Emerging Technologies for Learning

From Emerging Technologies for Learning

Contents 1 On Change and Becoming 2 Transforming the University 3 Pressures of Change 4 Finding new points of balance 5 Firm Foundations 6 What serves as a suitable foundation for considering change? 7 References

On Change and Becoming

Jean Baudrillard^[1] offers a distinction between change and becoming that informs the discussion of technology and educational change:

We are changing our system of values, changing all our identities, our partners, our illusions, and so on. We are obliged to change, but changing is something other than becoming, they are different things. We are in a "changing" time, where it is the moral law of all individuals, but changing is not becoming. We can change everything, we can change ourselves, but in this time we don't become anything. It was an opposition put forth by Nietzsche, he spoke about the era of chameleons. We are in a chameleonesque era, able to change but not able to become.

This quote gets to the core problem in changing schools, colleges, universities, or corporate training. Organizations recognize that they are facing tremendous change pressures and are grasping for clarity on what they are becoming (or will become).

While many of the change pressures are well beyond our control, education has always played a dual role in society:

• Emergence: Reacting to emerging trends, adjusting our approaches to influence learners, etc. Those who advocate for "teaching to the millenials" see this part of education’s role. Our task here is primarily about understanding our learners, embracing their tools, and trying to speak their language. That’s why educators zealously try to use blogs, wikis, Facebook, iPods, etc. The mindset is: if they use it for fun, maybe we can get them to use it for school. This is not a bad idea with technology and curriculum (i.e. change what and how we teach to prepare learners) but a disastrous idea when applied without thought to learning environments.
• Tradition: Influencing and transforming society in pursuit of "higher ideals" and a vision of equality and democracy in the rights of all people. Piaget, Illich, and Freire have contributed their voices in a call to make education more equitable, more accessible, and more reflective of the nature of learning. Theorists like Papert suggest learning requires "active doing" not lecture-based telling. Vygotsky, Wenger, and others emphasize the importance of social, cultural, community, and historical components to learning. Engestrom, building on the work of Vygotsky, suggests activity theory as a means of framing desirable education models. We can add almost indefinitely to the list of theorists, activists, politicians, and business people calling for education reform (Toffler and Gates, for example, both suggest education is fundamentally flawed in its architecture).

Transforming the University

David Poole suggests that we "live in the era of the transforming university".^[2] Consider the following:

• Europe’s Bologna Process^[3] places increased attention on the state’s role in universities.
• Enrolment in online learning is growing at a significantly faster pace than traditional higher education.^[4]
• The internet is "changing traditional behaviour" as daily activities (shopping, playing games, research) are increasingly done online.^[5] Canadians, in particular, enjoy high levels of broadband connectivity^[6] and make extensive use of the internet for social, information, and entertainment purposes.^[7]

Higher education’s response to change pressures must be holistic, attending to the varying needs of stakeholders. E-learning does not function in isolation. Multiple stakeholders are involved in the credibility and success of elearning: learners, employers, instructors, higher education institution, accreditation bodies, and so on.^[8] The growth and value of elearning is directly related to the ability of institutions to attend to the needs of each stakeholder member.

Pressures of Change

Change pressures impacting the future design of education can be grouped into four broad categories:

Trends influencing the future of education:

1. Global: Global change pressures are large-scale phenomenon such as global warming, globalization, economics, changing "power centres" (the economic and political development of BRIC (Brazil, Russian, India, China) countries, population growth and demographic shifts (aging population of developed countries such as Japan, US, Canada, and many European countries), and so on. Global shifts impact all aspects of a society. Higher education has limited influence over these trends but must be aware of these developments to ensure long term survival. For example, universities in developed countries are responding to reduced enrolment (driven by slowing population growth in traditional learner markets) by seeking international students.^[9] The hegemony of higher education in western countries is also being challenged,^[10] raising the need for increased university partnerships between established and emerging economies. Universities are "at a historical juncture, transitioning from the industrial era to the information era, and from a national perspective to a globalized one".^[11]
2. Social and political: Societal and political factors also contribute to the future of universities. Networks are now seen as potential means of societal and institutional organization.^[12] The participative, democratic ideals of open source software are reflected in scholarship (PLoS ONE) and open educational resources. The process of knowledge production is moving to more social models ("socially distributed knowledge production")^[13] as businesses and organizations are placing greater emphasis on distributed teams and collaboration. Emphasis on information and knowledge economies results in greater prominence of creative work in contrast with traditional manufacturing work.^[14]
3. Technological: Technology has become more prominent in most aspects of society. The participative web (also known as web 2.0), mobile phones, social networking services, and netbooks have given individuals greater control over information creation and sharing. Information services like Google Search, Google Scholar, GPS-enabled devices, and e-books, are improving access and communication for learners. Technological innovations in bandwidth, storage, processing speed, and software directly impact education,^[15] creating new opportunities for learner-learner/educator and learner-information interactions.
4. Educational: Educational change pressures are those specific to higher education. Global, social, and technological change factors impact higher education, but research specific to teaching and learning provides greater direction into how the process of learning should best be facilitated. In particular, the development of learning sciences^[16] as a field offers promise in assisting administrators, educators, and designers in creating effective learning environments. However, as with new and emerging fields, the emphasis on sciences creates some unease among educators. Some researchers have turned to complexity theory to advance education, suggesting that emphasis be placed on the whole system rather than reductionist views often found in "mainstream science".^[17] Increased collaboration in a model of "interlocking partnerships among researchers, among universities, and across international borders"^[18] promises a new model of not only "what it means to be an academic" but also "what it means to be an academic institution". Many tools are now available for educators to open wide the doors to learning, reducing barriers to information access and to increase the opportunities for learning with colleagues and peers from around the world. As more information is freely available online (OCW, Open Yale, Open Learn and numerous related projects), tools of collaboration grow in prominence (wikis and blogs), and means of discovering and networking with others (social network resources) become more popular, substantial change can be expected in education.

Finding new points of balance

Global, political, social, technological, and educational change pressures are disrupting the traditional role (and possibly design) of universities.

Higher education faces a "re-balancing" in response to growing points of tension along the following fault lines:

1. Education/business: More than a century of calls for academic reform have not generated substantial change. The current technological revolution promises greater impact, though it raises questions about "the ends and purposes of education" and "what we are doing and trying to achieve in our educational practices and institutions".^[19]
2. Accreditation/reputation: Competence in rapidly changing fields like information communication technology is often tied to reputation, not accreditation. Software developers and online community forum members (on sites like Digg and Slashdot) gain prominence and reputation through writing high quality code and providing insightful forum/community contributions. The growth of collectives (where members rate and filter contributions as well as services like Technorati or Google Search that provide an algorithmic valuation of contribution) that measure the competence of individuals presents an opportunity for universities to augment existing accreditation methods with ones that acknowledge contributions outside of academic activities.
3. Transformation/utility: The ideal of education as a model for developing individuals capable of preserving and advancing democratic ideals and rights of individuals is somewhat at odds with a utilitarian view (learning for employment). With certain regions reporting that universities are increasingly autonomous from the state, but pursuing "closer engagement with industry",^[20] the question of humanity vs. utility balance in higher education is far from settled.
4. Research/responding: The internet allows "academics and students in higher education institutions with fewer resources"^[21] access to research and information previously only available at well-funded institutions. Technology and the prominence of mobile devices and social networking services in the personal lives of learners has not been matched by the adoption of educational technology in universities.^[22] This gap raises an important question: how rapidly should universities respond to larger social and communication technology trends in society? Current research on the impact of communication technology on learners and the learning process is still underdeveloped. Researching vs. responding tosocietal trends will be a challenging field for academic institutions to navigate.
5. Formal/informal: With the exceptions of initiatives such as Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition,^[23] learning is generally only formally acknowledged when occurring under the aegis of schools and universities. Yet, as has always been the case, many important skills are developed outside of classrooms. Learning occurs through volunteering, hobbies, work-based, communities of interest, political and social activism, and raising or being a part of a family. As expressed by the Canadian Council on Learning, limitless dimensions^[24] exist in our learning.
6. Open/Closed: Open source has moved from software to politics/business/education. Closed, "locked-down" learning management systems, journal articles, and research stand in stark contrast to openness in journals like IRRODL and personal learning environments. The struggle between open/closed, free/proprietary will continue as a major point of tension in business and education in the foreseeable future.
7. Expert/Amateur: Can a group (or network) of amateurs duplicate what experts do? In spite of controversy about the validity of information, Wikipedia is one of the most popular web sites. Amateur-produced information is generally easily accessible (in language and format), whereas expert-produced information is often inaccessible (in language and format).
8. Hierarchy/Network and Command/Foster: Leading network theorists (Barry Wellman,^[25] Albert-László Barabási,^[26] Duncan Watts^[27], Manuel Castells^[28], and Yochai Benkler^[29]) promote networks as the model for organizing society. Hierarchical command and control models are limited in their ability to respond to complex interactions and information abundance. When applied to education, this line of reasoning suggests that networked models of learning will replace existing curricular models.
9. Pace/Depth: The growth of information worldwide^[30] influences how individuals interact with content. Extensive time, effort, and commitment are required to develop expertise in a field.^[31] Continual change and distraction may contribute to developing expertise in managing high flows of information, but may not develop particular subject matter expertise as extensive thought is not applied to the content itself (only the process).
10. Epistemology/Ontology: Rapid growth of information requires higher education to change its focus from knowing (epistemology) to being (ontology)^[32] (see Image 4). For example, Harvard’s new "core curriculum"^[33] focuses on attributes and qualities of learners, rather than particular knowledge elements.

Firm Foundations

Academics, and particular administrators, face the difficultly of determining appropriate responses to broad change pressures. Growing hype over the last five years suggests "web 2.0" or the "read/write web" are of sufficient force to require universities to alter the process of curriculum creation and teaching and learning. Caution is required in this regard.

The stability of higher education is often cast as a negative by individuals seeking reform. Yet this stability ensures that false, often expensive, missteps are avoided. Administrators have an opportunity to look beyond the current instantiation of change, and focus instead on the foundational change itself. Many tools currently under the web 2.0 banner will likely fade and be replaced by new innovations.

What serves as a suitable foundation for considering change?

Humanity, through creation of new technology and processes, demonstrates a long timeline of change in (see Image 5):

• how individuals are able to create and interact with information (language, Gutenberg, Internet) and,
• how individuals are able to interact with each other and function in distributed (often social) networks.

^[34]

The foundational change in how information is created, shared, and disseminated (with greater control assigned to individuals) forms the basis on which organizations can build new systemic structures.

References

1. ↑ Between difference and singularity: An open discussion with Jean Baudrillard. (2002). Retrieved March 1, 2009, from http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-between-difference-and-singularity-2002.html
2. ↑ Poole, D. (2005). The possibilities of university transformation. In R. Nata (Ed.), Issues in higher education (pp. 195–216). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. p. 196
3. ↑ Keeling, R. (2006). The Bologna process and the Lisbon research agenda: The European Commission’s expanding role in higher education discourse. European Journal of Education, 41(2),55 203–223.
4. ↑ Allen, E., Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Retrieved February 20, 2009 from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/staying_the_course.pdf
5. ↑ <Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2008). The future of the internet economy: A statistical profile. Retrieved on February 20, 2009 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/56/40827598.pdf
6. ↑ Connectivity Scorecard (n.d.). Canada Connectivity Scorecard. Retrieved on February 20, 2009 from http://www.connectivityscorecard.org/countries/canada
7. ↑ Statistics Canada (2008). Canadian Internet Use Survey. Retrieved on February 20, 2009 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080612/dq080612b-eng.htm
8. ↑ Wagner, N., Hassanein, K., Head, M., (2008). Who is responsible for e-learning success in higher education? A stakeholders’ analysis. Educational Technology & Society, 11(3), 26-36.
9. ↑ Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (n.d.) Australia: World Class Universities or a World Class University System? Retrieved on February 20, 2009 from http://www.oecd.org/document/38/0,3343,en_2649_35961291_40341478_1_1_1_1,00.html
10. ↑ Daniel, J., Kanwar, A., & Uvalic-Trubmic, S. (2006, July). A tectonic shift in global higher education. Retrieved February 1, 2009, from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/change/sub.asp?key=98&subkey=1841
11. ↑ Freedman, G. (2008). Unlocking the global education imperative: Core challenges & critical response. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://www.blackboard.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=6032f8df-b6ba-4510-81d2-3198459529dc
12. ↑ Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
13. ↑ Gibbons, M. (2002). Globalization and the future of higher education. In Globalisation: What Issues are at Stake for Universities? Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://www.bi.ulaval.ca/Globalisation-Universities/pages/actes/GibbonsMichael.pdf
14. ↑ Martin Prosperity Institute. (2009, February). Ontario in the creative age. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://martinprosperity.org/media/pdfs/MPI%20Ontario%20Report%202009%20v3.pdf
15. ↑ Downes, S. (2009). The future of learning: Ten years on. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://www.downes.ca/files/future2008.doc
16. ↑ Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2005). Cambridge handbook of learning sciences. Available from http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780511217685
17. ↑ Mason, M. (2008). Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 4–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00412.x.
18. ↑ McFadden Allen, B. M., Welch, A., & Zhen, Z. (2007). Global collaboration: Benefits and challenges in developing partnerships. In Realizing the global university. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://wiche.edu/attachment_library/Global%20University%20pdfs/Global%20University_Part_5.pdf
19. ↑ Kellner, D. (2004). Technological transformation, multiple literacies, and the re-visioning of education. E-Learning, 1(1).
20. ↑ Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.
21. ↑ Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (n.d.b). Four future scenarios for higher education. Retrieved February 20, 2009 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/18/36/42241931.pdf
22. ↑ White, S. (2007). Critical success factors for e-learning and institutional change—Some organizational perspectives on campus-wide e-learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 840–850.
23. ↑ Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials. (2008). Information on prior learning assessment and recognition in Canada [Fact Sheet No. 6]. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://www.cicic.ca/412/Prior_Learning_Assessment_and_Recognition_in_Canada_.canada
24. ↑ Canadian Council on Learning. (2008). State of learning in Canada: Toward a learning future. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from http://www.ccl-cca.ca/NR/rdonlyres/6FA0A21C-50D9-481B-A390-73852B4E6CB6/0/SOLR_08_English_final.pdf
25. ↑ Wellman, B. (1999). Networks in the global village: Life in contemporary communities. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
26. ↑ Barabási, A. L. (2002). Linked: The new science of networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
27. ↑ Watts, D. J. (2003). Six degrees: The science of a connected age. New York: W.W. Norton.
28. ↑ Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
29. ↑ Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30. ↑ Gantz, J.F., Reinsel, D., Chute, C., Schlichting, W., McArthur, J., Minton, S., et al. (2007). The expanding digital universe: A forecast of worldwide information growth through 2010. Framingham, MA: IDC. Retrieved December 27, 2007, from http://www.emc.com/about/destination/digital_universe/
31. ↑ Feltovich, P. J., Prietula, M. J., Ericsson, K. A. (2006). Studies of expertise from psychological perspectives. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (Paperback, pp. 41–67). London: Cambridge University Press.
32. ↑ Barnett, R. (2004). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 247–260. doi: 10.1080/0729436042000235382
33. ↑ Harvard University. (2007). Report of the task force on general education. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~secfas/General_Education_Final_Report.pdf
34. ↑ Image adapted from: Fischer, G., & Konomi, S. (2007). Innovative socio-technical environments in support of distributed intelligence and lifelong learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(4), 338–350.