TechTicker
educational technology, eLearning & emerging technology

While wrapping up my last post on self-directed learning a thought occurred to me that I’d like to explore here.  I’m also hoping to inspire some discussion around the subject since in my mind this could present a key opportunity for higher education moving forward.

I attended a Research Showcase yesterday in which one of the topics covered was Threshold Concepts.  This notion is a new one to me, and to be honest I don’t know much about it; however based on the definition I’ve just uncovered online, a threshold concept is defined as having five characteristics:

1. First, they should be transformative, in that once acquired they should shift perception of the subject.
2. Second, they should be irreversible. Once an individual has begun to perceive the world in terms of a threshold concept it should be inconceivable that they would return to viewing it in a more primitive way.
3. Third, a threshold concept is integrative. Meyer and Land describe this as the capacity of a concept to expose the previously hidden interrelatedness of something.
4. Fourth a threshold concept is bounded. That is, it helps to define the boundaries of a subject area.
5. Fifth, a threshold concept may be counter-intuitive, or lead to knowledge that is inherently counter-intuitive. In grasping a threshold concept a student moves from common sense understanding to an understanding which may conflict with perceptions that have previously seemed self-evidently true.

This has led me to think that perhaps self-directed learning is a Threshold Concept.

Personal Experiences

At least in my own experience, the transformation from a reliance on learning through directed instruction to experiential learning through self-directed exploration took me through all 5 of the above characteristics.

I came to UNSW from a very small, micromanaged private sector company, and had experienced university as a student in a firmly entrenched instructivist model.  I studied Economics at a university of 40,000 people and attended mass lectures in which overhead slides were frequently used, the instructor spoke and students listened.

So when I began at UNSW I was accustomed to being told exactly what I was supposed to do, the way I was meant to do it, when it needed to be completed, and assessed on whether my work was adequate.  The environment I found when I arrived though was diametrically different to this.  There was no instruction, minimal feedback, and an incredible amount of flexibility on what I did, when, and how.

For some time I found this positively excruciating, since I was conditioned to look outside of myself for validation of my work.  When I didn’t receive this information I had a tremendous amount of difficulty knowing what to do next.  In hindsight it was an incredibly difficult period.

According to the Threshold Concepts 2008 Conference website, my experiences characterised the idea of “liminality”:

“Meyer and Land suggest that difficulty in understanding threshold concepts may leave the learner in a state of ‘liminality’, a suspended state or ’stuck place’…”

In the absence of a management structure I was accustomed to, I was in a state of liminality for a number of years.  It was only after making a conscious decision that it was up to me to sort myself out did I start to feel comfortable with what I was doing.  In time this led to a sense of empowerment that has only grown over time.  Now I can’t imagine doing it differently; but it was a very difficult transition.

The Implications for Higher Education

Assuming for a moment that self-directed learning is indeed a threshold concept, in light of my own experiences it would seem that this represents a critical need that higher education could address.

As mentioned earlier though, given the devolved nature of this learning model it would require a much different approach to education as well as a fundamental shift in role from instructor to that of facilitator or moderator, since the student would be informing the instructor on what they would be learning, and how; rather than the other way around.

Given weeks 4 & 5 of my Facilitating Online Communities course is slated to cover facilitating, moderating or teaching I’m hopeful there will be some insightful conversations that might be applicable to this train of thought.

In the meantime if you have thoughts on this idea please jump in and leave a comment - or elaborate on your own blog and link back here so I know where to go for your input.

A post I read yesterday really got me to thinking about curriculum-based instruction versus self-directed learning models.  This post is a reflective writing exercise that seeks to clarify my philosophies on the subject in my own head.

In “Downes on Learning and Web 2.0“, Diego Leal reflects on the following video in which Stephen Downes argues 3 key points:

1. You are at the center of your own personal learning network;
2. To gain from self-directed learning you must be self-directed;
3. These principles should guide how we teach as well as how we learn.

Leal’s thoughts on the video are worth a read, so I recommend you visit his blog for the full run-down.

To a fair degree Downes position flies directly in the face of the traditional model, characterised by a push of information, rather than a pull.  Here mass lectures enable instructors to disseminate information to large quantities of students, with minimal concurrent reciprocal opportunities for them.  The flow of information is largely singular, and is based on the instructors opinions about what students need to or should know, rather than the students’ opinions themselves.

In my opinion, this serves to disempower the learner by placing control of their learning in someone else’s hands, and relegating the student to the role of an information consumer rather than the architect of their own destiny.

To a degree smaller class sizes will afford students more input into the discussion.  Nonetheless, the model still ultimately puts the instructor at the top of the heirarchy, with the lecturer controlling much/most/all of the learning that takes place via established learning outcomes.

This model is not cause for a tremendous sense of ownership in the learning process by the learners themselves, since by definition they rely on the objectives of an external party - in this case the instructor.

The logic behind this learning landscape might be attributed to university accountabilities on accreditation (who they award degrees to), the logistical challenge of facilitating the learning journey of large numbers of people, assumptions regarding student expectations, even liability concerns for workplace competency (for example in the medical field); however the irony in this - at least from my perspective - is that the learning model that is so widely used to educate students is not the one that is used by the staff themselves.

Downes argues that “these principles [on self-directed learning] should guide how we teach as well as how we learn.”  In light of these inconsistencies it seems clear that this just isn’t happening.

This is a generalisation, I admit, however based on my experiences there is a fair amount of validity to it.  Particularly in the research field, much of the work my colleagues and I do amounts to self-directed learning.  In a field where there are many unknowns, there is not necessarily an established, well-worn path.

As a member of the Grateful Dead once said “When you’re on the avante garde, you don’t really know what you’re doing anyway.  You just make it up as you go.”

This analogy is perhaps not a perfect fit, since there are core methodologies used in the research process; but the fact remains that the learning process is largely an exploratory, experiential one in which the outcomes are uncertain.  You cast your net wide and constantly reflect on and evaluate the available information, and in doing so determine the next appropriate step.  You don’t ultimately know whether something will work or not; but that’s where much of the learning process occurs.

Conflict in Generational Paradigms

Innovations in web technology over the last few years have in fact exacerbated the inconsistencies between how we learn and the educational model that higher education and its underlying culture insists on using.

Downes’ video is a good overview in this sense.  Web technologies are now an empowering force in which people can establish or join their own networks and communities - and effectively take an active role in guiding their own learning processes.  These technologies are also extremely collaborative in nature, placing large masses of users at equivalent levels, regardless of existing knowledge or experience.  For all intensive purposes new media (Web 2.0) has dispelled instructivist heirarchies and replaced it with connective learning networks.

It is perhaps not surprising then, that uptake of these new technologies has been slow in higher education.  As I discussed the other day, many of these technologies are inherently out of phase with the current university culture.  So instead of technologies that empower learners such as blogs, wikis and experiential virtual environments, we continue to see use of systems that seek to manage or control learning.  The latter is arguably concerned more with the needs of the instructor and administrators than the learners.

From the standpoint of the existing culture I can understand the concerns and reservation.  The new paradigm brings the entire notion and purpose of instructors and indeed institutions in to question.

As George Siemens wrote yesterday (”Explaining Leads to Information“):

“At one point, we thought content was the value point of universities. Wrong. MIT’s OpenCourseWare initiative changed that. Ok, then the interaction with faculty is the value point. And wrong again. Open communication and collaboration in online environments with networks of peers and experts gave us control over our interactions. Fine. Then the value point is accreditation. Yes, for now. Our ability to rate, review, comment, and provide feedback has increased with the development of the read/write web. I’m not sure how long we can build education’s value on the concept of accreditation. As I’ve frequently suggested, we can glean much insight from a field that has spent more time journeying down the path of shifting value from content to something else: the news/journalism/media industry.”

Personally I don’t feel that universities, educators and facilitators will become obsolete anytime soon.  I do think, though, that it’s critical that this new paradigm be accepted and recognised by the existing culture and that plans be made and implemented that seek to understand and engage with the new methods of learning.  If we are to remain effective in facilitating the learning journeys of university students we must understand where they are coming from both philosophically and pedagogically.

Ultimately the same motives and methods that drive and inform research must be applied to the learning and teaching culture as well.  In research objectivity is key; a theory that is biased towards an outcome jeopardises the entire model.  Assumptions are therefore questioned, tested and retested against new information or circumstances in order to confirm or disprove their accuracy and relevance.  The importance is on realising the true reality, not necessarily the desired one.

Reference:

Stephen Downes’ video is embedded below.  You can also access it directly on Google Video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5431152345344515009