Web 2.0 as a driver for change in Higher Education?

In a previous post, I defined the main characteristics of “Learning 2.0”, a philosophy of learning which emerges in the digital sphere from the learning behaviors of web 2.0 users.

This post addresses how education is likely to be affected by the changes in individual learning conducts. I will argue that Learning 2.0 will cause tensions in educational institutions; and question whether and how institutions can or should adapt. This will provide insight into various problematics that can help shape an Education 2.0 model.

Learning 2.0 will affect Higher Education

The pattern of behaviors identified behind the term learning 2.0 attests how the appropriation of web2.0 technologies changes the way users approach learning, by adopting new tools and attitudes which they find meaningful as learners. The corollary of this trend is that Learning 2.0 should have an increasing impact on educational institutions. There are three main channels by which this is likely to happen:

The audience is changing

New generations of digital natives who have embraced Learning 2.0 put pressure on educational institutions to recognize the value of web 2.0 for educational purposes and expect an educational offer which is in accordance with Learning 2.0 behaviors.

How digital natives want to learn

Digital Natives see value for learning in the tools and attitudes associated with Web 2.0, and expect institutional recognition of their relevance for education. (“My wiki is my textbook now“). Digital natives should expect a form of education which values the practices and materials of Learning 2.0, by offering such things as the capacity to personalize learning environments, multimedia and interactive learning material or flexible learning schedules.

What digital natives are good at

Digital natives are by definition digital literates. They are familiar with and feel productive using web 2.0 tools which they take for granted. Digital natives will not understand the discrepancy which might exist between their mastering of new tools and adoption of learning 2.0 attitudes, and educational institutions asking them to stick with traditional pedagogy.

Regardless of how much a specific educational offer is consumer-driven, or how much an institution is inclined to adapting its offer to student demands, institutions will be affected by this change as the audience changes. Therefore new student expectations and initial skills should be regarded as a driver for change and food for thought in the reflections around education and pedagogical practice.

Learning 2.0 means new pedagogical opportunities

Learning 2.0 represents potential opportunities for Higher Education to improve pedagogical practice, capitalize on student involvement in web-mediated learning, and differentiate from other institutions.

To expand upon a previous post addressing the meaning of web 2.0, the question of whether we can value learning 2.0 for educational purposes mainly relies on the credit we give to two underlying assumptions of web 2.0: collective intelligence outvalues individual expertise on the one hand, and Web 2.0 is an environment in which collective intelligence can fulfil.

Without going back to the grounding question of the validity of these statement, if these two assumptions are made then Learning 2.0 represents a wisdom in terms of learning practices which far exceeds that of educational experts. Under these conditions Learning 2.0 should require attention and be explored by institutions in an effort to improve pedagogical practice.

Web 2.0 learners are in an environment of abundance of choice in terms of information, tools and use scenarios of these tools. Each individual user can chose ‘independently’ within this abundance the most meaningful assets for her/his own learning experience. The result of this process is that learners build their own preferred learning environment.This description of the web 2.0 learning environment echoes the conditions under which collective intelligence is likely to fulfil according to Sorowiecki.

So from an observer standpoint, Learning 2.0 conceptualizes the aggregated learning behaviors of an increasingly large group of web 2.0 users who have arbitrated with relative independence their own choice of learning material and attitudes from an abundant environment.

Learning 2.0 can therefore be the output of a learning practices wisdom of the crowds, which should be valued by educational institutions as a showcase of innovative learning practices that can add value to their educational offer.

Digital literacy as a required skill

Digital literacy in Web 2.0 is increasingly required for full participation in the public, community and economic life[1], and as such should be increasingly a concern for educational institutions. The incorporation of Web 2.0 in the pedagogical practice of higher education appears like an efficient vector for this required digital literacy. I will develop this point on a later post centered around the notion of Enterprise 2.0.

The disruptive nature of Learning 2.0

“Technology allows for the absolutes of education to be questioned.”[2]

Learning 2.0 is likely to be a disruptive force for Higher Education, as there are divergences at different levels between the learning culture of Web2.0 and traditionally conceived education:

Traditional Higher Education Vs. Learning 2.0:

Learning from faculty Vs Learning from anyone

Focus on models, theories and facts Vs Focus on experience, opinions and intentions

Focus on content Vs Focus on networks

Learning towards a diploma Vs Learning for life

 

 

Learning from faculty vs. learning from anyone

Traditional higher education and learning2.0 evaluate the authority of knowledge in a different way. Higher Education primarily gives authority to knowledge dispensed by faculty, whereas learning 2.0 values social constructivism. The community questions the authority of traditional thought leaders and gives authority to knowledge which can be generated by anyone. . .

Whereas in traditional education a leader of thought gains authority through formal scholar recognition (diplomas and publications), authority in the digital sphere is granted by the community and using different metrics. New forms of recognition rely on masses of users showing interest in an idea or thinker by pointing towards interesting content through social bookmarking.

This “Authority 2.0”[3] can become a very disruptive force for traditional education as learners start to value more thought leaders recognized by a wide community of Internet users then faculty whose authority relies on more scholar validation processes.

“Web 2.0 technologies challenge faculty in terms of sanctity and authority. It suddenly lays down the walls of their offices and classrooms and demands that their legitimacy compete with the clamor of the popular opinion, available for anyone outside of academy to consume. Academic faculty have to fight harder against the stronger voices of popular opinion to retain respectability and legitimacy.”[4]

The tension between traditional forms of authority and “authority 2.0” seems to forecast a major redefinition of the way educational institutions account for authority of knowledge.

Focus on models, theories and facts vs. Focus on experience, opinions and intentions

In parallel to the tension linked with “authority 2.0”, the new learning culture also differs with traditional education in terms of its preferred learning materials.

Whereas traditional learning is based on empirical material like models, theories and facts, learning 2.0 uses mainly material extracted from personal experience, opinions and intentions. In the digital sphere, if ‘textbook’ models are produced, the focus is more on the discussion and questioning which it provokes. The ‘support material’ of Learning 2.0 is in substance different from textbooks because it accounts for personal experience, and therefore does not primarily intend to be objective nor stable.

Learners 2.0 need to put effort in the evaluation of the relevance and reliability of learning material. On the contrary textbook material intends to present empirical experience that is objective, trustworthy and stable; which tends to engage students in a more ‘passive’ attitude of acceptance as regards learning material.

The need expressed in Learning 2.0 for content that is ‘desacralised’, debatable, up-to-date and values personal experience could be a disruptive force for higher education. Certain schools are already struggling to find options in order to capitalize on this need (see “My wiki is my textbook now”)

Focus on content vs. focus on network

The value of learning assets is perceived in a different way in traditional education and in learning 2.0.

In traditionally conceived education, content is considered as the central value driver of a learning experience. Therefore a top-class higher education institution is one that can successfully deliver to students the best content available on the market (via the best faculty).

In learning 2.0, content is a secondary learning asset compared with access to a relevant and capable knowledge network. Educational content becomes less important than the network that supports students in their learning. Users build learning networks by blogging (participating in blogs and asking for participation of others on their blog) and developing relationships on social networks.

The tension in Higher Education between priority given to content and to knowledge networks comes back to the definition of an institution’s value proposition. Should the value of a school’s offer rely on content or should the support given by a school in utilizing content be put forward?

In that area, an interesting model has recently emerged with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Britain’s Open University both offering free digital access to the content that supports their educational offer.

The model is grounded in the belief that “Education is not equivalent to the resources that support the education; […] it consists essentially of the contact with the professors and the community that develops among the students.”[5]

Or as MIT President Charles M. Vest puts it “We think that OpenCourseWare will make it possible for faculty here and elsewhere to concentrate even more on the actual process of teaching, on the interactions between faculty and students that are the real core of learning.”

MIT and OpenU fully embody the 2.0 perception of learning assets in the sense that they offer content for free, but charge for what they consider as the core value of their educational proposition: access to the knowledge networks of their institutions.

Learning towards a Diploma vs. Learning for life

The learning process engaged within higher education finalizes with certification that should measure success in the learning experience and attest the mastering of skills and knowledge necessary for full participation in the public, community and economic life.

Learning 2.0 gives strength to a divergent belief that learning should be a continually challenging, life-long process, and that success should be measured by the capacity to become a life-long learner, or to ‘learn how to learn’. Web 2.0 provides the means and encourages learners to keep involved in learning interactions. The unstated nature of the content which supports Learning 2.0 also provides incentive for a continuous, life-long involvement in learning.

This tension seems less of a disruptive force for higher education as many institutions are already involved in an effort to promote life-long learning and to maintain school networks for alumni and faculty. This area of convergence is an interesting source of potential for the incorporation of Web 2.0 in higher education.

---

These tensions between the traditional education philosophy and the nascent Learning 2.0 will shape a new model in educational practice, Education 2.0.

---

[1] Definition of the mission of education by the New London Group

[2]From an discussion with Toby Thomson

[3] (addressed by Michael Jenson in “The New Metrics of Scholarly Authority” and Authority 2.0 and 3.0: The Collision of Authority and Participation in Scholarly Communications)

[4] From an discussion with Toby Thomson

[5] “Courses Vs. Content: Online Offerings From Major Institutions Are Not Created Equal”, By Stephen Downes