When is a learner not a learner?

Being in the 'learning' world I'm probably as guilty as the next for referring to people as learners, but it's time to set the record straight; learners is a misnomer at best and a wildly inaccurate term we really should stop using.

Firstly there's the theory of pervasive learning much like I shared in my last post (The Accidental Learner) if learning is something that's pervasive or ever present then being a learner is a given, we can easily replace learner with person and we're sorted.  Learners are just people and not a special type just because we label them as such.  If we have a course with people enrolled we tend to call them learners, but actually they're just people on the course, call them students if you will as that's a far more accurate term if we must further define someone on the course.  Call them participants if you must, but learners is a little misleading...

Secondly just because we get people to our learning material that does not guarantee that the desired learning has taken place. Yes yes, I know you're thinking learning objectives and valid testing will do this, but I'm not so sure it does at all.  The vast majority of summative testing is knowledge based (by now you may know of my opinions of knowledge http://nigelkineo.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/knowledge-is-overrated.html) and so we're often testing recall which is not the same as really learning something.  But even testing based on higher levels of taxonomy like synthesis is relative.  The testing takes place, achievement verified, but unless there's an ongoing way of measuring what's occurred, what's been learned for the test may not be 'retained'.  Learning is shaping rather than a discrete and measurable event and we're all learners if you will.

'Learners' with bad attitude are not learning (or at least not learning what we want them to learn).  If a learner with a bad attitude takes part in an activity, chances are they won't get the desired learnings from it.  If someone has an open and positive attitude and takes part in any activity (even one they're not scheduled for) the chances are they will get something from it.

Okay, the crux of the problem is not really the definition of learners but the definition of learning itself.  What is learning materials after all?  We expose people to resources and activities and they complete (or not) those.  A lot of what we do is training, some is education and teaching, a bit of instruction but calling it learning is dependent not on the teacher/trainer/instructor but the 'learner'.  We've become a bit PC with our definitions so we (self-included) tend to lazily opt for learning as a cover all.  If what we do is broadly 'learning' then what people taking part are is broadly 'learners' - but we should recognise that it's lazy, it's an approximation and often wrong. 

But all of that's okay actually.  I can live with learning and learners in their broadest sense, but what really drives me loopy is when we try and sub-categorise that to the nth degree. If we recognise and live with learning and learners as a broad term cool, but if we then invent new categories; self-directed learners, lifelong learners or even competent autonomous lifelong learners (for real today this was used in #pkmchat) to add accuracy to our inaccuracy it becomes silly.  It's like measuring a big distance with a 30cm ruler and then giving the answer to 4 decimal places.  The 'accuracy' is both misleading and... err.. inaccurate.

So people, learn and live, if you must call yourself learners do so (for what else would you be... breathers?) but don't define what type of learner you are beyond that, just recognise that alone is enough of an approximation.

Disagree? Cool, let me know... 

The Accidental Learner - Shaping by Life

I always enjoy #pkmchat although I think it's ironic that one of my favourite chats is one where they use one of the words I have the biggest issues with in the learning world; that word is knowledge (pkm is personal knowledge management - a concept I chuckle at too truth be told). It was a funny discussion today listening to really intelligent people trying to work out what they intentionally 'forget' in order to get over the capacity issues of our brains.  What a daft concept when you think about it. Consciously trying to forget things to preserve 'memory' space.  The problem though, as I have regularly mentioned in the past, is that firstly knowledge isn't a thing, much less a simply quantifiable thing of set storage size.

I used the word 'shaping' today to talk about what knowledge effectively does.  Knowledge is an entirely relative thing; it's not something that's fixed and can be stored in the same way we store a physical thing like a CD or even data like an mp3. What knowledge actually is really only noticeable by its effects rather than the 'thing' itself.  If the analogy we were using above with music was extended, it would be like saying that the knowledge is the experience of listening to the music rather than the music itself. Maybe think of it as a live music event.  You can record and playback the event but it's not the same as the experience that you would have if you were there.  Furthermore the experience you would have when you were there would be different to somebody else and you can't bottle up that experience no matter how high the fidelity. Memory plays a part and listening to the same song streaming 10 years later will bring some of those feelings back, but again what has happened to you since will have an effect on that, your experience has been shaped by what you started with and what other things have happened to you on the way.

Forget knowledge, start thinking of learning.  Learning is the shaping process of our life; a combination of experience, knowledge (if I must), emotion, DNA and relationships.  We often use the analogy of a pool of knowledge, we need to replace that idea with a stream of learning.  The important thing is to not to try and catch the water because it's not the water that holds the value but the flow itself.  Nick (@technkl) today said we were the rock in the stream and I think there's some value in that.  We're not there to capture the water but to be shaped by it as it flows over and through us.  We can seek different streams but the thing that will make the biggest difference to us is the effect that stream has on us.  In other words if you want to change the shape, then you can only really change the rock.  What I mean by this is that it's your attitude that shapes the way you learn, far more than the stream you happen to be in.

One challenge I did get was that my way of seeing learning as a shaping brought upon by a number of factors was just what you might categorise as 'life'.  Well I can't disagree, many times you'll hear me say that learning is pervasive and you really can't separate learning from living as they are intertwined at the very least.  Just like our rock in the stream, life will happen, it's our attitude and the way we chose to act that shapes our learning and indeed ourselves.

So why the accidental learner? Well, the big thing is that whilst we may pick and choose the odd stream of learning we dive in to most of the time we're just living and if learning seems accidental that's no major surprise.  Again though, how we approach life and the things that happen to us will determine how much we learn and in turn what we get out of life along the way.

Enterprise systems and other prehistoric beasts

There's something quite impressive about the word enterprise. In it's literal (and noun) form we're talking about a whole of business or whole of organisation type event. Surely in the interest of working together and collaboration we should be aspiring for everything we do and all the systems we use to be 'enterprise'? Unfortunately there's also something of a dark side to enterprise systems; they tend to be big immovable beasts and in an era of technological acceleration that has some serious downside.  Let's look at what makes enterprise systems the 'wrong' choice for lots of organisations:

1) $$$$$$
If you invest thousands, tens of thousands and more in to your system it costs you in more ways than the simple financial way.  It's like joining a club and feeling like you have to go to get your money's worth. That's even worse if you've signed up to something that has you paying for the next 3 years.

2) Removal of Competition
There's a reason why laws exist to prevent monopolies being established and if you take on an enterprise system and immediately rule out all other competitors forever more you've just created one. That lock-in type approach means that you don't even bother looking at what else is going on and what new and innovative things are available and you end up being chained to your enterprise solution.

3) Customisations 
If you're the type of organisation that likes flexibility and a customised service then going down an enterprise route is a real rabbit hole. You make a solution to fit your needs at the time of implementation rather than looking closely at your own systems and methodologies and continuing to look for improvements there. In the long-term you end up with a beast that costs enormous amounts to upgrade and usually ends up growing more and more out of date.

4) We're a XYZ organisation
If you use this expression with words like Microsoft or Adobe then welcome to the world of vendor lock-in and inflexibility. Don't get me wrong, I regularly use products from both, but if your organisation is locked-in to a system then you are really limiting your ability to look at other technologies out there. If your IT dept uses the 'we're a XYZ organisation' type phrase then you want to avoid piling on another heavy system that limits your options. In fact if your IT department makes your system decisions then definitely steer away from making another decision which will dictate the options forever more.

5) We host our own systems in-house
The issues with in-house systems are many and varied. Firstly just because you can host something yourself doesn't mean you should or that you are able to at a high enough service to meet the demands of users.  Secondly you tend to be limited by the technologies you know (eg Linux or Windows based), thirdly you invest heavily into something you take care of yourself and are therefore more likely to resist moving away from it, there's the issues of accessibility, connecting systems etc etc etc. For me the most important thing though is the inefficiency of it. Sure hosting yourself can be cheaper if you're geared up for it, but the purchase and maintenance of the hardware to match the services you would get from a SaaS or Cloud provider often make it much more expensive. It also tends to push you towards an all-in-one solution, more on that next.

6) Firing the silver bullet
If you're looking for the one system that does everything to solve your problems as an organisation then welcome to the silver bullet solution trap. Let me let you into a secret; the silver bullet does not exist and if you buy one it's likely more akin to a white elephant than a silver bullet. All-in-one systems are generally about as useful as all-in-one outfits and the system you end up with is often not quite what you had in mind.  Even if it's an amazing solution for now, your needs will change and will the one system be able to change all its facets to meet your demands moving forwards. Just because you bought system A from a provider doesn't mean system B from the same provider will work as well for you or talk to A any better than someone else's system. 

In final my advice is to look and always look about what's coming and what you can leverage. Once upon a time all these tools were expensive and vendors tried desperately hard to lock you in so they could keep your custom. Nowadays there's a proliferation of SaaS and Cloud solutions that are available at a fraction of the fees to put an enterprise system in place so why limit yourself too quickly.

Of course I could be completely wrong - reply if you think so!

Circles, Groups, Networks, PLN and the value of independent thought

I've started and stopped this blog a few times which is most unlike me and goes against my general theory of blurting it out.  Point is though it's a very touchy subject for lots of people.  I'm really keen on lots of great initiatives like working out loud (WOL) and the power of building relationships and working with others whether in a personal learning network (PLN) or community of practice (COP) or whatever else buzzes along.  

In the true nature of my collaborative blog I'm going to pause here... come back to where I was going with it and add some more... I'm going to get to the points about some big issues in the week such as the horrific attacks in Paris and some of our reactions to that too and how they can be related to all of the above... in the meant time feel free to add comments as I build this up... apologies if you were expecting a completed blog right off the bat... here's what I started writing last week on a sort of linked subject that just didn't flow right:

"Lots has been made of Personal Learning Networks or PLNs in the age of Twitter - but do they really work and produce learning or are they just another buzz in the world of social media?  PLNs build on the idea of connecting people together; social learning rather than learning in isolation if you will. Thing is that whilst this sounds great, the forming of networks can feel really artificial at times - there are people it seems that make a perpetual living on the 'conference circuit' and it seems more business development orientated than based in learning. This leads me to the question when is a PLN about anything and everything but learning?

Connections are 'collected' as notches on the belt
How many friends do you have on Facebook and how many of them are really your friends? How many times have you done a 'cull' on the friends that aren't really? How many newsfeeds on social media have you muted as the person doesn't say anything that you have any great interest in?  Twitter, FB etc allow us to build a large network and build it quickly, but if you're just a notch on someone else's belt then what actual value does that present to you?  Thing is that a network is just like 'real' friends in that it takes work to make it effective, you need to interact and do it regularly if you're really going to get the most out of it.  Social media is full of people who collect connections but don't really value them at all.

Connections are one-way streets
This is similar to the one above but rather than a volume of connections, the danger is the usefulness of them. Are you simply using connections to get something out or others without contributing yourself? There are certainly lots of people doing exactly this

When it's about patting each other's backs"

So, more to come...

Education needs to be about learning, not about teaching

As usual the blog post is in the air and, not that unusually so am I as I write this. Maybe it’s because I’m getting older and maybe it’s because I’m back working in and around education but I have noticed a drift in the last few months towards a more philosophical me when it comes to blogging - I’m as passionate as ever about learning, but sometimes it seems that the things we face in the learning world are actually issues stretching beyond learning.  Of course, it may be that actually the converse is true and it’s learning that stretches beyond what we normally associate with learning - it certainly goes well beyond education and that’s something really important to remember :)

Anyway, enough of the preamble.  On my way to the nation’s capital (Wellington aye) and I’ve come up with a plan to change the face of education.  Now education is inherently full of very smart people, but it still seems grounded in the ideas of a teacher and students - smart people and those wishing to learn; those with the knowledge and those needing it.  Bunkum.  That model of learning is gone gone gone and needs to stay gone.  Learning is a journey that gets shaped by those around us.  Think about your own school days and what you learnt whilst you were there.  Now answer this; did you learn everything you needed directly from your teachers?  Or further, did they teach you everything about life?  About bulling?  About how society works?  About popularity?  About love?  About what success was and what it wasn’t?  How much of your subject-based education do you really use now?

Truth is, we desperately need to change our model of trying to teach or educate people in the way we’ve been doing.  Now I’m in adult education and not the education of children, but I have to say in so many ways teaching children seems to be ahead of teaching adults.  Take the environments.  A university has lecture theatres where masses sit patiently (and some even attentively) to the master, a polytechnic or college has a hybrid of lectures and classrooms (even to this day predominantly with desks facing the ‘front’), secondary schools tend to be more grouped and primary education has bright inspiring colours, small groups and a range of different activities going on.  Now we can convince ourselves that it’s about making it interesting for young children and that they have short attention spans and like lots of stimulus, but I find it hard to distinguish that from most adults, self included.  Furthermore a primary school teacher takes the lead across all the subjects a young student studies.  The school of thought (if you’ll excuse the pun) is that this is because they don’t need to be a very deep area in any one subject to be able to teach a wide-range of subjects at a low level; but actually again this model has some massive advantages when we start to apply it in the modern learning world.  Firstly they really know the children in their class and, as a consequence, the children become more attached to their teacher too.  The primary teacher naturally forms more of a guide bond than a subject matter expert - the children are learning so many things and the teacher is their trusted guide as they discover.

Let’s take primary principles and apply to higher education.  Is that my idea?  Yes and no.  I do think there’s lots to learn from the environment in particular, but also the guide and journey type model, but I think we need to recognise that adults do require some different stimuli to children.  No, my idea definitely involves those ‘modern learning environments’ that stimulate learning; they should have and project a kind of energy (yes, colourful, appealing, interesting), allow for group works of different size and shape, supported by technology; multi-user multi-display type screens all over the place (not just one big one at the front), very high quality ultra-fast wireless internet and soft furnishings (this one’s about noise).  But the environment of a successful learning place is not just about the physical environment, it’s also about the people.  Let’s remove all the teachers.  Let’s stop teaching altogether.  Let’s start learning, just at different levels.

The Un-university - and since un-un means we drop the un, I give you the Versity.  The versity (my computer wants to make that veracity!) doesn’t have a single teacher or lecturer in it.  It’s a fantastic environment for learning where people learn at a variety of levels they chose and beyond the services infrastructure (those who support the learning environment) it doesn’t have any academic staff.  The staff that are there are absolutely not teachers.  They are either studying and continuing to learn themselves, or they are there to maintain and improve the environment.  Sounds like chaos eh?  A whole bunch of students rock up one day in this big learning area (let’s call it a learning commons as that’s one of the buzz-words around today) and try and sort out what they’re going to study and how.  Who’s in charge?  Who sorts out the curriculum?  Which qualifications are they working towards? What can they possibly get out of it?

Daft idea you say, but who’s ever been to an un-conference?  Why would a bunch of industry professionals get together in one big room without an agenda or speakers?  But if any of you have been to one, you’ll know that the likely learning in an un-conference is far higher than what you learn by watching one or two good keynotes and some other (and often rather poor) presentations.  In fact when I attend conferences, I enjoy the back-channels and the discussions that others have about what they’ve seen and experienced far more than the presentations (I’ve been known to skip a fair few of these too).  The versity and the unconference have their learning roots from the same place - it’s social learning; the ability to learn from others that we choose rather than those that are forced upon us.

Let’s take social learning to that extra level.  In the learning technology world, Twitter is recognised as the leading tool for learning, yet there are no teachers on Twitter (yes yes, I know some people on Twitter also happen to be teachers, but you know what I mean, there are no ‘classes’).  All Twitter does is connect people and get out of the way.  The versity is the same.

The devil will be in the detail I’m sure, you’ll need advisors (hey that’s my team!) that you go to (not that tell you what you can and can’t study, but that can show you benefits and pathways that you choose), you’ll need to work out a financial model - how to pay for using the facilities (or not), how to pay for qualifications and I’m sure another one of those smarter than me people can work that out.  Essentially think of the versity as the mind gym.  You pay your gym fees to be able to use the facility.  If you want a specific ‘grading’ then there’s a fee for it.  If you want a personal trainer you can hire one, but you could just organise a group session yourself if that worked for you - bring your friends.  Great thing would be that we could radically reduce fees for students this way and potentially bring adult learning back to the masses too.

So there it is, the daftest idea to reform education you ever heard of… or maybe just the next logical step.  Throw me your opinion, tell me I’m wrong or that I’m just misunderstood :) 

Learning Technology Influencers and Contributors

I've got some homework from my Working Out Loud (WOL) circle this week around people I admire and why.  In doing this exercise it's made me think a little about what we do and how for many people making their mark on the world - being famous maybe or inventing something or being a 'thought leader' or any of those modern phrases that means people regard you as a top expert in your field.  I've often tried to be this myself, but is this the way to have the biggest effect on learning (let alone life)? Are we almost trying to hard?

I'll get back to that. For now let me talk about who has been part of my learning and why.

It started with my parents who, like most of you I suspect, shaped my early learning and continue to shape my life to this day.  My parents were the biggest influence in my formative years of course - very strong moral background and that's had a profound effect on me and my life. If I'm honest I don't see the world in the same black and white way; but without that early influence I don't know if I would have had the same perspectives or abilities to see things so differently.

My family now are really key to my thinking and the one I admire the most is my wife Kim. The biggest thing Kim has taught me and helped me to improve is empathy and how to really take on how other people feel and I've used this more and more over the last few years. I really admire how she seamlessly switches to someone else's perspective and is able to use that to adjust her behaviours - if I could be half as good at that as her I'd be doing fantastic.

Professionally my biggest influencer was my old head of department when I first started teaching - a gentleman by the name of Paul Unstead who was a giant among men (even though he wasn't that tall). Just an amazing leadership style that empowered, showed courage and empathy as well as someone you could truly look up to. Paul was my mentor through until he died a few years back and I've not filled that role and I'm not sure I ever will...

There are people that don't have to have such a big impact as those above but whom I admire nonetheless.  I'm a free-thinker (or at least that's how I like to think of myself and what I aspire to be) so I like those that challenge what they see and don't just repeat on what others have said without questioning or looking deeper in to it. In this space I love the work that Richard Branson does. I don't know him on any level beyond his public persona, but someone committed to shaking up a lot of pre-conceptions and one of the very few 'famous' people I follow.

My learning influencers tend to come from the learning technologies world; I see a few faces on Twitter and the rounds that I like because of their perspectives and the shape they have on mine.  These include Nick Leffler who has a nicely warped sense of humour and a fun style, Helen Blunden who is razor sharp with a great skill set but again very human, Michelle Ockers who always questions and again has great knowledge, Ryan Tracey who has a wealth of knowledge but great intellectual humility and always willing to listen to a different (yes, often mine) perspective, Con Sotidis because he understands it's about people first and foremost, and Bruno Winck who I frequently and very amiably disagree with but again likes a different perspective. That's not the end of the list, in fact I could go on and on and throw out my lists on Twitter with some other key people I admire, but it's a good start. If you search and follow these people on Twitter you'll be better off for it and I'm sorry for the others I should have mentioned!

So that's my homework, but it takes me back to my original thought. Everyone knows who first came up with the idea of gravity.  We know where the origin of quantum mechanics came from and who invented flight and even the computer. Once upon a time it seemed that this was reaching the pinnacle; to be the recognised inventor or creator; but I think in the age of social media and learning this concept is becoming less and less likely. Who invented the internet? Who made the leap from web to web 2.0? 3.0? It won't be one people, it will be a collective so it's key that to move things forward in the future we can't and won't be out there on our own taking forward the next generation of ideas.  We'll do it together... and if that's not cool, I don't know what is.

Will Twitter continue to be the number one learning tool?

I probably blew the punchline with the title, but if you didn't know it already Twitter is rated the number one tool for learning every year and 2015 is no different.  Jane Hart compiles this list for the Centre for Learning Performance Technologies in the UK based on worldwide research http://c4lpt.co.uk/top100tools/.  This is great for us in the modern learning world as Twitter is clearly a tool that puts the individual at the heart and control of their own learning.  Given the history of dominance of Twitter, why question its position at the top of the charts?

1 - Twitter is considering becoming less micro.  If you haven't heard one thing that the gurus of the system are considering is upping the 140 characters that currently limit and effectively define micro-blogging.  There are talks of somewhere between another 10 characters (hardly a monumental shift and unlikely to largely change the world) and a complete re-think ending up with media-rich unlimited characters.  Now sure there's ways around this now and you could argue that more space creates huge opportunities... but then does Twitter just become Linked-In or suddenly a Facebook rival rather than complimentary service?  What's more risky is that it becomes an even greater marketing opportunity.  The great thing about 140 characters is that anything more has to be a link and as an individual I get to choose if I click, follow through or go back through the chain.  An unlimited Twitter to me flips the learning model back to a 'teacher' led drive with more pushing of content and less pull.  It could be a game changer with a huge negative step for learning.

2 - Video is on the rise.  But is it?  If you're observant you'll have noticed that the number two learning tool on the list is You Tube.  That follows if you think about it, if you need anything beyond a short sharp hit or links that Twitter offers you tend to have the option of a media-rich alternative in You Tube.  The thing I like best is that the two have a nice handoff at the moment so you can get informed on Twitter and the links take you to further media - great for self-directed learning.  Twitter launched Periscope earlier this year as a streaming service from Twitter.  But actually the service is a compliment like You Tube rather than direct competition.

3 - Multimedia synchronous interactive tools are going to take over.  I'm not convinced of this one either, but there may be a market share of Twitter users that drift to Blab and the like where they talk and share video rather than type.  Whilst I agree there's a need for the video conferencing type tools both in business and education, there's a beauty in the simplicity of Twitter that keeps it number one.  I love being in a Twitter chat and having the option to surf the net, research and tune in and out as the chat progresses - even forming sub-chats and following some interesting rabbit holes, these are things that are difficult to do in a video conference.  I very much see Twitter in the same vein as tools like SMS or text-messaging - they have their place and although the technology may not be new, it works and for now there's nothing better in the simplicity stakes.

4 - Something new.  There you have it, looking deep into my crystal ball I can conclude that there may be something new coming that will upend the king of learning in the social world. Of course I have no idea what it is or anything about it, but I think there's always space for an innovation that kills off the supreme being (think dinosaurs and video recorders).  What I think may be the new wave is a new input device and I think it may be something to do with wearable technology and our slant towards being on the move.  What if you could 'think' to type or communicate a full type vocabulary without speaking or needing a keyboard.  Not sure, I maybe spinning off here a little, but there will be a new challenger and time will tell if it has what it takes to take the title.

In the meantime Twitter is still an awesome tool for learning so tweet on.  For those wondering Google holds the three and four spot and even a Microsoft product rocks in at 5 - although we may need to re-define learning if we have to resort to Powerpoint to save us :)