This document discusses learning ecosystems in terms of social interaction and development. It defines a learning ecosystem as a learning community together with enterprise, united by a learning management system. Social learning plays a key role in learning ecosystems and involves interactions between individuals, groups, and their environment. Through social interactions, learners can develop important competencies including self-awareness, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making.

1. JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITYOFAGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY
KIGALI CAMPUS
MSc. of Development Studies
Year II, Semester I
Course unity: Education and development
Unity code: HSDH 3203
Instructor: Prof. NDABAGA
Learning ecosystem in term of social interaction and development
Presented by: HABIMANA Bernard-------------------------REG N0. HD324-CO10-5560/2015
INGABIRE Beline------------------------------REG N0. HD324-CO10-5561/2015
Contents of Paper
1. Introduction and learning ecosystem
2. Learning ecosystemin term of social interaction and development, ecosystem
components, learning path and social competency
3. Learning the Ecosystem through social interaction
4. Conclusion and references

2. 1. INTRODUCTION
In human societies, the ability to learn from others (‘ecosystem learning’) promotes the
development of individual skills and shapes the behavior of groups, giving rise to varied local
cultures.
Understanding the extent to which social learning has similar effects in other species is one of
the most fundamental questions in the life sciences. Theoretical models suggest that social
learning may have major ecological and evolutionary implications, promoting the spread of
Adaptive information within groups and between generations, dissociating behavioral traits
from ecological conditions and modifying selection pressures. Furthermore, comparative studies
of social learning are critical for understanding the biological basis of human culture.
In recognition of these implications, social learning has become a major research topic in recent
years. Studies in captivity have revealed mechanisms of social learning across a range of taxa
and shown that information can spread across chains of individuals and diffuse through groups,
forming group-level behavioral characteristics or traditions
1.1. Learning ecosystem
The idea of “learning ecosystem” is very useful to think about e-learning and higher education.
In biological terms, an ecosystem is all the organisms in a given area, along with the nonliving
(a biotic) factors with which they interact; a biological community and its physical environment.
A digital learning ecosystem is similar to a natural ecosystem which is composed of biotic and
biotic components. The relationship between these two components is very important and
complex.
Learning ecosystem is also defined as a learning community, together with enterprise, united by
a learning management system. In this ecosystem, every one is the learner and producer,
creating new ecosystems. Connecting in communities, the concept of time, place and space for
higher education has been changed.

3. 2. LEARNING ECOSYSTEM IN TERM OF SOCIAL INTERACTION AND
DEVELOPMENT
Approach that considers self-directed learning in learning communities has at least three major
implications for the
Ecosystem learning design:
1) Study groups should be viewed as more or less temporary, heterogenuous and less strictly
defined in terms of an individual learners’ learning goals, competences, selection of learning
paths, and activation of learning resources and tools;
2) In order to satisfy individual learning needs, more autonomy in decision-making and self-
direction should be given to the learners while participating in study groups;
3) Learning and collaboration in study groups of self-directed individuals assumes the dynamic
emergence and availability of certain well-estalished rules of behavior in the shared learning
space that are defined by the learners themselves, and that can be used for personal or group
navigation within the learning space.
2.1. Learning the ecosystemcomponents
Microsystem: Direct interactions with parents, teachers, peers, and others.
Mesosystem: Linkages between microsystems such as family and school, and relationships
between students and peers.
Exosystem: Experiences in settings in which a child does not have an active role influence the
child’s experiences.
Macrosystem: The broader culture in which students and teachers live.
Chronosystem: The sociohistorical conditions of a student’s development.

4. 2.3. Benefits from the learning the ecosystemthrough social interaction and development
 Promotion of physical activity as part of an active lifestyle
 Development of fundamental motor skills necessary for participation in sports with peers
 Enhancement of self-esteem and self-image
 Increased physical independence, self-help skills or skills that promote independence and
self-sufficiency and/or mobility
 Decreased health-related complications
 For early childhood or young childhood, development of functional and developmentally
appropriate motor skills that allow the child to play and participate in an educational
environment with typically developing peers
2.4.Ecosystem learning path
As an example of a learning path to follow, the learner may:
1. Determine the learning objective.
2. Decide on the sub-goals and their order.
3. Select the first sub-goal and determine the niche within the learning space suitable for
achieving the sub-goal.
4. Decide on a step toward the selected sub-goal in the gradient direction (for example, by
selecting an appropriate
mediator of the learning event).
5. Perform the step.
6. Assess whether the sub-goal is reached; if not, return to 4 (decide on a new step).
7. Assess whether
2.5. Social Competence
Bierman (2004) defined social competence as the “capacity to coordinate adaptive responses
flexibly to various interpersonal demands, and to organize social behavior in different social
contexts in a manner beneficial to oneself and consistent with social conventions and morals”
(p. 141). Broderick and Blewitt (2010) identified four categories of foundational social
competencies: (1) affective processes (including empathy, valuing relationships, and sense of
belonging), (2) cognitive processes (including cognitive ability, perspective taking, and making
moral judgments), (3) social skills
(including making eye contact, using
appropriate language, and asking
appropriate questions), and (4) high social
self-concept.
The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and
Emotional Learning (CASEL, 2003, 2007),
one of the leaders in the development of
social-emotional learning (SEL), identified
five teachable competencies that they believe
provide a foundation for effective personal
development: development:

5. 1. Self-awareness: knowing what one is feeling and thinking; having a realistic assessment of
one’s own abilities and a well-grounded sense of self-confidence;
2. Social awareness: understanding what others are feeling and thinking; appreciating and
interacting positively with diverse groups;
3. Self-management: handling one’s emotions so they facilitate rather than interfere with task
achievement; setting and accomplishing goals; persevering in the face of setbacks and
frustrations;
4. Relationship skills: establishing and maintaining healthy and rewarding relationships based on
clear communication, cooperation, resistance to inappropriate social pressure, negotiating
solutions to conflict, and seeking help when needed
5.
6. Responsible decision making: making choices based on an accurate consideration of all
relevant factors and the likely consequences of alternative courses of action, respecting others,
and taking responsibility for one's decisions.
Based on extensive research over the past two decades, many investigators proposed that school
curricula must provide learning experiences that address students’ development in the
cognitive/academic, emotional, social, and moral domains (Cohen, 2006; Elias, & Arnold, 2006;
Narvaez, 2006), Zins, Weissberg, Wang, & Walberg, 2004).
Table1. Competences for student in learning the ecosystem
Table1. Competences for student in learning the ecosystem

6. 2.6.Competence and information processes
3. Learning the Ecosystem through social interaction
Social interactions that take place during such environmental decision making processes
influence the kinds of learning that take place (Bandura 1977, Pea, 1993, Pahl-Wostl and Hare
2004, Prell et al. 2008). Such learning through interaction is, for example, constrained by the
established norms found within the social contexts in which individuals are embedded (Wenger
1998; Prell et al. 2010). Such contexts include not only institutions, but also the networks and
network structures in which individuals and groups are embedded (Coleman 1990; Newig et al.
2010; Prell et al. 2010), and the epistemological beliefs and world views of people in that social
context (Evely et al. 2008, Miller et al. 2008). Although it is not a requirement of social
learning, it is more likely to occur if groups with different types of knowledge, e.g., local vs
scientific, share similar epistemological beliefs (Webler et al. 1995, Greenwood and Levin 1998,
Evely et al. 2008, Raymond et al. 2010).
Social learning is
increasingly becoming a
normative goal in natural
resource management
and policy. However,
there remains little
consensus over its
meaning or theoretical
basis. There are still
considerable differences
in understanding of the
concept in the literature,
including a number of
articles published
in Ecology & Society.
Social learning is often
conflated with other concepts such as participation and proenvironmental behavior, and there is

7. often little distinction made between individual and wider social learning. Many unsubstantiated
claims for social learning exist, and there is frequently confusion between the concept itself and
its potential outcomes. This lack of conceptual clarity has limited our capacity to assess whether
social learning has occurred, and if so, what kind of learning has taken place, to what extent,
between whom, when, and how. This response attempts to provide greater clarity on the
conceptual basis for social learning. We argue that to be considered social learning, a process
must:
(1) Demonstrate that a change in understanding has taken place in the individuals involved;
(2) Demonstrate that this change goes beyond the individual and becomes situated within wider
social units or communities of practice; and
(3) Occur through social interactions and processes between actors within a social network. A
clearer picture of what we mean by social learning could enhance our ability to critically
evaluate outcomes and better understand the processes through which social learning occurs. In
this way, it may be possible to better facilitate the desired outcomes of social learning processes.
4. CONCLUSIONS
Learning the ecosystem and information transmitted between individuals is likely to have
important effects in environments and human behavior. It is likely that many of the traits that
behavioral ecologists model as genetically controlled adaptations, including human behavior,
foraging skills and social strategies, are to some extent shaped by social learning.
However, the role of social learning remains poorly understood in society and human groups,
and many common assumptions remain to be verified. For instance, great apes are often
assumed to rely more heavily than other environment on socially transmitted information, but
the strongest experimental evidence that social learning influences individual and group
behavior. Similarly, claims of cumulative traditions and evolutionary impacts of social learning
currently amount to little more than tentative suggestions lacking in empirical support. Long-
term field studies, incorporating field experiments and novel statistical techniques provide the
means to revealing the true importance of social learning in nature.
5. REFRENCES
Adger, W. N., K. Brown, and E. Tompkins. 2006. The political economy of cross-scale
networks in resource co-management. Ecology and Society
Argyris, C., and D. A. Schön. 1978. Organizational learning: a theory of action
perspective. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, USA.
Argyris, C., and D. A. Schön. 1996. Organizational learning II: theory, method and
practice. Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, USA.
Armitage, D., M. Marschke, and R. Plummer. 2008. Adaptive co-management and the
paradox of learning.Global Environmental Change 18:86-98.
Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.
Benn, R. 2000. The genesis of active citizenship in the learning society. Studies in the education

8. of adults. 32:241-256.
Blackler, F. 1995. Knowledge, knowledge work, and organizations: an overview and
interpretation. Organization Studies 16:1021-1046.
Borowski, I., J. Le Bourhis, C. Pahl-Wostl, and B. Barraqué. 2008. Spatial misfit in
participatory river basin management: effects on social learning. a comparative analysis of
German and French case studies. Ecology and Society
Bull, R., J. Petts, and J. Evans. 2008. Social learning from public engagement: dreaming the
impossible? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51:(5) 701-716.
Cundill, G. 2010. Monitoring social learning processes in adaptive comanagement: three case
studies from South Africa. .
Davidson-Hunt, I., and F. Berkes. 2003. Learning as you journey: Anishinaabe perception of
social-ecological environments and adaptive learning.
Erickson, B. 1988. The relational basis of attitudes. In B. Wellman, and S. D. Berkowitz,
editors. Social structures: a network approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Evely, A. C., I. Fazey, M. Pinard, and X. Lambin. 2008. The influence of philosophical
perspectives in integrative research: a conservation case study in the Cairngorms National
Park. Ecology and Society
Fazey, I., J. A. Fazey, and D. M. A. Fazey. 2005. Learning more effectively from
experience. Ecology and Society
Fazey, I., J. A. Fazey, J. Fischer, K. Sherren, J. Warren, R. Noss, and S. Dovers. 2007.
Adaptive capacity and learning to learn as leverage for social-ecological resilience. Frontiers in
Ecology and Environment 5:375-380.
Fazey, J. A., and F. Marton. 2002. Understanding the space of experiential variation. Active
Learning in Higher Education 3:234-250.
Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., H. L. Ballard, and V. E. Sturtevant. 2008. Adaptive
management and social learning in collaborative and community-based monitoring: a study of
five community-based forestry organizations in the western USA. Ecology and Society 13(2): 4.
[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art4/.
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive governance of social–
ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: 441-73.
Freeman, J., P. Liossis, C. Schonfeld, M. Sheehan, V. Siskind, and B. Watson. 2006. The
self-reported impact of legal and non-legal sanctions on a group of recidivist drunk
drivers. Transportation Research 9:53-64.