Bob Fryer's Keynote Presentation - EDEN 2012 Annual Conference


Published on

Learning, Knowledge and Wisdom for all in Late Modernity
Bob Fryer, Campaign for Learning, United Kingdom

Published in: Education, News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Bob Fryer's Keynote Presentation - EDEN 2012 Annual Conference

  1. 1. Learning, Knowledge and Wisdom for All in Late Modernity EDEN CONFERENCE PLENARY SESSION Porto, 7 – 9 June, 2012Professor R. H. (‘Bob’) Fryer CBEChair, National Campaign for Learning (UK)Former Chief Executive of NHS University
  2. 2. Agenda What is the nature of the ‘late modern’ (contemporary) world? Divisive learning in a divided world What kinds of learning and learners have a chance of thriving in the emergent world (and what will not)? How can new technologies help? One example – Using Web 2.0, “WebWise”
  3. 3. An era of widespread economic, social, political, technological & cultural changex Global & national financial crises, the ‘credit crunch’ & ‘Euro crisis’ – where next after more than 3 decades of neo-liberalism?x Long-run changes in social, political & cultural institutions (Family, Politics, Consumption etc)x Some disillusion with ‘conventional’ politicsx Restructuring of work, employment & industryx Shifts in personal & group identities & aspirationsx A growing tendency for ‘choice’x An information & knowledge revolutionx Continuing technological innovationx Greater localism within globalisationx Social fragmentation & divisionx New forms & expressions of citizenship
  4. 4. Towards ‘Risk Society’ (Beck) Ubiquitous Change Unreliability UncertaintyUnpredictability Un-sustainability Risk Society ‘Fuzzy’ Boundaries Choice Multiple & Beyond Contested Information Conventions, & Knowledge Rules & Structures
  5. 5. Even City Financiers & Journalists are begining to realise ”Our New Age of Volatility Defies Spreadsheeet Strategists” “What really matters now … are non- quantitative issues, such as political values, soal cohesion and civic identity” Gillian Tett, Financial Times, 5 June, 2012
  6. 6. The contradictions of learning Is engaging for some, but a nightmare for many more Distributes both achievement & failure Rewards the successful, punishes those who don’t succeed (Mostly) leads to good jobs & social mobility for some, a life of drudgery for others Begins a lifetime of learning & discovery for some (a minority?), but exclusion for most Is beset by, & often reinforces, social divisions - social class, race & ethnicity, gender, disabilities, region, religion, identity & age
  7. 7. Current or recent participation in UK adult learning 1996-2012 by social class706050 TOTAL40 AB30 C1 C220 DE10 0 1996 1999 2002 2004 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 Source NIACE Annual Surveys
  8. 8. Current or recent participation in UK adult learning 1996-2012 by age group Source:NIACE
  9. 9. What can be done to change this?Educational solutions Improve, reform or diversify institutions Provide additional resources for ‘deprived’ or ’excluded’ Improve access/widen participation/better opportunities Modify curriculum Enlarge ways of measuring learning and/or achievement Value/introduce more forms, modes, locales & styles of learning Change/enrich pedagogySocial/political solutions Redistribute wealth, income, status & power Implement ‘positive’ action/reverse discrimination Enhance social mobility
  10. 10. Varieties of Learning, Knowledge & Wisdom Learning occurs in a variety of ways; in many different locales, through many different modes, for many different purposes & the manner in which it is funded & otherwise supported also varies Similarly, the sources, generation, validation & transmission of knowledge are both varied & often fiercely contested What constitutes wisdom in any given context, & how it is acquired, is also open to debate
  11. 11. An Analytical Framework for Adult Education & Lifelong Learning Formal Learning National Programmes Public Funding Qualifications & Focus on InstitutionsTargets Economy & Labour Market Citizenship Mix of Public, Corporate & Individual Funding Inclusivity/WP Work-based TrainingWelfare State, Social Welfare to Neo-liberal,Collectivist Purpose Work Market & Public Funding Individualist Leisure, Pleasure & ‘ Increasingly Private ‘seriously useless’ Funding ‘Big Society’ Emphasis Community , Regeneration More Voluntary, Community, & Capacity Building Non- Institutional Locations Incorporation & Control Focus on ‘Local’ & Personal Informal Learning
  12. 12. An emergent model of learning Domain Traditional Emergent Study Education Learning Locale School/other Everywhere – work, institution home etc Time Childhood/early Lifelong & life-wide adulthood Style Teacher centred Learner-driven Delivery Face-to-face Distance & ‘e’ Target Group Universal to max Specific & mass school age -elite Curriculum Expert/pro- Joint production & fessional user generated Focus Theory/abstract Practice Discipline Single Multi-disciplinary Mode Learning by rote Reflective Form Instructional Constructivist Purpose Qualification Action/ application
  13. 13. Reconciling Max Weber with Pablo Picasso In the emergent , late modern world of risk society, in order to thrive, citizens need a subtle and developing combination of: Technical, specific, bureaucratic & accredited skills and competences; and Creativity, imagination, flexibility , spontaneity and intuition
  14. 14. Enhancing Learners’ (People’s?) ‘Digital Literacy’Source: Wayne Barry, “The Generation Game”
  15. 15. Critical pedagogyCritical pedagogy aims:“to enable learners to go beyond thinking in order to enable them as citizens to act as engaged agents in their various worlds, giving voice to their hopes and ambitions for change and improvement”. (Giroux 2007: 1-5)It is about fostering “a language of critique and possibility”. (Giroux 2005: 211It promises to engender what Barber (1998) regards as the true mark of an activist democracy - a “noisy and fractious citizenry”.
  16. 16. Making a contribution with Web 2.0 The ‘WebWise’ project – a European Union funded collaboration Six countries, 9 partners, focus on ‘Public Health’ Making use of Web 2.0 in formal & informal educational settings Pilot schemes:  Bulgaria  Germany (2)  Greece  Slovenia  UK
  17. 17. Meaning of ‘Web 2.00’ (per Bonder Updohn 2009) Collaboration and/or distributed authorship Active, open-access, “bottom-up” participation & interactive multi-way communication Continuous production, reproduction, and transformation of material in use and reuse across contexts Openness of content, renunciation of copyright, distributed ownership Lack of finality, “awareness-in-practice” of the “open-endedness” of the activity Placed on the WWW, or to a large extent utilising Web-mediated resources and activities
  18. 18. Why Web 2.0? Many of the students/practitioners were already users ‘socially’ Could be especially appropriate in the field of public health: - for ‘reaching out’ to individuals/groups in the community; - overcomes some problems of ‘face-to-face’ - enables a degree of individualisation or ‘personalisation’ - mitigates some causes of inequality in learning Scope for engaging a wider community of participants, including professionals Would allow user generated content/knowledge to shape programme Might lend itself to development of independent & ‘critical’ perspective of participants
  19. 19. One Researcher’s answer“Web 2.0 technologies and practices are being introduced into teaching andlearning activities. The reasons for doing so are many: For one thing, employing inthe service of learning some of the communication practices that young peopleare already using voluntarily in their spare time arguably will help them enterthe learning practices of the university, both in respect of their motivationand of the skills required of them. Related to this, for another, in both a lifelongand life-wide perspective (Jarvis 2007), the user-centred focus of Web 2.0activities supports the learner in transgressing and resituating content andpractices between the formal and informal learning settings in which s/heparticipates. An important third reason is the didactic potential of Web 2.0: Thecentrality of participation, production, dialogue ,and collaboration in Web 2.0practices seemingly make them ideal as elements in programmes focusing on thelearner’s active engagement, individually and/or collaboratively, as aprerequisite for learning. From yet a fourth point of view, many of the possiblefuture jobs of the students will require competence in the use of Web 2.0—forexample, skills in navigation, communication, and critical evaluation—and,therefore, a new task of educational programmes is to support the acquisition ofsuch competences along with other subject-related competences.” BonderupDohn, N. , 2009, “Web 2.0: Inherent tensions and evident challenges foreducation,” International Journal of Computer-Supported CollaborativeLearning
  20. 20. A Web 2.0 Conception of Knowledge (& Wisdom)Wenger’s concept of learning stresses the continuous negotiation ofmeaning and identity in practice in the mutual, though not necessarilyharmonious, engagement with others. This closely corresponds, at thegeneral level, to the dynamicity, open-endedness and flexibility of theWeb 2.0 practices and more concretely to the centrality in these practicesof “bottom-up” knowledge production, construction, andtransformation; of communication and collaboration; and of use andreuse of material across contexts. Such characteristics point to animplicit understanding of knowledge and competence as dynamic,transitory, and situated phenomena. In accordance with the internalityof the basic Web 2.0 goals, knowledge, and competence arephenomena of participation—they are only fully realized,ontologically speaking, in the acting in concrete situations. In thewords of Wenger, “[k]nowing is a matter of participating in the pursuit of[valued] enterprises, that is, of active engagement in the world” (Wenger1998, p. 4). Source: Bonderup Dohn, 2009
  21. 21. Source: Wayne Barry, “The Generation Game”
  22. 22. Average Age Group Use of a Range (19) of Social Networking Sites Source: Pingdom/Google
  23. 23. Age Distribution in Use of Various Social Networking SitesSource: Pingdom/Google
  24. 24. Average Age of Users of Different Social Networking Sites Source: Pingdom/Google
  25. 25. Growth of Facebook Search TrafficSource: Ignite social media/Google Insight& Adplanner.
  26. 26. Age of “Facebook” Users (2011)Source: Ignite social media/Google Insight & Adplanner.
  27. 27. Growth of “Linkedin” Search TraddicSource: Ignite social media/Google Insight & Adplanner.
  28. 28. Use of “Linkedin” by Age Group
  29. 29. Briefly, what do the case studies suggest? A long way to go?A “The exercise failed and showed that {Masters} students are mostly not familiar with the web 2.0. tools (they are also not familiar with the terminology). Only few are using FB for personal purposes, fewer (1/10) have twitter accounts and nobody writes blog (or uses them as a study material). ... The challenge of using web 2.0. as integral part of educational process remains open and unaccomplished.”B“Content is usually adapted from well-known sites (e.g. Wikipedia) … Usually, no clear definition of quality criteria is given by teachers and/or institutions… There is little interest from students’ side to develop their own quality criteria. “C “Students were very reluctant to participate at the beginning, although they were offered detailed written guidelines on how to use the web 2.0 tools. Although they mentioned the extra work load required, as the main reason, they reported that they would be “happier” if this extra load would include more “traditional” forms of academic tasks (i.e. essay).
  30. 30. Some positive signs?C “Different web 2.0 tools attracted different levels of participation. Blogseems to be used more often than the twitter. A potential explanationcould be the structured character and the orientation of the tool. {Usingthe} Blog seems to be more attractive to students as it givesopportunities for academically familiar tasks” … The role of the web 2.0developer (expert) as a facilitator, who creates a friendly environment,as well as the educator’s positive attitude towards the use of theseinnovations and – most importantly – his continuous active participationseem to inspire participants..”D “Both students and faculty need support to gain knowledge andexperience, and develop strategies for teaching and learning withWeb 2.0 technologies in a constructivist environment. Becausetraditional, teacher-centered teaching and learning approaches areconsistent neither with the dynamics nor with the philosophy ofWeb 2.0 community building such support ought to be providedthrough in-service faculty training, as well as workshops forstudents and faculty.”
  31. 31. Towards good practice…?D. “When the inclusion of Web 2.0 innovations is planned {attention should be paidto} the development of constructivist teaching and assessment strategies in the“traditional” FTF courses – such as learner-centered instruction, peer-interaction,peer-evaluation and scaffolding in the process of learning, ongoing non-formalassessment, project-based learning etc.”D “The specifics of blended and on-line learning require revisiting the normativeand organizational guidelines for educational institutions. These specifics includefactors such as: a. Time necessary both on the side of the educator and the learner for the development of effective learner-centered process with the active inclusion of Web 2.0 technologies. b. Pedagogical, communication, and technical skills necessary for the development of learning materials for constructivist, Web-based 2.0 environments. c. Learning and communication skills necessary for active and effective participation in Web 2.0 and constructivist-based learning process Learners’ and educators’ participation in the learning process happens at different times and different places.”
  32. 32. Student perceptions of HEIs’ Use of Technology to Support LearningSource: Wayne Barry, “The Generation Game”
  33. 33. Source: Slideshare
  34. 34. Realising Martha Nussbaum’s ‘Capabilities’ for EveryoneFor democracy to thrive, Nussbaum suggests developing ten capabilities thatdetermine ‘what people actually are and what they are able to be’Life – able to live a full human life of normal length;Bodily health – able to enjoy bodily health, including adequate nourishment andcapacity for reproduction;Bodily integrity – able to move freely and safely from place to place;Sense, imagination and thought – able to make full use of the senses toexperience, think, reason, imagine and create;Emotion – able to experience attachment to people, things and experiences and toexpress feelings of love, longing, grieving and justifiable anger;Practical reasoning – able to conceive of the good life and to engage in criticalreflection;Affiliation – able to live with others in mutual respect, understanding the positionof and worth of ‘others’, and establishing the basis of self-respect and non-discrimination;Other species – having respect for animals and plants;Play – ability to laugh and enjoy recreational and playful activity; andEnvironmental control – able to engage with the processes and choices that affectour political and material lives, including rights of political participation, propertyholding and employment
  35. 35. Some supplementary data on thegrowth and use, by age-group, of a range of Web 2.0 applications
  36. 36. Growth of “Twitter” Search TrafficSource: Ignite social media/Google Insight & Adplanner.
  37. 37. Use of Twitter by Age GroupSource: Ignite social media/Google Insight & Adplanner.
  38. 38. Search Traffic for “Flickr”Source: Ignite social media/Google Insight & Adplanner.
  39. 39. Use of “Flickr” by Age GroupSource: Ignite social media/Google Insight & Adplanner.
  40. 40. Growth of “YouTube” Search TrafficSource: Ignite social media/Google Insight & Adplanner.
  41. 41. Use of “YouTube” by Age GroupSource: Ignite social media/Google Insight & Adplanner.
  42. 42. Growth in “Weibo” Search TraffficSource: Ignite social media/Google Insight & Adplanner.
  43. 43. Use of “Weibo” by Age GroupSource: Ignite social media/Google Insight & Adplanner.
  44. 44. Decline of “My Space” Search TrafficSource: Ignite social media/Google Insight & Adplanner.
  45. 45. Use of “My Space” by Age GroupSource: Ignite social media/Google Insight & Adplanner.
  46. 46. Use of “Badoo” by AgeSource: Ignite social media/Google Insight & Adplanner.
  47. 47. Use of “Badoo” by Educational Level/QualificationSource: Ignite social media/Google Insight & Adplanner.
  48. 48. Source: Ignite socialmedia/Google Insight &Adplanner.