It is now ten years or so into the era of online learning. Schools, colleges and universities have now developed the internet infrastructure of their choice. Almost all have web pages, most have online courses, and many have synchronous online learning.
The learning management system (LMS) has become a commodity business, educational software of all sorts abounds, and the phenomenon has spread around the globe.
Photo credit: Joachim Angeltun
Even so, it may be observed that most people online of school or college age are elsewhere. They may not be writing class essays, but they are writing blogs, perhaps one of the 50 million or more tracked by Technorati.
They are at MySpace, which now counts some 86 million accounts. They are recording videos, making YouTube even larger than MySpace. They are, in fact, engaged in the many networking actrivities described in the previous section. Something is going on.
On the web, what has happened has been described as the migration to something called Web 2.0 (pronounced "web two point oh"). The term, popularized by publisher Tim O'Reilly, describes the evolution of the web into the "read/write" web. O'Reilly writes:
"The central principle behind the success of the giants born in the Web 1.0 era who have survived to lead the Web 2.0 era appears to be this, that they have embraced the power of the web to harness collective intelligence."
As an example, he cites the difference between Netscape and Google. According to O'Reilly, Netscape saw the web as a software market. By releasing its popular browser for free and hence effectively controlling web standards, the company could gain a lock on the web server software market.
Google, by contrast, never viewed the web as a place to ship product. Rather, it became a service, harnessing the collective linking behaviour of web users to create a more effective search engine.
The term "Web 2.0", as has been widely noted, is a notoriously fuzzy term, difficult to nail down. O'Reilly offered one set of criteria to describe the difference:
This list is incomplete, of course, and as with any definition by example, ultimately unsatisfactory. Nonetheless, the definition may be characteristic of Web 2.0.
"That the term has enjoyed such a constant morphing of meaning and interpretation is, in many ways, the clearest sign of its usefulness.
This is the nature of the conceptual beast in the digital age, and one of the most telling examples of what Web 2.0 applications do: They replace the authoritative heft of traditional institutions with the surging wisdom of crowds."
As the web surged toward 2.0 the educational community solidified its hold on the more traditional approach. The learning management system became central (and centralized, with Blackboard purchasing WebCT).
Developers continues to emphasize content and software development, as Learning Object Metadata was standardized and IMS developed specifications for content packaging and learning design.
Even so, as traditional instructional software became entrenched, it became difficult not to notice the movement in the other direction. First was the exodus from commercial software in favour of open source systems such as Moodle, Sakai and LAMS.
Others eschewed educational software altogether as a wave of educators began to look at the use of blogging and the wiki in their classes. A new, distributed, model of learning was emerging, which came to be characterized as e-learning 2.0.
"What happens," I asked, "when online learning ceases to be like a medium, and becomes more like a platform? What happens when online learning software ceases to be a type of content-consumption tool, where learning is "delivered," and becomes more like a content-authoring tool, where learning is created?"
The answer turns out to be a lot like Web 2.0:
"The model of e-learning as being a type of content, produced by publishers, organized and structured into courses, and consumed by students, is turned on its head. Insofar as there is content, it is used rather than read - and is, in any case, more likely to be produced by students than courseware authors. And insofar as there is structure, it is more likely to resemble a language or a conversation rather than a book or a manual".
In the days since this shift was recognized a growing community of educators and developers has been gathering around a model of online learning typified by this diagram authored by Scott Wilson (and remixed by various others since then):
Figure 1 (click on the image to enlarge it): Future VLE
The "future VLE" is now most commonly referred to as the "Personal Learning Envrionment", or PLE. As described by Milligan, PLEs:
"[...] would give the learner greater control over their learning experience (managing their resources, the work they have produced, the activities they participate in) and would constitute their own personal learning environment, which they could use to interact with institutional systems to access content, assessment, libraries and the like".
The idea behind the personal learning environment is that the management of learning migrates from the institution to the learner. As the diagram shows, the PLE connects to a number of remote services, some that specialize in learning and some that do not.
Access to learning becomes access to the resources and services offered by these remote services. The PLE allows the learner not only to consume learning resources, but to produce them as well. Learning therefore evolves from being a transfer of content and knowledge to the production of content and knowledge.
E-learning 2.0 promises a lot:
"Like the web itself, the early promise of e-learning - that of empowerment - has not been fully realized. The experience of e-learning for many has been no more than a hand-out published online, coupled with a simple multiple-choice quiz. Hardly inspiring, let alone empowering. But by using these new web services, e-learning has the potential to become far more personal, social and flexible." (Stephen O'Hear, The Guardian)
These technologies, in other words, would empower students in a way previous technologies didn't.
But the structure seems to deliver on the promise. As O'Hear writes:
"The traditional approach to e-learning [...] tends to be structured around courses, timetables, and testing. That is an approach that is too often driven by the needs of the institution rather than the individual learner. In contrast, e-learning 2.0 takes a 'small pieces, loosely joined' approach that combines the use of discrete but complementary tools and web services - such as blogs, wikis, and other social software - to support the creation of ad-hoc learning communities".
The 2.0 Architecture
The idea of e-learning 2.0 may appear elusive at first blush, but many of the ideas central to e-learning 2.0 may be evoked through a discussion of its fundamental architecture, which may be called "learning networks".
The objective of a theory of learning networks is to describe the manner in which resources and services are organized in order to offer learning opportunities in a network environment. Learning networks is not therefore a pedagogical principle, but rather, a description of an environment intended to support a particular pedagogy.
I introduced learning networks formally in my Buntine Oration of 2004:
"If, as I suggested above, we describe learning objects using the metaphor of language, text, sentences and books, then the metaphor to describe the learning network as I've just described it is the ecosystem, a collection of different entities related in a single environment that interact with each other in a complex network of affordances and dependencies, an environment where the individual entities are not joined or sequenced or packaged in any way, but rather, live, if you will, free, their nature defined as much by their interactions with each other as by any inherent property in themselves.
We don't present these learning objects, ordered, in a sequence, we present randomly, unordered. We don't present them in classrooms and schools, we present them to the environment, to where students find themselves, in their homes and in their workplaces.
We don't present them at all, we contribute them to the conversation, we become part of the conversation. They are not just text and tests, they are ourselves, our blog posts, our publications and speeches, our thoughts in real-time conversation. Sigmund Freud leaning on the lamp post, just when we need him".
This "ecosystem" approach, realized in software, is based on a "distributed" model of resources, as suggested by the PLE diagram. The difference between the traditional and decentralized approach may be observed in the following diagram:
Figure 2: Centralized approach (above) and distributed approach (below)
It is interesting, and worth noting, that before the World Wide Web burst onto the scene, online access in general was typified by the centralized approach depicted in the upper figure. Users would dial up and log on to services such as CompuServe and Prodigy.
The World Wide Web, by contrast, is an example of a distributed environment. There is no single big server; resources and access are scattered around the world in the form of a network of connected web servers and internet service providers.
Users do not log into a single service called "The Web" but are also distributed, accessing through internet service providers. Even their software is distributed; their web browsers run locally, on their own machine, and function by connecting to online services and resources.
In an environment such as this, the nature of design changes. In a typical computer program, the design will be specified with an algorithm or flowchart. Software will be described as performing a specific process, with specified (and often controlled) inputs and outputs.
In a distributed environment, however, the design is no longer defined as a type of process. Rather, designers need to characterize the nature of the connections between the constituent entities.
What are the core principles that will characterize such a description?
The internet itself illustrates a sound set of principles, grounded by two major characteristics: simple services with realistic scope. "Simple service or simple devices with realistic scope are usually able to offer a superior user experience compared to a complex, multi-purpose service or device".
Or as David Weinberger describes the network: small pieces, loosely joined. In practice, these principles may be realized in the following design principles. It is worth noting at this juncture that these principles are intended to describe not only networks but also network learning, to show how network learning differs from traditional learning.
The idea is that each principle confers an advantage over non-network systems, and that the set, therefore, may be used as a means of evaluating new technology. This is a tentative set of principles, based on observation and pattern recognition. It is not a definitive list, and indeed, it is likely that there cannot be a definitive list.
- Effective networks are decentralized.
Centralized networks have a characteristic "star" shape, where some entities have many connections while the vast majority have few. This is typical of, say a broadcast network or the method of a teacher in a classroom. Decentralized networks, by contrast, form a mesh. The weight of connections and the flow of information is distributed. This balanced load results in a more stable network, with no single point of failure.
- Effective networks are distributed.
Network entities reside in different physical locations. This reduces the risk of network failure. It also reduces need for major infrastructure, such as powerful servers, large bandwidth, massive storage. Examples of distributed networks include peer-to-peer networks, such as Kazaa, Gnutella and content syndication networks, such as RSS. The emphasis of such systems is on sharing, not copying; local copies, if they exist, are temporary.
- Effective networks disintermediated.
That is, they eliminate "mediation", the barrier between source and receiver. Examples of disintermediation include the bypassing of editors, replacing peer review prior to publication with recommender systems subsequent to publication. Or of the replacement of traditional news media and broadcasters with networks of news bloggers.
And, crucially, the removal of the intermediate teacher that stands between knowledge and the student. The idea is to, where possible, provide direct access to information and services. The purpose of mediation, if any, is to manage flow, not information, to reduce the volume of information, not the type of information.
- In effective networks, content and services are disaggregated.
Units of content should be as small as possible and content should not be "bundled". Instead, the organization and structure of content and services is created by the receiver.
This allows the integration of new information and services with the old, of popular news and services with those in an individual's particular niche interests. This was the idea behind learning objects; the learning object was sometimes defined as the "smallest possible unit of instruction".
The assembly of learning objects into pre-packaged "courses" defeats this, however, obviating any advantage the disaggregating of content may have provided.
- In an effective network, content and services are dis-integrated.
That is to say, entities in a network are not "components" of one another. For example, plug-ins or required software to be avoided. What this means in practice is that the structure of the message is logically distinct from the type of entity sending or receiving it.
The message is coded in a common "language" where the code is open, not proprietary. So no particular software or device is needed to receive the code. This is the idea of standards, but where standards evolve rather than being created, and where they are adopted by agreement, not requirement.
- An effective network is democratic.
Entities in a network are autonomous; they have the freedom to negotiate connections with other entities, and they have the freedom to send and receive information. Diversity in a network is an asset, as it confers flexibility and adaptation.
It also allows the network as a whole to represent more than just the part. Control of the entities in a network, therefore, should be impossible. Indeed, in an effective network, even where control seems desirable, it is not practical. This condition - which may be thought of as the semantic condition - is what distinguishes networks from groups (see below).
- An effective network is dynamic.
A network is a fluid, changing entity, because without change, growth, adaptation are not possible. This is sometimes described as the "plasticity" of a network. It is through this process of change that new knowledge is discovered, where the creation of connections is a core function.
- An effective network is desegregated.
For example, in network learning, learning is not thought of as a separate domain. Hence, there is no need for learning-specific tools and processes. Learning is instead thought of as a part of living, of work, of play. The same tools we use to perform day-to-day activities are the tools we use to learn.
Viewed more broadly, this condition amounts to seeing the network as infrastructure. Computing, communicating and learning are not something we "go some place to do". Instead, we think of network resources as similar to a utility, like electricity, like water, like telephones. The network is everywhere.
It should be noted that though some indication of the justification for these methodological principles has been offered in the list above, along with some examples, this list is in essence descriptive. In other words, what is claimed here is that successful networks in fact adhere to these principles.
Originally published on October 16, 2006 as part of "Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge" by Stephen Downes on ITForum.
About the author
Photo credit: Stephen Downes
Stephen Downes is a senior research officer with the National Research Council of Canada in Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada. Affiliated with the Council's Institute for Information Technology, Stephen Downes works with the E-Learning Research Group. His key professional focus includes research and development in e-learning, working and helping organizations improve their competitive position in the marketplace, and increase awareness and information sharing through articles, reports and written analysis as well as through participation and attendance to local and international conferences and seminars. Check out Stephen Downes' website to know more about him.
Photo credits: AndreasG, Mipan, Andres Rodriguez, Bluestock.
