Invisible Learning – book review

** This is a cross-post written by Mitch Weisburgh on September 23, 2011 in Academic-Biz.
** 1o days ago, the eBook ‘Invisible Learning’ was realeased with Creative Commns.  And we are pleased to say that so far 5,000 people have already downloaded it!

 

This is a summary of Aprendizaje Invisible (Invisible Learning, in English), an ebook by Cristóbal Cobo and John W. Moravec on transforming educational systems around the world.

Why is education important? For one, in today’s competitive international labor marketplace, superior education is the oxygen that all potential employees want to acquire.

Modern Classroom, 1
Image by IK’s World Trip via Flickr

 

Modern technologies, like social networking, texting, and digital storytelling, are viewed as inimical to the tried and true techniques of the formal classroom. Outside of the classroom, it’s a different story. Compared to watching television when it was a young technology, kids today are spending more time on the Internet with less supervision. Whatever they are doing, they are learning, but what and how they are learning is invisible to the formal education system. There is thus a whole new environment of learning outside of formal education, including through social networks, games, and searching, with students playing, discussing, finding, and sharing information. The question is not, “Are they learning on the Internet?” It’s “what are they learning?”

Can educators leverage this time and energy to help students learn? Only if we understand that the most significant potential lies outside of the classroom, where students are now spending so much of their time, and if we start understanding the dynamics of Internet usage.

But we need to consider models different from that of a sage lecturing to students who avidly or passively absorb the materials. There may not be one winning idea, there is probably not one learning theory that is correct in all instances, maybe we will need to follow several different possible paths to arrive at superior means of teaching more to more. The goal of this book is to try to unify different learning theories, teaching practices, change management techniques, and technologies to make education more effective, efficient, informative, and adaptive to the needs of our rapidly changing world.

 

School of the Air

Image by RBerteig via Flickr

While you can’t deny that schools are adopting software tools, many times those tools are primarily reinforcing the traditional ways of teaching and assessing. The software that students are using outside of school, and are informally, non-formally, or serendipitously learning from, are more attuned to what most of us regard as 21st century skills. Additionally, what is often considered new technology by adult teachers and educators is regarded as the norm (at best) and outdated (at worst) by many students. For example, using PowerPoint slides may or may not be effective, but it certainly would not be considered as technologically savvy by high school or college students.

It’s ironic that now, when there are so many people interested in learning and going to school, we don’t know what a good education is. And it’s sad that, with all the resources and effort societies invest in education, and with all the capabilities of teachers and schools, our education systems do not do a better job preparing students for the demands of our interconnected, rapidly changing, 21st century world.

A lot of what we know, and need to know, is not formally taught or measured. Even though these acquired skills and knowledge are invisible or ignored by traditional measurement vehicles, they are very visible and valued real life. How are they acquired? How can technology help us teach them better?

The book explores the roots of what makes learning invisible:

  1. Technology: Because schools are not adapting the technologies that students are using, the technologies that students use to communicate, explore, amuse, and learn are invisible to formal education.
  2. Actions: Students are spending a lot more time on the computer in non-school environments, often doing much more advanced tasks, and these activities are invisible to formal education
  3. Knowledge: the skills and capacities acquired using informal learning are different from what are demanded in formal education, and so are invisible.
  4. Technical skills: besides the rudiments of learning commands and functions, many technical skills are learned while doing other things, for example when you want to create a video and post it to a social network. Because these skills are not being explicitly taught, they often become invisible to formal education.
  5. Assessment: many of the competencies learned outside of lectures, textbooks, and repetitive exercises are not tested, especially on high stakes assessments, so are invisible.
  6. Momentum: because the different parties in the educational system have so much vested in their existing methods, technologies, and practices, they do not or cannot devote the time or resources to looking at creative ways of change, or eliminating the practices that just do not make sense anymore. Thus, the lack of attention makes the possibility of change invisible.

What is often taught, assessed, and rewarded at schools is memorization and exactitude. But are these the traits that are most valuable in the real world? In fact, by penalizing errors, we are also hampering creativity and experimentation, two of the key skills most demanded in the world outside of school.

Our education system needs to better understand the technologies students are using, what students are doing with that technology, what they are learning, how to better understand how much students are learning and what they are capable of doing. All those interested in education should be doing this with a lens of teaching how to learn, not specifically in teaching specific skills, and with an understanding that learning doesn’t stop at graduation, learning has become a life-long process.

We are preparing students to live, and hopefully thrive, in a world we cannot even imagine today, so we need to redesign our education systems. Rethinking education has three parts, figuring out what we are doing that works, culling out what we are doing that isn’t working, and devising what to add or change.

Ivan Illich proposed, forty years ago, the idea that a good education system lets all who want to learn learn, it provides access to learning content at whatever moment people need it, it provides the means to teach for those who have knowledge and want to share it with others, and it does not dictate any pre-determined plan of studies, titles, or diplomas. How different from the education we offer today, but how close to where we need to end up!

Rethinking education is a job for all of us.

You can access the book (it is in Spanish) here. And you can watch Cristóbal Cobo present these ideas at a TED presentation (also in Spanish) here.

 

Related articles

The 2nd digital divide & the 2015 EU Digital Agenda:

After ten years of continuous effort to bring digital technologies to the classroom (particularly in the secondary and tertiary education levels) the European Commission has acknowledged in several policy assessments that the impact of these regional investments in technology have not been as effective as it was expected (pdf). From these evaluations arose the discussion that in addition to the public initiatives that encourage and promote the acquisition of technology, it is also compulsory to develop e-skills that enable the proficient use of the Internet and other similar technologies.

From an academic point of view there are several reliable studies to understand the “digital literacy” from a broader perspective. This means not only to focus on the development of certain specific abilities for the use of software but also being able to transit towards a strategic use of the knowledge and information through the ICT in a more holistic sense (360º). Even though this will demand to rethink certain strategies of the current educational policies in order to transform the ICT’s users into “e-skilled digital citizens” (see knowledge brokers) capable to face the challenge and take advantage of theknowledge-based society.

The EU Commission but also the EU industrial sector has highlighted the importance of adopting common initiatives to rethink the educational system in order to promote the development of XXI century skills in the coming generation of professionals (IDC Skills for Innovation Survey, pdf). This challenge is also known as the “second digital divide”. As it has been suggested, the reduction of this “divide” will demand a transversal, multidisciplinary and mid but also long term collaboration between the private and public sector. It is expected that the design of the 2015 EU Digital Agenda will be a supportive instrument to enhance these initiatives and strategies oriented to reduce this not-always-visible “second digital divide”.

Finally, it might be fair to say that the problem is not due to the technologies by itself, but because the lack creativity and innovativeness of how ICT has been integrated in the core educational activities.

Further information:
A second digital divide separates those with the competencies
and skills to benefit from computer use from those without” (OCDE [pdf] vía edutech).

Learning to Network and Networking to Learn

2010 - Book - Analyzing Social Media Networks with NodeXL Cover

If the comparison is allowed, the way how the Systems theory became a macro paradigm to study complex structures during the first decades of the last century, is similar to the importance acquired by the Network theory as a perspective to study the current society.

In those years the Systems theory provided a trans-disciplinary approach to understand systems as a set of self-regulating and interacting parts, independent of their substance, type, spatial or temporal scale of existence.

It is well known that an accurate and detailed description of principles that explain the functioning of the systems was provided by Bertalanffy’s in his publication: General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications (1968). One of his main contributions was the emphasis on a more holistic approach to knowledge but also the creation of an area of study knows as the science of systems (source).

As it can be seen above, there is an increasing interest in studying and understanding the structures of networks. It is noteworthy to see how relevant this analytical perspective has become, particularly in the last decades. It may be too early to know how the current century will be remembered, but we guess that networks will have an important place in the picture of the XXI century.

For instance, today we can find a wide adoption of the networks*, in areas such as : biological-*, artistic-*, satellite-*, political-*, innovative*-, knowledge*-, computing*-, entrepreneurial-* and, of course, social-*.  Podolny and Page (1998: 3) wrote: “From a structural perspective, every form of organization is a network”. An outstanding example of that can be found at You Tube EDU, where Castells can be found describing Networks theory “if not a common ground at least an interdisciplinary conversation… as a common language, a common approach toward the understanding of nature and society “.


Here we offer some questions and ideas (quotes from various fields) about this widely adopted network-centered perspective:

What are the advantages of the network perspective?

Networks are, however, a very old form of social organization. But throughout history, net- works had major advantages and a major problem. Their advantages are flexibility and adaptability, characteristics essential for managing tasks in a world as volatile and mutable as ours. The problem was the embedded inability of networks to manage complexity beyond a critical size”. (Castells, 2000 p.695)

How networks evolve?

A network is a set of interconnected nodes. Networks are flexible, adaptive structures that, powered by information technology, can perform any task that has been programmed in the network. They can expand indefinitely, incorporating any new node by simply reconfiguring themselves, on the condition that these new nodes do not represent an obstacle to fulfilling key instructions in their program“. (Castells, 2000 p.695)

What is the importance of networks?

The emergence of interactive information networks as the backbone of social structure makes even more acute the need to take up the greatest methodological challenge for empirical research in sociology“. (Castells, 2000 p.698)

What do you understand by networking?

Networking is a broad concept referring to a form of organized transacting that offers an alternative to either markets or hierarchies. It refers to transactions across an organization’s boundaries that are recurrent and involve continuing relationships with a set of partners. The transactions are coordinated and controlled on a mutually agreed basis that is likely to require common protocols and systems, but do not necessarily require direct supervision by the organization’s own staff”. (Child, 2005:15)

We define a network form of organization as any collection of actors (N> 2) that pursue repeated, enduring exchange relations with one another and, at the same time, lack a legitimate organizational authority to arbitrate and resolve disputes that may arise during the exchange”. (Podolny and Page, 1998:3)

How Does a Network Work?

A network is a set of interconnected nodes. Nodes may be of varying relevance to the network, and so particularly important nodes are called “centres” in some versions of network theory. Still, any component of a network (including “centres”) is a node and its function and meaning depend on the programs of the node and its interactions with other nodes in the network. Node increases their importance for the network by absorbing more relevant information, and processing it more efficiently. The relative importance of a node does not stem from its specific features but from its ability to contribute to the network’s effectiveness in achieving its goals, as defined by the value and interest programmed into the networks. However, all nodes of a network are necessary for the network’s performance, although networks allow for some redundancy as a safeguard for their proper functioning. When nodes become unnecessary for the fulfilment of the networks’ goal, network tend to reconfigure themselves, deleting some nodes, and adding new ones. Nodes only exist and function as components of networks. The network is the unit, not the node“. (Castells, 2004. p.20)

Could you describe the network structure?

Thus, networks are complex structures of communications constructed around a set of goals that simultaneously ensure unity of purpose and flexibility of execution by their adaptability to the operating environment. They are programmed and self-configurable at the same time. Their goals and operating procedures are programmed, in social and organizational networks, by social actors. Their structure evolves according to the capacity of the network to self-configure in an endless search for more efficient networking arrangement“. (Castells, 2004. p.21)

Also in the reading was mention of three major features of a network:
Flexibility: reconfiguring to changing environments
Scalability: Expanding or shrinking with little disruption
Survivability: resisting attacks on the nodes

It is fair to say that also some isomorphic structures can be found between the system and network perspectives. One of the most relevant similarities for the research that we are developing now is the proximity between “adaptive system” and “learning networks” as open structures:

Adaptive System:

A system that can change itself in response to changes in its environment in such a way that its performance improves through a continuing interaction with its surroundings” (systems engineering).

“…an autonomous process that uses the outcomes of those interactions to select a subset of those components for replication or enhancement” (Levin, 2003).

[The system needs]…to solve the problem adaptively by dynamically accumulating information about the problem at hand and using this information to generate an acceptable solution” (De Jong, 1980: 566)

Networks that learn:

Network forms allow participating firms to learn new skills or acquire knowledge, gain legitimacy, improve economic performance and manage resource dependencies [...] The ability to operate in a network form of organization is a skill or capability that must be learned”. (Podolny and Page, 1998)

They [network or organizations] can encourage learning by promoting the rapid transfer of self-contained pieces of information [...] This understanding of learning through networks is quite consistent with some of the early network research on information transfer”. (Podolny and Page, 1998)

This conceptual proximity could be very illustrative for this analysis. If we combine both approaches, we may comprehend the “learning practice” (networks) as an “adaptive process” (systems). At the same time the capability to be  “adaptable” (systems) is also a signal of “learning” (networks). In other words, either systems or networks are “living” structures which are continuously being transformed in order to evolve (or survive).

Another possible approach to understand the closeness between the Network and the System theories is framing the network as a system itself, but I’m not sure that those who promote the Network theory as the main paradigm will be pleased with that idea.

There are still some questions to be answered about the Network theory and its relevance:

- How long for the social network bubble to burst?
- Are the networks being used just as metaphor or as a macro theory?
- Is the Network theory an opportunity for interdisciplinary studies?
- How this theory should evolve in the future?

To better understand the links between networks and systems we recommend to download the presentation: “Network in System Architecture“, pdf (develop by Daniel E. Whitney, 2006. Published at the MIT OpenCourseWare).

Disclaimer: The title of this post was borrowed from: Stubbs, M., and M. Lemon. (2001). “Learning to Network and Networking to Learn: Facilitating the Process of Adaptive Managementin a Local Response to the UK’s National AirQuality Strategy.” Environmental management 27(3): 321–334.

Sources:

  • Castells, M. (2000). “Toward a sociology of the network society.” Contemporary Sociology: 693–699.
  • Castells, M. (2004). Communication power. Oxford . Oxford University Press.
  • Child, J. (2005) Organization. Contemporary Principles and Practice. Blackwell Publishing.
  • De Jong, K. (1980). “Adaptive system design: a genetic approach.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 10(9): 566–574.
  • Levin, S. A. (2003). “Complex adaptive systems: Exploring the known, the unknown and the unknowable.” Bulletin-American Mathematical Society 40(1): 3–20.
  • Podolny, J. M, and K. L Page. (1998). “Network forms of organization.” Annual review of sociology 24(1): 57–76.