Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘fred garnett’

UNESCO – REPONSE – April 2021

What is your view on the coherence of the arguments presented in the Commission’s Progress Update Document? – Q1

A. The Update Document provides a coherent analysis of many of the issues facing the planet in the period between now and 2050 along with a view on the tasks of education as an entity in this period, but we feel that there is insufficient attention to the nature of educational systems as systems and what how those systems are governed by the politics and ethos of those interests that are active in fraying both democracy and civil/public life (p5).

We are particularly interested in learner agency and would endorse the following “The inter‐generational conversation that is education” (p 6), but would wish to see an acknowledgement and acceptance of the co-creation of learning and knowledge through, what we describe as “architectures of participation” as moving beyond conversation to engagement and action. Our exploration of those issues raised in the Update Document concurs with the idea of “the publicness of education” p6 and the need to implement and explore the following “A world where education is a common good is a place where bottom‐up, local initiatives blossom and self‐organized governance can also succeed on a large scale. When framed in this manner, educational projects and institutions need to be governed collectively in a public manner ………” (p6)

In the definition of “commoning”, it occurs to us that there are examples of such approaches already adopted that could be noted and illustrated in the final report to bring the following alive. “The action of “commoning” refers to building together—the acts of negotiation, communication, mutual support, and cooperation that further common interests and common projects. In education, commoning can be thought of in terms of the co‐construction of knowledge and pedagogical modes that foreground the relational and collective aspects of teaching and learning. What is achieved through commoning is provisional, fragile and contains disagreement and difference. But we achieve more together than we can apart.” (p7)

We are concerned to see phrases such as “a quality education for all” (p7) appearing in the text, as the word “quality” has been abused and debased by its use in managerialist and audit literatures and we feel it would be better to use phrases such as “meeting the needs of learners and their local contexts” and text further emphasising engagement and action in community and public settings and co-creation in learning.

References to lifelong learning (e.g. p8) are welcome, but these are not developed and there are no references to non-formal and informal learning opportunities that are going to be needed as mechanisms to expand access to learning opportunities beyond those currently offered within the vast majority of existing education systems.

The caution demonstrated in the text, in relation to “Digital, biotechnology and neuroscience developments” (p8) is a positive response to the current valorisation and/or fatalism regarding the outlook for humanity in the context of these developments. We would argue for a more strongly sceptical view to be taken about the marketing of developments in these areas and for the promotion and development of these technologies in a context governed by the active engagement of users and those affected by the use of these technologies in conceptualising future uses and their active governance of any such uses.

We are concerned that examples given of change in education foregrounds the “digitalization” of education rather than focusing on how digital technologies can be used to support, sustain and implement the active vision of education promoted and proposed in the document. How digital technologies are used by learners and practitioners for learning is a far more important topic than the use of digital technologies to control and monopolise content delivery e.g. in MOOCs and we argue against the inevitability of such developments and for more positive outlooks based on practice and engagement rather than marketing or disembodied research. A detailed discussion of “the hybrid school” p8 concept will bring out some of the issues outlined here, but current ideas of hybrid schools seem to us to be “e-enabled” rather than transformative, but a wider discussion is needed.

The use of the term “transformative disruptions” (p9) again seems to imply that the effects of technological changes are inevitable and pre-ordained by the developers of new digital technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and to accept the “hype” surrounding these technologies and the use of the term “disruption” itself implies an acceptance of the promotion of this term, in recent years, by leading representatives of, what has been described, as “surveillance capitalism” Zuboff (2019) or Silicon Valley, as a series of corporate entities! Later in the document, reference is made to “these emergent transformations” (p 10) although we would dispute that such predicted transformations are emergent and that any response to these transformations should be held back until emergent properties can be identified

Nigel Ecclesfield

What elements need further attention, development or are missing?

Intellectual decolonization and epistemic diversity.

We are particularly pleased that you have included “Intellectual decolonization and epistemic diversity” as a key dimension of Heutagogy, as delineated in the PAH Continuum, is epistemic cognition. However we are surprised that you have made no reference to our submission on Heutagogy and have gone for the more narrow, new and untested concept of pedagogical commoning which is an intellectual aspiration with little extant practice, unlike Heutagogy. As heutagogy is about building education around “self-determined learning” it allows for intellectual decolonization whilst promoting diverse epistemic approaches to learning. We think addressing the points we have made in our submission and elaborated further here, will help developed this further. 

Since we published the PAH Continuum in the Open Context Model of Learning (2010) we have seen this work adopted in New Zealand (Thom Cochrane), Uganda (Bernard Nkuyubatswi) and India (Vijaya Bhanu Kote) through the process of “localisation” – taking the framing concepts and applying them locally by, respectively, a) developing digital practice in university learning b) providing resources for inclusive learning c) creating self-determined learners in primary school, by working with children and parents together.

The PAH Continuum is part of the Open Context Model of Learning which has been published as; Learner-Generated Contexts: A Framework to Support the Effective Use of Technology for Learning and has been cited 180 times. It is available online here;

The idea behind the “Learner-Generated Contexts” concept is that post Web 2.0 the affordances of the new digital tools now allow for learners to design the contexts in which they learn. However teachers and educational institutions have not yet developed the skill set to support this process of self-determined learning and we are trying to build such tools. The Open Context Model of Learning takes ideas made extant in UNESCO’s OER ideas, as developed and clarified in the Paris 2012 declaration, and add in the dimension of an “open pedagogy” to the idea of “open resources“.

We can see that because our submission used the heutagogic concept of a “curated conversation” that we have developed ourselves in order to be more intellectually inclusive you might have overlooked our submission in favour of traditional research papers, such as the one submitted on pedagogical commoning.

We have included here an excerpt from Hase and Blashke’s 2015 work on heutagogy as the “pedagogy of agency” designed to enable Intellectual decolonization by promoting epistemic diversity.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Is Heutagogy the Future of Education?

In Wired for Culture Mark Pagel points out that

 “Modern humans seem, uniquely among animals, capable of something that psychologists and anthropologists call cultural or social learning”.

Homo Sapiens rise to civilisation was based on this capability for learning but, on the many occasions that we have tried to design an education system for our species, we have invariably failed to improve on our original ability to learn socially. In Plato’s Academy 2500 years ago Socrates was already warning that the new-fangled invention of writing with symbolic language would result in something poorer than existing oral culture. We were about to become mediated by tools less flexible than our face-to-face conversational framework.

Socrates was talking during the first axial age when the settlement-based civilisations of the northern hemisphere of planet Earth switched to an underpinning metaphor of life that was based on a materialist creator God, because we were building cultures out of the crude raw materials we extracted from nature.

Universities, whether Arabic or Western, were originally built around sharing the ideas captured in the books that Socrates had warned about writing in the first place. Universities were originally built on the principle of disseminating this new monotheism (the only basis on which a Royal Charter would be granted in the UK) and when Paris and Bologna spotted that self-organised “communities of scholars” were visiting their cities with money to spend they incorporated universities in order to benefit from the cash spend of scholars; nothing new there then. Universities were built in order to take money off scholars whilst drilling them to think in a singular fashion based on a “learning by rote” copying down of rare and selected texts.

Fortunately the medieval university evolved the Liberal Arts model of Education which, at Bachelors level, involved the development of multiple skills of expression (music, rhetoric, grammar, etc) and only at Masters level was subject mastery (hence the name) the basis of education. This was eventually replace by the integrated Prussian model of a “nation-building” education during the nineteenth-century when the nation-state became fashionable as did national languages, a national curriculum and standardisation of all things.

The 7 Liberal Arts; Grammar Rhetoric Logic (Dialectic) Music Geometry Mathematics Astronomy

When, in 1970 as a school leaver, I came to choose between going to an English University, where the purpose of studying was driven by the Oxbridge model of training colonial administrators who could run the British Empire, or going to a Polytechnic to gain the skills necessary to maintain the factories of the Industrial Revolution, I was completely bemused. The British Empire had effectively collapsed in 1956 (Suez crisis) whilst British industry had been in terminal decline after Bretton Woods (1946) which ensured the loss of the closed markets that the Empire had previously guaranteed. I chose instead to enter the cultural industries (popular music) that the creative working class had spontaneously created during the 1960s using the tools made available by the Analogue Revolution. With the exception of some Art Colleges, usually seen as places for school children who had failed in the examinations of the formal education system, as John Lennon, Keith Richard Pete Townsend had (and in differing ways Mary Quant and Pauline Boty), there was no education available for the fastest-growing sector of the British Economy. Why? (more…)

Read Full Post »

World Heutagogy Day 2020

World Heutagogy Day on 23rd September is when we both celebrate the publication of the first book on heutagogy, Self-Determined Learning edited by Stewart Hase and Chris Kenyon, and also try to both extend our understanding of heutagogy and identify new practices. The slideshare “What is Heutagogy” produced as a curated conversation by the authors of this collection of essays on the practice of heutagogy is a good introduction to heutagogy and reflects where we were with our understanding back in 2013.

Developing Heutagogy This year, because of the remarkable work of Vijaya Bhanu Kote a headteacher of a primary school in Andhara Pradesh India, we are focussing on “Heutagogy for Teachers” based on sharing her work in developing her school into a heutagogy school. This consists of more than just an abstract declaration that the school will practice heutagogy. It involves the very practical activity of training teachers in methods in which they can help their primary school children become what Vijaya calls “heutagogs” and producing a training guide. Remarkably Vijaya has involved the parents at her school who also become “heutagogs” and are involved helping their children become self-determined learners, or “heutagogs”. She has summarised her work in the following presentation.

Implementing Heutagogy for Teachers 

All teachers want their learners to do well; they want them to thrive, develop and grow. In the main their institutions get in the way of this ambition. Schools mistakenly measure success at the institutional level through examination results.  Educational “success” is quantified and measured in exam results, still based on what we call the content fallacy.

The content fallacy is the belief that education is entirely about the transfer of pre-defined subject knowledge from the almost-full memory of an active teacher into the empty memory cells of passive learners.

Pedagogy, as one theory of teaching, is about the better design of that content transfer. Pedagogy starts with the subject knowledge as “content” to be transferred from teacher to learner taken as a given. 900 years ago it was just copying a book in your own handwriting. In the 21st century it is writing down lecture notes as dictated by a teacher. Learners are seen as empty vessels into which we pour endless chunks of content to be memorised and our “high-stakes assessment” system is there to police that memorisation. In short, schools are not learner-centric and teachers are not rewarded for putting learners, and learning first, but for exam results. How can we improve that? (more…)

Read Full Post »

The Chocolate Cafe Manifesto

For Learning after Lockdown; This blog is about my ideas and work connected to Heutagogy, what Stewart Hase defines as “self-determined learning” and which I am interested in as a way of enabling learner-centred learning in the UK (and elsewhere). We think that, following the pandemic, as a “new normal” is introduced in the UK schools will not be capable of 100% attendance and will have to design for 50/50 learning. Arguably this might force schools to recognise that they will have to “trust the learner” for a change and allow some learning agency into UK schools. Schools will become “time poor” so they will have to become “learning-rich” This blog post looks at some ways in which that might be achieved.

Introduction (Secondary Education UK); For reasons to do with the Brainsrusting group who are discussing this issue and writing the “manifesto” we are focussing on Secondary Education in the UK, although the principles and thoughts we share might be useful anywhere. We met monthly at The Chocolate Cafe in Canterbury (famous for its Cathedral School 1000 years ago) and have debated how we might share our discussion and ideas as a “Manifesto for Learning” so here it is/will be.

50/50 Learning; We think that social distancing will require schools to offer only 50% of time in the classroom compared to the previous 100%. We are also assuming that UK (English) schools for the next academic year 20/21 will continue to follow the rigid OFSTED driven high-stakes achievement oriented education model that was introduced in the UK to “make sure the sixties never happens again” (PM Margaret Thatcher). From that perspective the 50% in classroom time will arguably remain the same but the 50% “beyond the classroom” learning time might allow some learning agency for schoolchildren. It is in this new “heutagogic learning time” that some freedom of learning might emerge. Our hierarchical schools made now be time poor but they can become “learning rich” instead.

Fast Education/Slow Learning; We need to design an education system that isn’t just concerned with the unchallenging “memorization” of “facts” the so-called “learning by rote” that is the hallmark of our exam-driven secondary system; what I call “Fast Education”. We also need to allow for the thoughtful, reflective “Eureka” process of “slow learning” where we make sense of the world for ourselves, to be part of our education system. Daniel Kahneman talked of “Thinking Fast and Slow” and showed how “slow thinking” is how we make sense and create our own meaning, whereas as “fast thinking” is about developing high speed answers to known questions. Our secondary education is almost entirely concerned with “fast thinking” and so points students at clearly defined subject areas where the teacher knows the answer. This is an education system that is good for providing clear answers for exams, but no-good for solving-problems and enabling sense-making when events diverge from the norm; as in pandemics. Here are our 4 big ideas; (more…)

Read Full Post »

Institutions or…Building a Learning Infrastructure

Yesterday I talked of how creative insights into how we might teach emerge from “bumping into learners expectations,” and of how some wonderful people had created new tools, or new models of learning, as they had worked their way closer to learners expectations (within the limits of their institutions). In our experience learning is an emergent process, so if you pay attention to learners, and to what they are saying to you, then what you need to do to support their learning will become clear. If you consistently pay attention to learners and the learning needs that they articulate, then you can build a learning infrastructure that supports the learning of others.

In the original Academy, Plato’s in Greece 2,500 years ago, learning was a series of conversations. It wasn’t given to you for just turning up, it was something you made through active participation. In medieval guilds, still found in the City of London, “mastery” in a craft was demonstrated through a process of “show and tell” – this is what I do, this is how I do it.

More recently the first British e-learning guru, Diana Laurillard, discussed how we should be building a “conversational framework for learning” and Gilly Salmon talked of e-mentoring as being a key element of e-learning. My friends in Romania, the Alternativa Universitate, who have their own learning model, or learning journey, organise learning around peer-to-peer mentoring, which is, perhaps, how Romanians share understanding.

So we are forever becoming really close to building enduring “learning infrastructures” but only when we can create alternative spaces in which we can follow the learning, rather than the more traditional follow the money (Paris, Bologna, London I’m looking at you).  Nigel and I have talked about using new participatory digital tools to help create organisational Architectures of Participation. Perhaps we should have described this process as creating “learning Architectures of Participation. We discussed some of the elements of this in Before and After Institutions where we are, perhaps, really describing how we might be Co-creating Learning Institutions with the learners (who turn up and participate). We’ve already described how we might be Co-Creating Open Scholarship so there may be some clues in there.

Since 2010 I’ve been trying to solve the practical problems as to how we might enable learners to create their own contexts for learning. I’ve done this, with the help of many others, by trying to build “Ambient Learning Cities,” starting in Manchester, where we have been trying to “transform the learning environment” by creating learning “beyond the classroom.” The first thing we learned was that nobody wants you to transform anything, even if they are offered €3m (City of Manchester) or £88k (MOSI). We were constantly bumping into institutional prejudices, instead of learners expectations, and discovered their rigid constraints (we have everything we need thank you), rather than participatory engagement. This is great for forcing you into solving new problems, which we did. We replaced textbooks with “digital Cabinets of Curiosities” and high-stakes assessment with Aggregate then Curate, our social media participation model of learning.

The second thing that we learned is that the classroom is a metaphor for learning. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Heutagogy, Meaning-making and Wellbeing

September 26th The Monastery Manchester

World Heutagogy Day 2017 #wHday17 This year we will be celebrating the 5th World Heutagogy Day, this year in partnership with the Monastery. We will be discussing how the practice of heutagogy might help in developing our meaning making and perhaps help our wellbeing.

fg-wHday17

Here is an overview of previous World Heutagogy Days, from 2013-2017;

As in previous years we will produce a curated conversation from our discussion, as with the original What is Heutagogy?

Taking Part This blog will track and pull together the resources identified. We ask you to contribute your ideas and point to your work in this area. Discussion will be online on Twitter using the #hashtag #wHday17 and on Facebook in the #myheutagogy group. 

World Heutagogy Day is used to support the idea of Self-Determined Learning, developed around the ideas first expressed by Stewart Hase and Chris Kenyon in the paper From Andragogy to Heutagogy. They argue that in the 21st Century we need to think about learning beyond the ideas of pedagogy, teaching subjects to children, and the adult education model of andragogy (Knowles)  and move towards self-determined learning. “The concept of truly self-determined learning, called heutagogy, builds on humanistic theory and approaches to learning described in the 1950s.”

World Heutagogy Day 2016; Last year we discussed whether “Heutagogy is the pedagogy of creativity?”. We produced a workshop  resource for discussing and developing heutagogy as educational practice called Creativity in Learning;

 

 

Read Full Post »

From Open Scholar to Open Student

This is a blog post version of the paper “Towards a framework for co-creating Open Scholarship” by Fred Garnett, and Nigel Ecclesfield given as a paper at ALT-C 2011 published in the Proceedings and freely available in their open Access repository. The shorter slide presentation is on Slideshare. This post includes the arguments as to how we might develop Boyer’s Model of Scholarship in the digital age towards an open model of learning by developing his arguments about Discovery, Integration, Application and Teaching, to include Co-creation. It is a ‘modest proposal’ not the finished article. However it develops our long-term thinking that digital learning is not a subset of old models of learning but a superset of ideas that are capable of transforming our understanding about, and the practice of, learning. (more…)

Read Full Post »

(1) From Education to Learning; A Brief History of Open

If we try to untangle the impact of the web on education we can describe it as enabling a shift from a focus on education as a system to learning as a process, particularly since the web itself has become more open, social and participatory, especially since Web 2.0.  So how did we get here?

Background; I myself (@fredgarnett) started looking at the impact of the Web, indirectly, in 1984 when I began teaching a Unit called Information, Technology and Society. Deciding that taking the tropes of the Industrial Revolution and applying them to the Information Revolution was way too limited I looked instead at how the social organisation of settlements emerged out of agriculture and that from hunter-gathering; maps, flints and fires. Inspired by Yoneji Masuda and Nikolai Kondratieff, and my own observations, by 1988 I had evolved the NSU model, so-called because I think social change comes from new Networks being built, new Services being provided and new User behaviours emerging, over 50-year long-wave Kondratieff economic cycles stimulated by new technologies; the micro-chip was invented in 1971. New economies emerge from new networks of distribution. In 1989 I wrote a story to capture the changes we might see by 2021 as a Masters paper called Homi & the NeXT One (the title a tribute to Steve Jobs). Consequently I have had some understanding of the process by which new technology changes society ever since. For me the key aspect discernible over the last 250 years (especially when preceded by a knowledge revolution like the scientific revolution) are the cumulative effects of unnoticed second-order, or unanticipated, effects; hence the poverty of most predictions about the future which focus on first-order (anticipated effects) based on the knowledge of experts whose expertise is historically based.

Watching the Web Flow 1990s; Being more Utopian than dystopian I looked forward to the, then, forthcoming information revolution democratising our representative democracy, with its UK roots in the 17th Century (1689), by enabling new participatory *constitutions* to be written, redefining the social relations by which we live. Whether they be communications, networked or mash-ups, technologies don’t change society, they create first-order effects, that is consequences of what the technologies were designed to do. Social change comes from users inventing new use-states in line with their beliefs and social behaviours. (more…)

Read Full Post »

#purposedpsi Sheffield April 30th

This is a post expanding on my talk at the Purpos/ed Event for a wonderful bunch of  educational ‘Instigators’ at Sheffield. The slides are on slideshare and I will expand on those points and include some of the discussions from the day here. Doug Belshaw had asked me to keep it simple and to look at Keri Facer’s new book on Learning Futures. Keri looks at a number of issues relating to how schools might be organised in 2035 but the point that appealed to me most was the one of ‘slow citizenship‘ as it tied in with my Purpos/ed post discussing the Scottish notion of the Democratic Intellect and our  complete (English) inability to make the link between the life we want and the responsibilities of citizenship.

Keri’s vision of slow citizenship, or taking time to build the future you want, requires ‘sustained commitment to the lived communities, local neighbourhoods & social relationships through which we live(more…)

Read Full Post »

CAL11 Workshop 1pm  April 15th  #mosialong

This workshop was exploring how to design ambient learning environments using the Emergent Learning Model. Slides for this session were updated from the Ambient Learning City talk March 2011.

If this is too abstract then we can reference the works of Howard Rheingold, Dave Weinberger and Clay Shirkey and describe the Emergent Learning Model as; Smart Mobs + Everything is Miscellaneous means Here Comes Everybody

We are also thinking of how we might use Innovation as an ‘Open Platform’ (Steven Johnson) to allow ‘generative innovations‘ to further transform learning.  (more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »