Education 1.0 was characterized by a teacher lecturing from
the front of the classroom and scribbling on a chalkboard while students were
primarily observers and listeners.
Education 2.0 took those traditional teaching methods and
replaced chalkboards and filing cabinets with personal computers, digital
projectors, educational software, and data systems— allowing for massive data
collection, as well as some curricular changes and economies of scale. In other
words, schools added computer labs and other technologies to their instruction,
but they didn’t make those tools a vital, transformational part of the
curriculum; for the most part, teachers still imparted knowledge from the front
of the class, and students still listened and took notes.
Education 2.0
begins the transition to a new educational paradigm based on knowledge
production and innovation production, the appropriate engines for viable 21st
Century economies.
Education 3.0, which empowers students to produce, not merely to consume,
knowledge. Education 3.0 is made possible by Education 2.0 (Internet-enabled
learning), and by centuries of experience with memorization (Education 1.0). Education
3.0 substitutes this “just in case” memorization with skills for designing
their futures in a society that is increasingly dependent on imagination,
creativity and innovation. Education 2.0 is a necessary foundation for
Education 3.0. World-wide, productivity through 2.0 “open sourcing” creates
“pushes” toward involvement in innovation.
Education 3.0 is to take a holistic approach in which technology is as important a
part of instruction as the teachers and the lesson plans, and where all three
pieces work together seamlessly. Education 3.0, its evangelists say, creates a transformational,
hands-on learning environment that help motivate students to develop the skills
and knowledge they’ll need in the modern world: problem solving, critical
thinking, innovation, business literacy, and collaboration.
Education 3.0 is
qualitatively different incarnations that build upon Education 2.0 information
sourcing capabilities and, to a lesser extent, the memorization habits of
Education 1.0. We realize that most of the world’s education is at the l.0
level, and that only a fraction of world education is “officially” moving
toward Education 2.0 despite the fact that students often attempt to Leapfrog
beyond 1.0, if only – and often by necessity - outside the classroom.
Education 1.0
and 2.0 did not focus as much on the
real-world skills that students need. You clearly need to design curriculum and
teaching and learning practices and use technology to develop those skills in
your students. Education 3.0, it’s more about holistic transformation. This
transformation must start with student instruction in mind: Curriculum teams need
to develop lesson plans that incorporate technology as an essential component, and
one that enables a hands-on, project-based approach to instruction—making whatever
adjustments to the classroom environment are necessary. School districts must
set up technology-planning teams to assess their current technology, staffing, and
workflow, then build a forward-looking technology plan and maintain it.
Students must have access to basic technology tools, such as word processing and
spreadsheets, as well as always-on connectivity. Teachers—trained properly in
the use of new tools and technology to help guide instruction—must select
up-to-date content from online resources and edit digital content to
personalize the curriculum for each student. And all of this should be
standardized across the district to maintain a consistent vision and minimize
costs and complexity.
 |
| Figure 1 Transformation of Education
|
Table
1 Comparison between Education 1.0, 2.0
and 3.0
|
“Download”
Education
1.0
|
“Open
Access” Education
2.0
|
Knowledge
Producing Education
3.0
|
Meaning is…
|
Dictated
|
Socially constructed, with aid of (usually
limited) Internet access
|
Socially constructed and contextually
reinvented knowledge
|
Technology is…
|
Confiscated at the classroom door (digital
refugees)
|
Cautiously adopted open access (digital
immigrants)
|
Everywhere (digital natives in a digital
universe) for ubiquitous knowledge construction and transmission
|
Teaching is done …
|
Teacher to student
|
Teacher to student and student to student
(progressivism); Internet resources are a normal part of learning activities
|
Teacher to student, student to student,
student to teacher, people-technology-people (co-construction of knowledge)
|
Schools are located…
|
In a building (brick)
|
In a building or online (brick and click),
but increasingly on the Web throughhybrid and full internet courses
|
Everywhere in the “creative society”
(thoroughly infused into society: cafes, bowling alleys, bars, workplaces,
etc.)
|
Parents view schools as…
|
Daycare
|
Daycare with an laboratory edge, provided
by open access and gradual movement toward project-based learning
|
Places for students to create knowledge,
and for which parents may provide domestic, volunteer, civic, and fiscal
forms of support
|
Teachers are…
|
Licensed Professionals
|
Licensed Professionals who team with
students, parents and others to (gradually) create more interesting class
experiences
|
Everybody, Everywhere, backed up by
wireless devices designed to provide information raw material for knowledge
production
|
Hardware and software in schools…
|
Are purchased at great cost and ignored
|
Are open source and available at lower
cost, permitting open access “on the cheap” and beyond school premises and
time frames
|
Are available at low cost and are used
purposively, for the selective production of knowledge
|
Industry views graduates as…
|
Line workers who must be trained and from
whom little created is expected
|
A workers marginally or ill-prepared for
the knowledge-producing economy
|
As knowledge-producing co-workers and
entrepreneurs who can support the development of focused knowledge
construction
|
Educating the best
and the brightest in this brave new world will take a new and improved
educational paradigm. Education 1.0 schools cannot teach 3.0 students.
The move to the 3.0 paradigm requires genuine and massive structural
transformations. If schools continue to embrace the 1.0 paradigm and are
outmoded by students that thrive in a 3.0 society, we can only expect continuous
failure.
|
Paradigm
|
Domain
|
1.0
|
2.0
|
3.0
|
Fundamental relationships
|
Simple
|
Complex
|
Complex creative
(teleological)
|
Conceptualization
of order
|
Hierarchic
|
Heterarchic
|
Intentional,
self-organizing
|
Relationships of
parts
|
Mechanical
|
Holographic
|
Synergetic
|
Worldview
|
Deterministic
|
Indeterminate
|
Design
|
Causality
|
Linear
|
Mutual
|
Anticausal
|
Change process
|
Assembly
|
Morphogenic
|
Creative destruction
|
Reality
|
Objective
|
Perspectival
|
Contextual
|
Place
|
Local
|
Globalizing
|
Globalized
|
Three generations of education
Education 1.0 is, like the first generation of the Web, a largely one-way
process. Students go to universities to get education from professors, who
supply them with information in the form of a stand up routine that may include
the use of class notes, handouts, textbooks, videos, and in recent times the
World Wide Web. Students are largely consumers of information resources that
are delivered to them, and although they may engage in activities based around
those resources, those activities are for the most part undertaken in isolation
or in isolated local groups. Rarely do the results of those activities
contribute back to the information resources that students consume in carrying
them out.
Education 2.0 happens when the technologies of Web 2.0 are used to enhance
traditional approaches to education. Education 2.0 involves the use of blogs,
podcasts, social bookmarking and related participation technologies but the
circumstances under which the technologies are used are still largely embedded
within the framework of Education 1.0. The process of education itself is not
transformed significantly although the groundwork for broader transformation is
being laid down.
Education 3.0 is characterized by rich, cross-institutional, cross-cultural
educational opportunities within which the learners themselves play a key role
as creators of knowledge artifacts that are shared, and where social networking
and social benefits outside the immediate scope of activity play a strong role.
The distinction between artifacts, people and process becomes blurred, as do
distinctions of space and time. Institutional arrangements, including policies
and strategies, change to meet the challenges of opportunities presented.
Education 3.0 as used here is embraces many of the concepts referred to by
Downes (2005) in his concept of e-learning 2.0, but complements them with an
emphasis on learning and teaching processes with a focus on institutional changes
that accompany the breakdown of boundaries (between teachers and students,
higher education institutions, and disciplines).
Table
2: Educational generations in higher education
|
Characteristics
|
Education 1.0
|
Education 2.0
|
Education 3.0
|
Primary
role of professor
|
Source
of knowledge
|
Guide
and source of knowledge
|
Orchestrator
of collaborative knowledge creation
|
Content
arrangements
|
Traditional
copyright materials
|
Copyright
and free/open educational resources for students within discipline,
sometimes across institutions
|
Free/open
educational resources created and reused by students across multiple
institutions, disciplines, nations, supplemented by original materials
created for them
|
Learning
activities
|
Traditional,
essays, assignments, tests, some groupwork within classroom
|
Traditional
assignment approaches transferred to more open technologies; increasing
collaboration in learning activities; still largely confined to institutional
and classroom boundaries
|
Open,
flexible learning activities that focus on creating room for student
creativity; social networking outside traditional boundaries of discipline,
institution, nation
|
Institutional
arrangements
|
Campus-based
with fixed boundaries between institutions; teaching, assessment, and
accreditation provided by one institution
|
Increasing
(also international) collaboration between universities; still one-to-one
affiliation between students and universities
|
Loose
institutional affiliations and relations; entry of new institutions that
provide higher education services; regional and institutional boundaries
breakdown
|
Student
behaviour
|
Largely
passive absorptive
|
Passive
to active, emerging sense of ownership of the education process
|
Active,
strong sense of ownership of own education, co-creation of resources and opportunities,
active choice
|
Technology
|
E-learning
enabled through an electronic learning management system and limited to
participation within one institution
|
E-learning
collaborations involving other universities, largely within the confines of
learning management systems but integrating other applications
|
E-learning
driven from the perspective of personal distributed learning environments;
consisting of a portfolio of applications
|
In an Education
3.0 world, institutions will be called on to accredit not programs of study or
courses, but rather to accredit learning achieved.
Education in the
20th and early 21st Centuries (Education 1.0) has been based on scarcity.
Professors and learning resources are scarce. Learning materials are difficult
and costly to produce, and being physical objects, they are hard to move
around. Being physical objects, they are also rivalrous, so a single copy of a
book in a library cannot be signed out to two people at once. Professors are
also costly to move around. This results in professors and learning resources being
aggregated into institutions within which most of the key processes are
contained.
The concept looks at
the holistic approach to the transformation of the education system. Education
exists in a digital universe and is infused in every aspect of society with
every individual looking to innovate and grow intellectually.
Schools need to be
equipped with a network and good bandwidth with access to mobile devices and
laptops. It should focus on the integration of ICT tools and the internet in
the classroom and into the learning process.
Teaching
in Education 3.0 requires a new form of co-constructivism
that provides meaningful extensions to Dewey, Vygotsky and Freire, while building the
future. Specifically, teaching in Education 3.0 necessitates a Leapfrog approach with:
- Adults
who are eager to imagine, create and innovate with kids
- Kids
and adults who want to learn more about each other
- Kids
and adults who partner to collaborate in teaching to and learning
from each other
- Kids
who work at creative tasks that mirror the innovation workforce
- An understanding
that kids need to contribute to all economic levels, and with better
distribution of effort than in the past
Education 3.0 is a term that has been used to describe a level of transformative
capabilities and practices for education in the 21st century. Education 3.0 is an
interesting approach that views Web 2.0 as an enabling technology for change in
HE.
Characterising three stages of education they describe:
·
Education
1.0 as being in a didactic style,
·
Education
2.0 as Education 1.0 enhanced by use of Web 2.0 technologies.
·
Education
3.0 as "characterized by rich, cross-institutional, cross-cultural
educational opportunities within which the learners themselves play a key role
as creators of knowledge artefacts that are shared, and where social networking
and social benefits outside the immediate scope of activity play a strong role.
The distinction between artefacts, people and process becomes blurred, as do
distinctions of space and time. Institutional arrangements, including policies
and strategies, change to meet the challenges of opportunities presented.
Education 3.0 as used here embraces many of the concepts referred to by Downes
(2005)119 in his concept of e-learning 2.0, but complements them with an
emphasis on learning and teaching processes with a focus on institutional
changes that accompany the breakdown of boundaries (between teachers and
students, higher education institutions, and disciplines)."
These concepts are widespread. In Europe there is a
groundswell of interest in whether Web 2.0 will act as either a transformative
or an enabling force in changing universities by blurring the boundaries
between individual universities, by blurring the boundaries between higher
education and open education, by giving rise to the need for other
qualification awarding bodies at HE levels, and by changing learning and
teaching practice.
cost
Education 3.0 provides an alternative scenario in which an open higher education
environment can bring the mechanisms of open peer review and critical
rationality (Popper, 1972) to teaching and learning, reduce cost through
resource sharing, and increase collaboration across national and institutional
borders.
Table 1.0
highlights three key distinctions between HE 1.0 and HE 2.0. As the previous
sections have discussed, these may firstly involve the primary role of a
lecturer changing from broadcasting to a lecture theatre full of students to
facilitating an integrated online and off-line learning environment. Secondly,
there may be a move away from a reliance on linear teaching delivery, via
traditional lectures, and towards the use of media such as podcasts and videos
which students can control as they please. Thirdly and perhaps most
significantly, as
mashups and resource piggybacking become the norm there is likely to be a far
looser coupling of teaching content to an academic’s parent institution.
 |
| Table 1: HE 1.0 and HE 2.0
|
