Najia Sabir - Curt Bonk



Dr. Bonk

EDUC R546

10 September 2014

Education 3.0 Philosophy Paper

“Education 3.0 is characterized by rich, cross-institutional, cross-cultural educational opportunities within which the 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” (Keats & Schmidt, 2007, as cited by Lwoga, 2012).

The notion of Education 3.0 was first introduced in the literature circles in a First Monday article by Keats and Schmidt (2007) and then later expanded upon by Professor Lengel (2013). In short, Education 3.0 is a shift in how information is generated, communicated, validated and disseminated within a technology supported learning environment. The progress from education 2.0 to 3.0 mirrors the progress from web 2.0 to web 3.0 technologies. The move towards Education 3.0 is a result from the growing dissatisfaction of current education paradigms and a need to design a system that meets the challenges of today’s society (Abas, 2010; Daggett, 2012; Toffler, 1984; Watson, Watson, & Reigeluth, 2013).

According to Lengel (2007) education 3.0 describes transformative practices while education 2.0 focused on industrial age skills and education 1.0 focused on agricultural talent. Harkins (2008) takes this notion one step further by describing education 3.0 as “knowledge-producing” and education 4.0 is marked as “innovation-producing” education (p.19). However, Harkin (2008) disagrees with Lengel (2007) historic description of how education 3.0 was established, he writes that education 2.0 was internet enabled, while education 1.0 was focused on memorization. Moravee (2008) and McPheeters (2010) mark the shift into education 2.0 with the emergence of 21 century learning skills. Gerstein (2013) writes that education 3.0 is a connectivist, heutagogical approach to teaching and learning, where as education 2.0 was a cooperative and social teaching and learning process. Siemens (2005) defines connectivist learning as one that is connected, interactive and transformative. Additionally, Gerstein (2013) calls for educators to implement Education 3.0 practices instead of “talking about doing eduction 2.0” and actually doing education 1.0 (n.p.).

One of the fundamental backbones of Education 3.0 is the shift in openness and expansion of the learning environment (Paskevicius, & Ng’ambi, 2011), where the students are producers and collaborators using new tools and information available to them (Keats & Schmidt, 2007). With the shift towards Education 3.0 Free and Open Education Resources (FOERs) (Blackall, 2009; Heller, Chongsuvivatwong, Hailegeorgios, Dada, Torun, Madhok, & Sandars, 2007; Lwoga, 2012), mobile learning (Gerstein, 2013), and social networks have become imperative to successful implementation (Blackall, 2009). Furthermore, Keats and Schmidt (2007) claim that the interactivity of emerging technologies has the potential to connect students to larger “socio-political learning environments” (Carmichael & Farrell, 2012). Instructors are seen as conductors and facilitators of learning, while the student armed with internet resources contribute to the classroom experiences. Furthermore, the roles of institutes are also changing; the primary role has shifted to one of “accreditation” (Bradwell, 2009), moving away from the role of information gatekeepers. Several reports and texts (e.g. Davidson & Goldberg, 2009; Wiley, 2009) echo the call to restructure education to meet the changing students and society.

The chart below is aggregated from several readings, including: Moravec (2008b), Gerstein (2013), Keats and Schmidt (2007), and Lengel (2013). It discusses how the purposes and values of certain instructional elements has changed over time. For example: the way in which meanings are constructed have differed; the technology competencies of the learners has grown; the learning pathways have changed, in that students no only learn from instructors; the space in which learning occurs has also changed; as have the instructor roles.

Table 1: Criterion Changes Across Educational Versions

| |Memorization (1.0) |21st century skills (2.0) |Knowledge production (3.0) |Innovation producing (4.0) |

|Meaning |Dictated |Social influence |Social, timely, and pragmatic|Pragmatic and product, and |

| | | | |collaboratively driven |

|Technology competencies|Not evident |Digital immigrant |Digital native |Students act as source of |

| | | | |technology evolution |

|Teaching interactions |Teacher ( Student |Teacher ( Student and Student|Teacher ( Student and Student|Positive feedback between: |

| | |( Student |( Student |Teacher ( Student and Student|

| | | |Teacher ( Student and Student|( Student |

| | | |( Teacher |Teacher ( Student and Student|

| | | | |( Teacher |

| | | | |Ubiquitous learning |

|Learning occurs in… |Buildings |Buildings and online |Where internet access is |Anywhere and everywhere |

| | | |present | |

| | | |Extreme Learning | |

|Instructors are: |Licensed teachers |Licensed teachers and |Anyone that can disseminate |Anyone, supported through |

| | |community support |knowledge via the web and |collaborative networks |

| | | |licensed teachers | |

It is imperative that learners have a positive experience with the learning tools and environments in that the resources are user-friendly and accessible (Wang, 2013). Additionally, as individual learners have varying preferences, instructors leveraging Education 3.0 techniques need to consider learning styles (Oblinger &Oblinger, 2005). Kolb (2005) identifies four different learning modes: concrete experiences are a receptive and experience-based model; abstract conceptualization is an analytical and conceptual model; active experimentation is an authority-directed and impersonal learning model; and reflective observation is a reflective model. These four approaches can be further combined to include additional learning models. The ways in which people interact with technology also differs and produces varying opportunities ingrained in the world around them (Orlikowski, 1992). Watson et al. (2013) call for reform to current educational practices to better engage students. Furthermore, Wang’s (2013) empirical study found that students engaged in traditional learning displayed less satisfaction than students using web 3.0 technologies.

References

Abas, Z. W. (2010). A framework for higher education 2.0: 21st century education for 21st century learners.

Blackall, L. (2009). Open educational resources and practices. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 3(2), 63-81.

Bradwell, P. (2009). The edgeless university. London, UK: Demos.

Carmichael, E., & Farrell, H. (2012). Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Online Resources in Developing Student Critical Thinking: Review of Literature and Case Study of a Critical Thinking Online Site. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 9(1), 4.

Daggett, W. R. (2010). Preparing students for their technological future. International Center for Leadership in Education.

Davidson, C. N., & Goldberg, D. T. (2009). The future of learning institutions in a digital age. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Gerstein, J. (2013, May 13). Education 3.0 and the Pedagogy (Andragogy, Heutagogy) of Mobile Learning. Retrieved September 8, 2014.

Harkins, A. M. (2008). Leapfrog Principles and Practices: Core Components of Education 3.0 and 4.0. Futures Research Quarterly, 24(1), 19-31.

Heller, R. F., Chongsuvivatwong, V., Hailegeorgios, S., Dada, J., Torun, P., Madhok, R., & Sandars, J. (2007). Capacity-building for public health: . org. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 85(12), 930-934.

Keats, D., & Schmidt, J. P. (2007). The genesis and emergence of Education 3.0 in higher education and its potential for Africa. First Monday, 12(3).

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of management learning & education, 4(2), 193-212.

Lengel, J. G. (2012). Education 3.0: Seven Steps to Better Schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Lwoga, E. (2012). Making learning and Web 2.0 technologies work for higher learning institutions in Africa. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 29(2), 90-107.

McPheeters, D. (2009, October). Cyborg learning theory: Technology in education and the blurring of boundaries. In World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (1), 2937-2942.

Moravec, J. (2008a). Moving beyond education 2.0. Education Futures.

Moravec, J. (2008b, September 29). Toward Society 3.0: A New Paradigm for 21st century education. Retrieved September 12, 2014.

Oblinger, D., Oblinger, J. (Eds.), (2005). Educating the Net Generation, Educause. Retrieved from:

Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization science, 3(3), 398-427.

Paskevicius, M., & Ng’ambi, D. (2011). The Potential for Education 3.0 in a Developing Context using Giddens’ Structuration Giddens’ Structuration Theory. Retrieved from:

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International journal of instructional technology and distance learning, 2(1), 3-10.

Toffler, A. (1984). The Third Wave: The Clasic Study of Tomorrow. New York, NY: Bantam Publishing Group.

Wang, J. E. N. N. Y. (2013). Education 3.0: Effect learning style and method of instruction on user satisfaction. European Academic Research I 1(5), 755-769.

Watson, W. R., Watson, S. L., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2013). Education 3.0: Breaking the mold with technology. Interactive Learning Environments, (ahead-of-print), 1-12.

Wiley, D. (2009). Openness, Disaggregation, and the Future of Schools.TechTrends, 53(4), 37.

My Reflection

Surprisingly, this philosophy paper was quite difficult to write, as finding resources was a great challenge. Within the classroom discussions and the readings I had a clear understanding of what Education 3.0 looked like, its criteria and impetus. However, I had much difficulty finding studies that self-identified as using Education 3.0 techniques and tools. Despite this challenge I was able to piece together my philosophy on Education 3.0 supported by the literature.

During the first class session on Education 3.0 and the shift in instructional trends I was inspired to read several texts, such as: Sir Ken Robinson’s Out of Our Minds; Creating Innovators by Tony Wagner; and Walter Bender, Charles Kane, Jody Cornish, and Neal Donahue’s Learning to Change the World. These of course have been added to my ongoing reading list. I am, however, planning on completing Learning to Change the World as one of the texts for this course.

I would like to think that my instructional practices align with Education 3.0 guidelines. For example, I try to implement collaborative and inquiry based instruction via an open exchange of ideas throughout my courses. I try to encourage my students to be creative and self-reliant problem solvers using any and all resources at their disposal. This semester, I am trying something new: I have given my students a statement of purpose to develop a professional development workshop. With out much instructor guidance the students are investigating the issues, collaborating with experts online, and crafting potential solutions. Through this process, the students have been able to produce personalized solutions by setting group-based goals, and evaluating and synthesizing existing resource repositories. By engaging this these types of self directed learning activities I hope my students can become better critical thinkers and communicators.

I think that it is vital for instructors to (re)evaluate the needs of their students. Not all learners need technology-rich collaborative environments to thrive, but all available resources should be considered when designing instructional practices. Much of Education 3.0 practices require careful thought, consideration, and planning. More importantly technology should be tested before the class meeting time, and complex activities should be timed and rehearsed. Taking these precautions allows the instructor to act as a true facilitator.

The following on ten guiding principles I believe need to be in place to ensure Education 3.0 practices: (1) Information is presented across different media or sources; (2) Teaching should be inquiry driven; (3)There needs to be an open culture of creativity and innovation; (4) Students can attain content mastery through failure (and retrying), co-creation, and group-based learning; (5) Students should be prepared for a globally competitive and socially responsible economy; (6) Instructors should aim to inspire higher order thinking skills; (7) Teachers should leverage open and flexible learning environments; (8) Incorporate real-world applications by leveraging e-learning platforms and strategies; (9) Teachers should give space and time for disruptive innovations; and (10) Instruction needs to shift from teacher-centered to student-centered.

So then we turn from these guiding principles towards a discussion of how to best operationalize this big ideas. Let us start with teachers leveraging open and flexible learning environments. There are two parts to this statement: open resources and flexible environments. Open resources refers to freely accessible, openly licensed teaching materials. Flexible learning environments often manifest as e-learning resources that allow the teacher to reform traditional learning spaces. With the proliferation of internet-based resource, teachers have more and more access to free and open resources. For example, TeacherTube is a great video database of instructional materials, many of which have open creative common licenses which allows students to remix these videos into their own creations.

This leads right into presenting information across varying media. Teachers should make use of available resources such as, real-world images, illustrations, videos, and interactive simulations to present information. This becomes effective across two fronts: the first is that it accounts for the diversity of learning styles; and secondly, it allows for the teacher to leverage audio-visual materials to enhance the instructional practices. During a lesson on Martin Luther King Jr. a teacher can incorporate interactive timelines, real-time quiz assessments, documentary footage and primary documents, like newspaper articles to teach the lesson. Using a variety of media will actively engage the students.

Much of the lesson just mentioned can be taught through group-based activities where the students engage in co-creating meaning through conversation. Sometimes student learn more by failure than by given instruction outright. Often in education failure is seen as a negative instead of a learning tool. With the emergence of Education 3.0, students need to be prepared to work independently in collaborative team environments. Learning content through co-creation and challenges provides students will a solid foundation in content mastery. One way to instill this perspective through instructional practices is to incorporate authentic games. Group games encourage peer-based learning through conversations and feedback.

In this ever competitive global economy students need to develop higher order critical thinking skills through technology facilitation. To accomplish this successfully, teachers could use the SAMR Model. SAMR is defined by: Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition. At each of these levels the teacher can replace traditional learning materials for technology enhanced ones or they can redesign the task to include technology. Additionally, teachers should also include Bloom’s taxonomy in their lesson planning to ensure students are able to analyze, evaluate and create presented content in a critical manner.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download