The term “Learning 2.0” has recently been thrown around as if it were a
software package that one can upload into the brain to achieve new
understanding. Although there is no such magical fountain of wisdom,
there are real promises of efficiency and effectiveness in “Learning
2.0”. This article defines Learning 2.0 in terms of established
learning theory and identifies the opportunities it offers and the
challenges it poses.
Background
A review of established learning theory reveals “4 pillars” of effective learning.
1. We learn best when we are motivated, have a want or desire..
2. We learn best by doing. Doing leads us to find the right approaches, practice makes us consistent in their application..
3. We learn through feedback. Positive or negative feedback shapes behavior..
4. We learn though digestion or reflection. This is the process by which we sort out ideas, build new ones and discard others.
Why do the above “4 pillars” lead to effective learning? They do so because together they induce neuroplasticity. That is the process by which the brain creates or alters the association between neurons. When learning has taken place and a new situation arises, the brain utilizes those new or altered neuron connection to process information. That in turn results in changes in the learner's behavior, the hallmark of a learned individual.
It is important to point out that past learning theory does not need re-definition in order to accommodate Learning 2.0. In fact, not only do the time-tested “4 pillars” briefly described above remain constant but no additional pillars are necessary to support Learning 2.0.
Learning 2.0 defined
Learning 2.0 is not a new scientific breakthrough, rather, it is an approach that may prevents us from straying from what is instructionally appropriate while focusing us on today's preferred learning modalities and tools. Unlike Learning 1.0 which places its emphasis on content that is usually delivery as text, other static media, or talking heads, Learning 2.0 places the learner at the center of the instruction and in the context of interactive social environments.
Learning 2.0 is the utilization of proven learning principles applied in the context of self-directed or self-directed-hybrid learning, Web tools, and social networking and collaboration.
In the above definition self-directed learning refers to informal learning carried out in the workplace, for example. Self-directed-hybrid learning refers to formal learning such as college courses, for example, that incorporate aspects of self-directed learning in the context of the course. In this case, the instructor takes a constructivist role of a guide rather than the actor or sage on the stage.
Effectiveness of Learning 2.0
First, Learning 2.0 seeks to maximizes learner engagement. This is accomplished by associating the learning with something the learner is working on or has a perceived desire or need for. In the context of formal learning that required communication between the instructor and the learner in order to identify the areas of interest as they relate to specific course objectives.
If the learner is a working adult, this might have an immediate motivational effect by allowing him/her to seek a focus that can produce tangible results in the workplace. Sometimes those results are immediate such as finding data that can be applied to sales or to benefit production. Other times the results are seen in the form of ideas that can be introduced into a planning processes, for example. Either way, the learner feels connected in a personal way to the instruction. This personal connection provides a powerful motivating factor key to Learning 2.0.
If the learner is a traditional non-working student, a connection to future opportunity or to issues in the students life might be identified. This connection generates a stronger desire or need that drives the learner to feel more motivated and get significantly more engaged in the learning than when non-construtivist approaches are used.
Second, Learning 2.0 induces learning through “doing” activities. In the realm of e-learning and todays Web this may take the form of creating a video that captures an experiment, documents behaviors, illustrates positions, or summarizes events. Or it may involve gathering data through surveys or web based interviews. It may also entail creating new data associations, now called mashups if facilitated by web tools, that lead to new insights. In short in Learning 2.0 the instructor will work with the learner to identify “doing” activities that maximize learner engagement using today's advanced tools. This aspect of of Learning 2.0 probably poses the greatest challenge to the instructor as it requires individualized attention and careful tailoring that reconciles learner interests and learning objectives.
Third, Learning 2.0 requires that instructors provide incentives and opportunities for collaboration, for example, learners share assignments with others throughout the instruction instead of just reporting findings at the end of an assignment or course. The key to this aspect of Learning 2.0 is to provide an environment where feedback is formative not just summative. In addition, the feedback sought needs to reflect a wide variety of perspectives, often available through virtual communities, in order to trigger the desired reflection. Sorting through the ideas and comments requires higher level thinking including reflection, testing or challenging ideas, and proposing new ideas that in tern generate more feedback, more reflection, and so on. Each time this cycle takes place more and deeper neuroplasticity/learning, occurs.
Learning 2.0 is effective because it maximizes the desire to learn by placing the learner at the center of instruction and then involves the learner in interactive activities while maximizing feedback though networking and collaborations that in turn provide thoughts that trigger reflection.
Finally, Learning 2.0 is also effective because it is familiar to us. It is the way we now learn. It is how we behave at home and in the workplace, not because it was imposed on us but because its what we have found to be most efficient for us. This behavior is evident in web user statistics. Years ago if we needed new knowledge we went to the library and thumbed through card catalogs or scanned shelves. Now the first thing we do is hit Google, blogs, chat rooms, and social networking sites. We then follow those searches with synchronous and asynchronous web-based interactions and collaboration.
Learning 2.0 and technology
A question often asked is, why does Learning 2.0 have to be technology or Web based? In short, it doesn't, provided that you are willing to forfeit a great deal of efficiency. Many, including this author, used these approaches with much less success before the advent of the Web. It is the technology and ability to interact virtually that have unlocked the true potential of these approaches. Simply put, the Internet is an unrivaled enabler and Learning 2.0 is its prodigy.
Summary
Learning 2.0 is an approach not a new theory, it is efficient and effective because it uses time-tested learning principles that parallel our own instinctive learning approaches and enhances them with the access, tools, and collaboration capabilities of the Web. An instructor can adopt Learning 2.0 by guiding learners' through self-directed assignments and collaboration to boost motivation and produce higher level thinking that results in effective changed learner behaviors.
Guiding points for instructors:
Provide opportunity to identify needs and wants in relation to the courses objectives
Provide learning-by-doing opportunities that lead to collaboration
Provide ongoing formative feedback including that those in virtual social and collaboration networks
Provide time for reflection/digesting time, help learners analyze what they've learned, and seek more though collaboration.
Interactive learning activity:
Now don't take my word on all of this. Become a good Learning 2.0 student, go and do your searches and bat around these ideas in the virtual communities. And if you think of it, come back and provide some feedback in one of the blogs in this site
Background
A review of established learning theory reveals “4 pillars” of effective learning.
1. We learn best when we are motivated, have a want or desire..
2. We learn best by doing. Doing leads us to find the right approaches, practice makes us consistent in their application..
3. We learn through feedback. Positive or negative feedback shapes behavior..
4. We learn though digestion or reflection. This is the process by which we sort out ideas, build new ones and discard others.
Why do the above “4 pillars” lead to effective learning? They do so because together they induce neuroplasticity. That is the process by which the brain creates or alters the association between neurons. When learning has taken place and a new situation arises, the brain utilizes those new or altered neuron connection to process information. That in turn results in changes in the learner's behavior, the hallmark of a learned individual.
It is important to point out that past learning theory does not need re-definition in order to accommodate Learning 2.0. In fact, not only do the time-tested “4 pillars” briefly described above remain constant but no additional pillars are necessary to support Learning 2.0.
Learning 2.0 defined
Learning 2.0 is not a new scientific breakthrough, rather, it is an approach that may prevents us from straying from what is instructionally appropriate while focusing us on today's preferred learning modalities and tools. Unlike Learning 1.0 which places its emphasis on content that is usually delivery as text, other static media, or talking heads, Learning 2.0 places the learner at the center of the instruction and in the context of interactive social environments.
Learning 2.0 is the utilization of proven learning principles applied in the context of self-directed or self-directed-hybrid learning, Web tools, and social networking and collaboration.
In the above definition self-directed learning refers to informal learning carried out in the workplace, for example. Self-directed-hybrid learning refers to formal learning such as college courses, for example, that incorporate aspects of self-directed learning in the context of the course. In this case, the instructor takes a constructivist role of a guide rather than the actor or sage on the stage.
Effectiveness of Learning 2.0
First, Learning 2.0 seeks to maximizes learner engagement. This is accomplished by associating the learning with something the learner is working on or has a perceived desire or need for. In the context of formal learning that required communication between the instructor and the learner in order to identify the areas of interest as they relate to specific course objectives.
If the learner is a working adult, this might have an immediate motivational effect by allowing him/her to seek a focus that can produce tangible results in the workplace. Sometimes those results are immediate such as finding data that can be applied to sales or to benefit production. Other times the results are seen in the form of ideas that can be introduced into a planning processes, for example. Either way, the learner feels connected in a personal way to the instruction. This personal connection provides a powerful motivating factor key to Learning 2.0.
If the learner is a traditional non-working student, a connection to future opportunity or to issues in the students life might be identified. This connection generates a stronger desire or need that drives the learner to feel more motivated and get significantly more engaged in the learning than when non-construtivist approaches are used.
Second, Learning 2.0 induces learning through “doing” activities. In the realm of e-learning and todays Web this may take the form of creating a video that captures an experiment, documents behaviors, illustrates positions, or summarizes events. Or it may involve gathering data through surveys or web based interviews. It may also entail creating new data associations, now called mashups if facilitated by web tools, that lead to new insights. In short in Learning 2.0 the instructor will work with the learner to identify “doing” activities that maximize learner engagement using today's advanced tools. This aspect of of Learning 2.0 probably poses the greatest challenge to the instructor as it requires individualized attention and careful tailoring that reconciles learner interests and learning objectives.
Third, Learning 2.0 requires that instructors provide incentives and opportunities for collaboration, for example, learners share assignments with others throughout the instruction instead of just reporting findings at the end of an assignment or course. The key to this aspect of Learning 2.0 is to provide an environment where feedback is formative not just summative. In addition, the feedback sought needs to reflect a wide variety of perspectives, often available through virtual communities, in order to trigger the desired reflection. Sorting through the ideas and comments requires higher level thinking including reflection, testing or challenging ideas, and proposing new ideas that in tern generate more feedback, more reflection, and so on. Each time this cycle takes place more and deeper neuroplasticity/learning, occurs.
Learning 2.0 is effective because it maximizes the desire to learn by placing the learner at the center of instruction and then involves the learner in interactive activities while maximizing feedback though networking and collaborations that in turn provide thoughts that trigger reflection.
Finally, Learning 2.0 is also effective because it is familiar to us. It is the way we now learn. It is how we behave at home and in the workplace, not because it was imposed on us but because its what we have found to be most efficient for us. This behavior is evident in web user statistics. Years ago if we needed new knowledge we went to the library and thumbed through card catalogs or scanned shelves. Now the first thing we do is hit Google, blogs, chat rooms, and social networking sites. We then follow those searches with synchronous and asynchronous web-based interactions and collaboration.
Learning 2.0 and technology
A question often asked is, why does Learning 2.0 have to be technology or Web based? In short, it doesn't, provided that you are willing to forfeit a great deal of efficiency. Many, including this author, used these approaches with much less success before the advent of the Web. It is the technology and ability to interact virtually that have unlocked the true potential of these approaches. Simply put, the Internet is an unrivaled enabler and Learning 2.0 is its prodigy.
Summary
Learning 2.0 is an approach not a new theory, it is efficient and effective because it uses time-tested learning principles that parallel our own instinctive learning approaches and enhances them with the access, tools, and collaboration capabilities of the Web. An instructor can adopt Learning 2.0 by guiding learners' through self-directed assignments and collaboration to boost motivation and produce higher level thinking that results in effective changed learner behaviors.
Guiding points for instructors:
Provide opportunity to identify needs and wants in relation to the courses objectives
Provide learning-by-doing opportunities that lead to collaboration
Provide ongoing formative feedback including that those in virtual social and collaboration networks
Provide time for reflection/digesting time, help learners analyze what they've learned, and seek more though collaboration.
Interactive learning activity:
Now don't take my word on all of this. Become a good Learning 2.0 student, go and do your searches and bat around these ideas in the virtual communities. And if you think of it, come back and provide some feedback in one of the blogs in this site
No comments:
Post a Comment