Science of Human Learning
Introduction
Science of Human Learning
Introduction
Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning
Motivation and
Self-Regulated Learning is of special significance in the present context when
online education is becoming the new norm, and lifelong self-learning is the
demand of the 21st century.
The
title indicates that Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning (theory)
derives its spirit and substance from theories of motivation and various
depictions of self and self-management. Several names of psychologists are
associated with this theory. Zimmerman (2001) defined “self-regulated learning
as a self-directive process through which learners transform their mental and
physical abilities into task-related skills. This form of learning involves
metacognitive, motivational, and behavioural sub-processes that are personally
initiated to acquire knowledge and skill, such as goal setting, planning,
learning strategies, self-reinforcement, self-recording, and self-instruction”.
Paul Pintrich (2000) derives four domains of self-regulation. These are cognition,
motivation, behaviour and environment. Self-regulation in the cognitive domain
implies a choice of learning strategies by the learner to remember, understand,
think critically and creatively and solve problems. Fleming’s VARK model is of
relevance here. Self-regulation of motivation lies in the affective domain. It
implies maintaining the self-concept and confidence (“I can do this” mindset)
guided by ‘Hope of Success”, also controlling negative emotions and ‘Fear of
Failure’. Self-regulation of behaviour is regulating overt behaviour. When
a learner decides to achieve certain learning tasks, she engages herself deeply
till the goal is achieved. The fourth dimension is regulating the environment.
The environment can be facilitating or distracting in self-regulated learning.
Distractions like noise, poor light and ventilation, heat and humidity,
telephone calls and visitors, etc. Self-regulated learners intervene in the
environment to facilitate engagement in the learning task, maybe by moving
where light is available (there are instances like Pandit Iswar Chandra
Vidyasagar, one of the leaders of the 19th Century Reformist
Movement used to read under the street light), or
asking people to talk low or keep silence or move out to a quieter place.
Taxonomies of Educational Objectives
Marmar Mukhopadhyay
Introduction
Learning involves acquiring knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviours. Learning can be deep (Marton and Saljo 1976) and sustainable - remembered long after and appropriately applied to various situations to solve problems, construct new hypotheses, and create new principles and products. Learning can be superficial and fragile - forgotten as soon as its immediate purpose has been fulfilled. Deep and superficial learning indicates that human learning can happen at multiple levels.
Since human learning happens at multiple levels, some classification is helpful. In the 1950s, a committee headed by Prof Benjamin S. Bloom of Chicago University (USA) pioneered the classification of learning into three domains - cognitive, affective and psychomotor. The Committee further classified different levels of learning within each domain; and probably, for the first time, used the word ‘Taxonomy’3 in education.
The report of the Bloom Committee, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, published in 1956, brought this new term into the lexicon of education. (More on
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14wUI5hMTag_jkQvp2Nd7XGhZQmVoNnXl/view
A critical analysis of the developments and present status
indicate at least 20 visible trends in ODE and online education. These
are:
1.
MOOCs:
According to Class Central[1], by the end of 2019, 900 universities
around the world announced 13,500 MOOCs. 2,500 MOOCs were launched by 450
universities in 2019 alone. The MOOCs are being accessed by millions of
learners all over the world. India’s SWAYAM, latest to arrive on the
scene has registered 10 million learners.
2. OER: More and more countries and higher
education institutions are enacting OER Policy and setting up OER
Repositories. The Creative Commons OER policy registry lists 112 current and proposed OER
Policies from around the world. According
to one estimate, there are 1600 OER repositories that include online presentations,
course material, learning modules, podcasts, simulation tools, etc.
3. Discussion Forums: Both synchronous
(e.g. Webinars) and asynchronous discussions are hosted on
e-platforms like Google meet, Zoom, Microsoft Teams, CISCO, etc.
4. Blended Learning: More and more
institutions are blending online education with face-to-face interactions,
discussion forums, hands-on and constructionist practices.
5. Mobile Learning: With deep penetration of
Smartphones, mobile learning is increasingly becoming popular through mobile
apps, and innovative use of the handheld device to access online learning
material, participation in online discussion forums, and taking online tests.
6. Electronic Delivery of Learning Material:
More and more distance education providers are replacing the practice of postal
delivery of printed learning material with electronic delivery. Institutions
upload the learning materials on a platform for learners to download as
and when they need. Institutions are also sharing the savings on
the cost of printing with distance learners by reducing course
fees.
7. Online Examination and Assessments: More
and more online education providers are adopting online examinations and
assessments.
8. Application of Learning Analytics:
Increasing number of ODE institutions is adopting learning analytics for
learning diagnostics and improving course delivery.
9. Student Hub: Student hub as a
one-stop-shop for students for all kinds of information and support is becoming
a new trend in online education. The student Hub, in some
universities also provides an online interactive facility featuring
a discussion forum.
10. Personalization: To overcome
isolation in online education, an emerging trend is to provide personalization.
Besides personalization of educational content, media, pace and
assessment mechanisms according to the preference of the learner,
personalization is also being devised for breaking isolation, especially
for the hibernating learners, and those who are sliding back on
performance[2].
11. Integration of private providers on online
learning: The online education programs are dominated by private providers like
FutureLearn, Coursera, Udemy, Udacity, SWAYAM and others. An emerging trend is
integrating private providers in online education offerings of the
universities.
12. Nano-courses: Learners’ preference is
moving towards shorter nano-courses that can be completed within a few days or
weeks. More and more learners are shopping nano courses according to their
choice; and collecting badges and micro-credentials.
13. Micro-credentials and Badges: Learners are
seeking Micro-credentials as mini degrees in recognition of their evidence
of learning on completion of the online course, and not by participation
only. Badges are
also used as micro-credentials. The trend is shifting from
standard diplomas and degrees to the mini qualification of micro-credentials.
14. Beyond 18-23: Online education, especially
short nano-courses, is unlocking adult lifelong learning. More and more adult
learners, mostly in employment, have been taking online courses for
professional development and skill up gradation. Online education, thus, has
broken the age cohort concept for higher education.
15. Cross Border Delivery: Educational
delivery, conventionally restricted to the geographical boundaries, is
changing with cross-border delivery and cross border access to courses.
16. Changing Demography: More and more women,
members of the weaker sections, and minority communities are participating in
online education courses.
17. Participation of Global Organization:
UNESCO, OECD, COL, World Bank,
European Commission and other global and multilateral organizations have been
advocating the use of online education. The World Economic Forum estimates that more than one
billion people in the world will need to be reskilled by 2030. Online education is the
appropriate response to the challenge.
18. Policy Shifts of the Governments: More and
more country governments are indicating preference for online open and distance
education. The government finds it a low-cost response to the challenge of
educating the large mass of the young and adult population, especially at a
time when the governments are steadily reducing public funding of
education.
19. Faculty Role Changing: The role of the
faculty is changing from teaching face to face students to content
generation and providing online tutorial.
20. Mindset Shift: With the active involvement of global
organizations and country governments promoting online education, there
is a shift in the mindset for better.
[1]
https://www.classcentral.com/report/mooc-stats-2019/#:~:text=By%20the%20end%20of%202019,were%20launched%20by%20450%20universities
.
[2] I read a case in
a paper (missed the reference) where UKOU called up on the phone a registered
learner whose grades were going down. During the telephone call, the UKOU
counselor found that the candidate was passing through some difficult times at
home. Counselor advised the candidate to hibernate for some time to overcome
the personal problems, and then return back so that he may maintain his record
of good performance.
Yes,
indeed. It does.
It
aspires transformation as policies in all areas, in all countries, in all ages
do. Aspiring transformation is in the nature of policy; is the purpose of the
policy.
Policy
derives from the experience of the past, stands in the present and paints the
future. Changing the present to the future is transformation. It is true,
whether it is education, agriculture, industry, health, or any other field.
Education evolves; its aspirations are equally evolving. Every new aspiration
stands on the shoulder of the previous aspirations, including the unfinished
agenda.
Aspiration
to transform is equally true across the
countries. NCLB and ESSA of the USA, 2012 policy of Finland, Singapore’s
4-stage plan from 1997 to 2015, and many others – all aspire transformation.
The aspiration to transform is the reason for the policy. If the policy does
not aspire transformation, it doesn’t qualify to be a policy.
The
policies use different words to express their intent of transformation. First
Indian National Education Policy of 1968 expressed its intention with the
strong word, ‘radical change’. 1986 policy expressed the same intention with a
modest matured expression that ‘only a comprehensive policy’ would be able to
achieve the transformation necessary.
There are
also differences in the ways the policies
are made -- across the countries, and within India. Research, diagnosis
and consultation of stakeholders are three pillars of all scientific
policymaking. The 1968 policy was formulated based on the basis of the recommendations
of the Kothari Commission. The largescale consultations, a huge amount of
serious research, and expert-authored position papers spread over a period of
two years, 1964-66 were the inputs to the report of the Commission. It was a
landmark. Commission went round the country consulting all possible
stakeholders. The Commission was chaired by no less than a scholar of the
stature of Prof D.S. Kothari with Sri J. P. Naik another architect of Indian
education as the Member Secretary. And, it was the first National Policy. It
had to pioneer both the process of policy making in Indian education and the
product. There was no precedence; it had no shoulder to stand upon.
The 1986
policy took off where 1968 policy left. It was developed in a very different fashion.
It started with developing a diagnostic document -what has been achieved,
what have been some of the missed opportunities, and what can be done. The diagnostic
document titled, The Challenge of Education was debated extensively all over the
country. Several hundred well-documented reports were received in NIEPA that
was entrusted to carry out the content analysis and derive policy implications
from the collective wisdom of all stakeholders in the country. Based on
the analysis, a draft policy was developed that went into another round of
extensive discussion with all stakeholders before finalizing. Prime Minister
himself participated in several discussions (one was chaired by Dr. Malcolm
Adisesiah) during the policy formulation; he also reviewed the entire policy document
word by word and commented before it was finalized (as professor of NIEPA,
then, I witnessed).
As the
World Wide Web or the Internet was still to be born (1990-91), 1968 and 1986
policy had no opportunity for online consultation.
Both the
1968 and 1986 policies went to the Parliament for debate and approval before the
declaration of the National Policy on Education.
2020
policy was developed still differently. A Committee was set up under Sri TSR Subramaniam in 2016. The committee submitted its report in on
7th May 2016. Another committee was constituted under the
chairmanship of Dr Kasturirangan in 2018. The committee submitted its
report on 31st May 2019. Taking full advantage of development of ICT
and well developed network of institutions, there was extensive consultation on
the Subramaniam report and then on the draft document. With the vibrant World
Wide Web, there was large scale online consultation. Prime Minister took keen interest in the
policy making and the aftermath. The President and the Prime Minister actively
engaged themselves in public speaking on the policy.
One
indication of the aspiration of the national policies is the active involvement
of the highest executives, namely the prime ministers in the country.
Diverting
for a moment. The three practices provide important research opportunities for
policy research. There is research on impact of sample size on research outcomes,
e.g. beyond a size of the sample (large sample), cost of research increases
without increase of the worth of the research findings. I didn’t come across
any research on scale of consultation and quality of outcome in the context of
policy making. This provides and opportunity for research. Similarly, another research opportunity is on
the online consultation. Online consultation, like online surveys, divide the
prospective sample into respondent and non-respondent samples. This division is
on the basis of enthusiasm and voluntariness to share the viewpoints; and not
the knowledgeability on the subject of the discourse. The issue remains unexplored – what would be
the result if non-respondent knowledgeable sample would have responded?
Consultation
is necessary, but not end of the road for policy formulation. The policy is a political
statement on the subject by the political party in power (in case of
democracies) or the ruler (in autocratic states). Hence, the views of the ruling dispensation
are important for any policy.
There is
some common core of aspirations across the countries. As Tan[1],
analyzing the tensions in Chinese education policy mentioned, educational
policies derive from educational theories and best practices across the
countries. For example, student-centric education, higher-order cognition,
technology-enabled/integrated education are the common core of educational policies
across the countries; also reflected in NEP2020. I have personally seen the
schools that India aspires to create as described in NEP 2020 in Singapore,
Japan, China, UK, USA and Canada. I have also seen some Indian
schools that fit into the aspired framework of the imagined schools of the
future.
Comparing
new policies with the previous ones is not very relevant. 1968 policy was
developed in a context that changed by 1985. 1986 policies derived the
advantage of the implementation of 1968 policies for little more than 15 years.
Similarly, the 1986 policy was formulated based on the developmental context
that existed then. 2020 policy derives the benefits of implementation of 1986 policies
over the last 34 years that has substantially changed the context. The quality
of aspiration needs to be tested laterally with contemporary policies in
comparison to other countries like E-9 countries.
Every
policy stands on the shoulder of the previous policy(ies). Barack Obama’s Every
Student Succeed Act (2015) stood on the shoulder of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2002. Singapore’s four-stage plan leading to the ambition of
making “Lifelong Self Learners” was a step by step progression from 1997
to 2015 and now. Finland’s Phenomenon-based Learning policy is not disconnected
from its experience and achievements. NEP 2020 had the privilege and advantage
of standing on the strong shoulders of 1968 and 1986 policies.
In 1947, India inherited 19% literacy; a total of
241,369 students registered across 20 universities and
496 colleges. NEP 2020 takes off with 77.7% literacy, 37.4
million students across 993 universities, 39,931 colleges, and 10,725
stand-alone institutions, (according to the AISHE-2019) at 26.3% GER in higher
education.The situations are totally different. Things are different.
Aspirations have to be qualitatively different.
Questions that need Answers
Unresolved question is whether and how NEP2020
responds to the 4-layer knowledge taxonomy with the dimensions of policy
vision, professional development, curriculum, Pedagogy, assessment and
institutional organization?
1.
Is it contemporary?
2.
Is it Futuristic?
3.
Is it optimistic enough to be
inspiring?
4.
Is the aspiration rooted in
reality to be implementable?
5.
Would it enhance global parity?
6. Would it
reduce in-country regional disparities?
For example, India ranked 129 among 189 countries in the world on HDI in 2019. India lifted 271 million people out of poverty between 2005-15; but remains home for 364 million poor people (28%) (UNDP 2019 report). Many questions would appear on the way from 2020 to 2040. How does NEP 2020 aspire to lift the poor and ensure the quality of life, social justice and all that have been enshrined in the Indian Constitution? How would GER help in improving HDI, or what percentage of GER is the minimum threshold for lifting India’s poor and illiterate out of the situation where they are. How would NEP 2020 change or contribute to the improvement of Quality of Life Index of India and also its ranking in the world? Would it help change the Pareto Principle of 20% Indians amassing 80% of the wealth to assuring better distribution of wealth ensuring End of Poverty[3]?
Conclusion
1986 policies weathered 34 storms, scorching
summers and freezing colds offering a solid ground for NEP2020 to stand upon.
NEP 2020 is a new-born spotless baby fresh from the garden. We welcome and
celebrate her appearance as heartily as India did to its pioneer 1968 and
predecessor 1986 policies.
[1]Tan, Charlene. (2016). Tensions and challenges in China’s education policy borrowing. Educational Research. 58. 1-12. 10.1080/00131881.2016.1165551.
[2]Kozma, R. B. (2011) A Conceptual Framework: The Knowledge Ladder. In UNESCO (2011).Transforming Education: The Power of ICT Policies. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/FIELD/Dakar/pdf/Transforming%20Education%20the%20Power%20of%20ICT%20Policies.pdf
[3]
Please see The End of Poverty: How We Can Make It Happen In Our Lifetime by Jeffrey Sachs (2005).
6 Minute read
5W Model: Learning Environment in 21st Century
Marmar Mukhopadhyay
Introduction
It is quite a
popular theme for the last about three decades. There are a large number
of writings accessible on the net. There is an equally good number of
slides in the slide share domain. I have however not come across any futurological
study on the learning environment in the 21st Century. What we find
are imagination projected on a future canvas. Mine is no different. We are
actually already 2 decades old in the 21st century. What remains is about
80 years.
It's a generic concept. If we see it through the prism of Future
Shock, it is a Utopia. 21st century has Eritrea and Finland; or Niger with an average
of 2-year schooling and Luxemburg or Norway - the richest
countries in the world where people can afford almost anything they wish.
Whose learning environment are we talking about, any way! It looks more of a
romantic tryst with ideas.
Within India, Learning environment in Kolkata–Delhi-Bangaluru-Mumbai-Chennai is not the same. Within Kolkata – learning
environments in new generation institutions like Adamas University and the
oldest - my alma mater is not the same, though both share the space
in the 21st century. We need to find a set of descriptors of the learning
environment that can explain changing time – next eight decades of this
century, and geographical space from Niger to OECD Countries.
Majority of the authors portrayed the
21st century learning environment on the basis of technological
developments. As I understand, the learning environment
cannot be shaped without the involvement of the people. I see the 21st
century learning environment moving on two legs - one is the 21st century
learners, and second is developments in technology.
21st
Century Learners
This is another popular theme among the Netwriters/Bloggers.
Dr. Sarah Elaine Eaton’s 21 Characteristics
is the most comprehensive[1].
21st century learners are far more exposed to environmental
stimulations due to digital media, limitless human networking. Many more brain
neurons are regularly excited creating new synapses and brain patterns making
them much smarter learners. They prefer to decide what and how they want to
learn. Having landed at the Level 3 of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, their focus
is on ‘making a difference’ rather than earning to survive or ‘live
happily ever after’. They confidently assert freedom; love
risks and challenges and are ready to fail to innovate and create. Master
of social media, they connect and collaborate naturally with others across the lands
and seas. They prefer to explore, experiment and discover knowledge and
solution to perplexing problems than accept what is told to them. Endowed
with natural intelligence, they happily unburden their cognitive overload on
artificial intelligence, machine learning, block-chain, augmented reality. They
are the masters of Alexa and her next generations. They are not
‘prisoners of geography[2];
they know they are global citizens.
Technological Developments
Technological
developments are fast, disruptive and unpredictable. Technology
integration is predictable. Early indications are integration of Smart board,
Clickers, video-aided education, PPT slide-presentation, clickers, Computer and
video games, online education, blended learning improve student learning
outcomes. Technology integrating teachers are doing better. Online education
is doing better and makes a big promise.
New Technologies like Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Block Chain Technology, Game-based Learning, Virtual Reality, Learning Analytics, Big Data, Mobile Apps, Internet of Thing, Adaptive Computer Testing, Bite Size Learning, Cloud Computing, Online ICT Tools, Open Education Resources are fast changing the contours of educational canvas.
Digital divide in this age of digital learning is reality. There
are three faces of digital divide. These are attitude, skill and access. Adults
at home, institution and governance are at disadvantage. 21st
century learners possess better digital attitude and skills; thereby overcome
deficiency in access. Adults in power centres have better access to digital
devices; their poor attitude and skills decelerate unfolding the power of the learning
environment.
21st Century Learning Environment:
Agenda and the Challenge
The central agenda of the 21st century learning
environment is to Create Lifelong Self-learners.
Instead of mastery of a subject, agenda is Mastery of the Art of Learning.
With tremendous developments in technology, and knowledge revolution,
knowledge and information will suffer obsolescence faster than any time in the
history. Accordingly, the biggest
challenge of the 21st century learning environment will be to enhance the
conceptual complexity of the learner, and continuous rebuilding of the
cognitive structure to make it more and more capable of abstract
and creative thinking, leaving the concrete information to be stored in
technological devices to be retrieved on JIT basis. In such a fluid
unpredictable situation, any description or projection of the
21st century learning environment is fraught with risk of obsolescence
that may also smack of misplaced
romanticism. To be resilient and relevant for sometime at least, in this ever
changing scenario, I propose a 5W Model where every component is
also capable of changing. In other words, we need a model
that does not stand on here and now basis only, but dynamic enough
to change with the changing scenario.
5W Model
My 5W Model comprises of 5 words - Whenever, Whatever, Whichever, Wherever, and Whomever.
I define the 21st Century Learning Environment as Learn
Whenever–Whatever-Whichever-Wherever-Whomever.
21st Century Learning Environment would include unnoticed, unintended incidental learning into an individual's learning portfolio.
Whenever: Learning will no more be restricted to fixed institutional time, or the age of a person. The 21st century learning environment will provide learning opportunities anytime of the day, anytime of the month and year not excluding Saturday-Sundays as non-learning days, and anytime in life. In other words, the concept of learning at a particular time of the day, and a particular number of days in a semester, and in the first 25 years of life would no more be valid. People will access learning resources and learn anytime during the day, or the year, and any time during life.
Whatever: 21st century learners would have the opportunity of learning whatever she/he wants to learn. It can be a group of subjects from HASS or STEM. It can be phenomenon based multidisciplinary learning. Learners can choose to learn forest fire, Tsunami, epidemic or pandemic, growing up, or scholarship. Learners can choose a full course on medicine or take bite-size learning of diabetes or joint pain only. They would collect badges and accumulate at their sweet time and will.
Whichever: Learners would exercise freedom to learn the ways they choose to. They may learn through online or face to face offline programs, or blended learning. They will assess their own learning outcomes, at their own style and pace, and instruments of their own choice. After all, self assessment is the most powerful source of feedback for improving learning outcomes.
Wherever: The geography of learning will be totally unbound. It may be in the classroom; or home, or Clubhouse; on the lush green meadows or in the sea or in the sky. Learners will access learning opportunities from local institutions, any university and academic institution within the country or anywhere in the world.
Whomever: The conventional concept of designated teacher would change to learn from anyone – people in white collar, yellow collar, blue collar or open collar; learn from their learning and experience, and expertise rooted in real situation through apprenticeship, tutorials, assistantships, etc. Teacher would provide the critical support in choosing appropriate person to learn from.
The 5W model indicates total freedom of the learner To learn whatever she wants to learn, whenever, whichever and wherever. This is possible because of 21st Century Learners’ will and zeal to learn and technological development that has successfully dismantled the geographical boundaries creating free access to quality learning opportunities anywhere in the world via Internet and Open Education Resources.
Conclusion
UNESCO’s International Commission on session on Future of Education: Learning to
Become is in session. It is consulting everyone. I’ll wait for the global collective wisdom about The Future of
Education, and 21st Century Learning Environment.