in line with a instructivist-essentialism method of teaching-learning, mobile learning in this category typically falls into the dissemination of content knowledge via apps. [In my opinion, there are way too many apps developed for education fall into this category, with start-ups trying to take advantage of the use of iDevices in educational settings.] Their goal is to directly teach students content knowledge or a skill whereby they can repeat and/or be tested on the content provided to them through interacting with the apps. I have classified these apps as worksheets on steroids. Typical examples include flash card types of apps like Netter’s Musculoskeletal Flash Cards. The U.S. Constitution – Flash Card Trivia, and Math Drills. I use a simple criteria to determine their efficacy, “Would the learner choose to use the app if given the choice or use it during his/her free time?” As stated above, though, there are cases in which a body of knowledge needs to be learned by the students. Some more engaging, interactive apps are available (and probably more interesting) to the learner. Examples include: Solar Walk™ – 3D Solar System model, Frog Dissection, and highly interactive eBooks.

25


The Andragogy of Mobile Learning Again, although Andragogy has been described for teaching adult learning, we can extract his basic principles and apply them to the Andragogy of Mobile Learning for most age groups. Many project-based learning characteristics (authentic, real world problems; networked learning; use of collaborative digital tools) would fit under the category of the andragogy of mobile learning. Here are some resources and examples: •

Project Based Learning In Hand

15 Tools For Better Project-Based Learning

Mobilizing Creativity: Celllphones for Project-Based Learning

The following presentation demonstrates project-based learning with mobile devices in a High School Science class. The Heutagogy of Mobile Learning Creating a heutagogical-based mobile learning environment is in line with some of the recommendations from the ECAR National Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2011 report: Use technology in more transformative ways, such as participatory and collaborative interactions and for higher-level teaching and learning that is engaging and relevant to students’ lives and future plans. Use technology

26


more to extend learning beyond the classroom. The learners in a heutagogy of mobile learning environment: •

Determine what they want to learn and develop their own learning objectives for their learning, based on a broad range of desired course outcomes.

Use their own mobile learning devices and technologies to decide how they will learn.

Form their own learning communities possibly using social networking tools suggested and/or set up by the educator. Possible networks, many with corresponding apps, include: Facebook, Twitter, Edmodo, Instagram, Bloggin sites, Youtube, etc.

Utilize the expertise of the educator and other members of their learning communities to suggest and introduce content-related resources.

Utilize the expertise of the educator and other members of their learning communities to suggest Web 2.0 and other online tools for that the students could possibly use to demonstrate and produce learning artifacts.

Demonstrate their learning through methods and means that work best for them. It could include using their mobile devices to Blog, create Photo Essays, do Screencasts, make Videos or Podcasts, draw, sing, dance, etc.

27


Take the initiative to seek feedback from the instructor and their peers. It is their choice to utilize that feedback or not.

Some general learning activities that have the potential to be introduced by the education using a heutagogical approach include: •

Forming their Own Interest-Driven Personal Learning Networks (PLNs)

Curating Online Resources

Designing Apps or Games

Developing a broad array of possible course assignments from which a learner can choose. See the DS106 Assignment Bank as an example.

Additional suggestions can be found in 20 strategies for learner interactions in mobile #MOOC.

Here is a slide deck that I prepared to present the concepts and ideas I presented above.

28


Schools are doing Education 1.0; talking about doing Education 2.0; when they should be planning Education 3.0 March 22, 2013 Schools are doing Education 1.0; talking about doing Education 2.0; when they should be planning and implementing Education 3.0. This post seeks to compare the developments of the Internet-Web to those of education. The Internet has become an integral thread of the tapestries of most societies throughout the globe. The web influences people’s way of thinking, doing and being; and people influence the development and content of the web. The Internet of today has become a huge picture window and portal into human perceptions, thinking, and behavior. Logically, then, it would seem that schools would follow suit in mimicking what is happening via the Internet to assist children and youth to function, learn, work, and play in a healthy, interactive, and pro-social manner in their societies-at-large. Education 1.0 Most schools are still living within and functioning through an Education 1.0 model. Although many would deny this, they are focusing on an essentialist-based curriculum with related ways of teaching and testing. The foundation of essentialist curriculum is based on traditional disciplines such as math, natural science, history,

29


foreign language, and literature. Essentialists argue that classrooms should be teacher-oriented. The teachers or administrators decide what is most important for the students to learn with little regard to the student interests. The teachers also focus on achievement test scores as a means of evaluating progress. Students in this system would sit in rows and be taught in masses. The students would learn passively by sitting in their desks and listening to the teacher. (http://www.siue.edu/~ptheodo/foundations/essentialism.html) This description (1) rings true with a lot of schools in this age of standardization, accountability, NCLB, Race-to-the-Top, Common Core Curriculum Standards, and (2) has a lot of similarity to Web 1.0 . . . Web 1.0 was an early stage of the conceptual evolution of the World Wide Web, centered around a top-down approach to the use of the web and its user interface. Content creators were few in Web 1.0 with the vast majority of users simply acting as consumers of content. Web 1.0 webpage’s information is closed to external editing. Thus, information is not dynamic, being updated only by the webmaster.Technologically, Web 1.0 concentrated on presenting, not creating so that user-generated content was not available. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_1.0) Web 1.0 came out of our existing mindsets of how information is transferred, and very much reflected the 100+ year history of industrialism, with experts/businesses

30


dispensing identical knowledge/products to mass consumers. http://www.stevehargadon.com/2007/04/web-20-and-school-20-connec Derek W. Keats and J. Philipp Schmidt provide an excellent comparison of how Education 1.0 is similar to Web 1.0. Education 1.0 is, like the first generation of the Web, a largely one-way process. Students go to [school] to get education from [teachers], who supply them with information in the form of a stand up routine that may include the use of class notes, handouts, textbooks, videos, and in recent times the World Wide Web. Students are largely consumers of information resources that are delivered to them, and although they may engage in activities based around those resources, those activities are for the most part undertaken in isolation or in isolated local groups. Rarely do the results of those activities contribute back to the information resources that students consume in carrying them out. (http://p2pfoundation.net/Education_3.0)

31


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8cj6Gu0irhU/Ri76D5F4PsI/AAAAAAAAABk/0P3 Education 2.0 Steve Hardigan noted the following in 2007: Web 2.0 has really been the flowering of new relationships between individuals and businesses, and reflects new ways of thinking that the technology has facilitated or created. It’s about engaged conversations that take place directly, and don’t rely on top-down management, but peer feedback and mentoring. It’s an incredibly effective restructuring of how learning takes place, and somehow we have to figure out how to bring this experience into our learning institutions–or they will become obsolete. ( h t t p : / / w w w . s t e v e h a r gadon.com/2007/04/web-20-and-school - 2 0 - c o n n e c t i o n . h t m l)

32


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8cj6Gu0irhU/Ri77o5F4PtI/AAAAAAAAABs/LZ-cv Similar to Web 2.0, Education 2.0 includes more interaction between the teacher and student; student to student; and student to content/expert. Some school administrators and educators seem to have taken some steps and moved into a more connected, creative Education 2.0 through using cooperative learning, global learning projects, Skype in the classroom, and shared wikis, blogs and other social networking in the classroom. But in 2013, this should be the norm not the exception. Education 3.0 Education 3.0 is based on the belief that content is freely and readily available. It is self-directed, interest-based learning where problem-solving, innovation and creativity drive education. Education 3.0 is characterized by rich, cross-institutional, cross-cultural educational opportunities within which the

33


learners themselves play a key role as creators of knowledge artifacts that are shared, and where social networking and social benefits outside the immediate scope of activity play a strong role. The distinction between artifacts, people and process becomes blurred, as do distinctions of space and time. Institutional arrangements, including policies and strategies, change to meet the challenges of opportunities presented. There is an emphasis on learning and teaching processes with a focus on institutional changes that accompany the breakdown of boundaries (between teachers and students, higher education institutions, and disciplines) (http://p2pfoundation.net/Education_3.0).

Education 3.0 is a constructivist, heutagogical approach to teaching and learning. The teachers, learners, networks, connections, media, resources, tools create a a unique entity that has the

34


potential to meet individual learners’, educators’, and even societal needs. Derek W. Keats and J. Philipp Schmidt further describe the individual components of Education 3.0: Education •

Wide diffusion of of e-learning

Growing interest in alternatives to teacher-centred approaches such as constructivism (Dewey, 1998), resource based learning, etc.

Local, regional, and international collaboration to create repositories of educational content

Awareness for the need of recognition of prior learning

Increasing use of the Internet to find information and just in time learning

Social •

Increasing use of information technologies in daily life and for social purposes

Increasing social use of online virtual spaces

35


A new definition of self and society that includes computer mediated social structures, and people outside of one’s immediate physical environment

Technology •

The widespread adoption of personal computers and the Internet (especially e-mail and the World Wide Web)

The emergence of Web 2.0, including blogs, podcasts, social interaction tools, etc.

E-Learning platforms or learning management systems that incorporate features of Web 2.0

Free and open source software

Legal •

The development of alternative licensing mechanisms to traditional copyright, which promote the use and reuse of (educational) content without requiring further explicit permission by the author or copyright holder or payment of royalties (http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/16

The one “organized” proactive movement that I know of that is promoting a model of Education 3.0 is Connected Learning: An Agenda for Research and Design:

36


Connected learning taps the opportunities provided by digital media to more easily link home, school, community and peer contexts of learning; support peer and intergenerational connections based on shared interests; and create more connections with non-dominant youth, drawing from capacities of diverse communities.

http://dmlhub.net/publications/connected-learning-agenda-research-and-de All of the pieces of an Education 3.0 are literally freely available for the taking, why aren’t those involved in the planning and

37


implementing of schools integrating these ideas, tools and strategies into their systems? The time for planning for Education 3.0 was actual yesterday, but doing it now is okay, too.

38



Education 3 0