Professional Documents
Culture Documents
EdTech2002Visser&Visser Final
EdTech2002Visser&Visser Final
The editors of the special issue of Educational Technology Magazine have asked
authors to reflect on “the implications that broadening of the definition of learning would
have for educators and educational technologists.” In this article we shall refer to a
redefinition of learning earlier developed by one of us and look at its implications for the
instructional design and educational technology fields. In passing, we shall refer to a line
of research currently underway that makes it possible to get a better insight into the
meaning of learning from the perspective of those who learn, rather than the point of
view of those who design or facilitate learning.
1
Jan Visser (jvisser@learndev.org) is President and Senior Researcher at the Learning Development Institute
(http://www.learndev.org). He is also the former UNESCO Director for “Learning Without Frontiers”
(http://www.unesco.org/education/lwf/ and a theoretical physicist by original vocation.
2
Yusra Laila Visser (yvisser@learndev.org) is Vice President and Researcher at the Learning Development Institute
(http://www.learndev.org) as well as instructional designer for the Open and Distance Learning program in Florida State
University’s Department of Educational Research.
3
The verb “to problematize” is not commonly used in the English language, in contrast with for instance French or
Spanish. Many dictionaries don’t even list it. The Complete Oxford Dictionary defines it as “to propound problems.” We
use it here to refer to the mental and emotional disposition to analyze one’s environment in terms of the challenges it
affords and thus the opportunity to address such challenges. We think of this ability as an essential human ability. We see
“questioning” as an important ability that is part of – but not equivalent to – the disposition to problematize.
1
those close to them, but also affecting, positively or negatively, others – and other life
forms – in the process.
At the time when the populations studied by Brantingham and his colleagues
populated the Tibetan highlands, the total world population is estimated to have been
around eight million. It had probably remained at that level, fluctuating around it, for a
long time since, three million years earlier, hominid development began. However,
shortly after our foraging ancestors populated the Tibetan Plateau, agriculture was
invented, which rapidly overtook hunting and gathering as a primary activity. It caused
the human population to rise exponentially ever since (Tudge, 1998). So, we were three
billion in 1960, and we added another three billion before the twentieth century was over.
Not only did we grow in number, we also became cleverer and cleverer. With
what we know now we could, as a species, probably decide to live comfortably, retiring
from our historical business of transforming the world, but somehow that is not in our
genes. Having put the process in motion, we can no longer stop it. What we can do,
though, is manage it better, becoming metacreative, so to say. Metacreativity, we suggest,
is the capacity to creatively intervene in our creativity, to apply our creative energy to
addressing problems that emerge from our creativeness. It requires reflectiveness,
autonomy of thinking, solidarity with one’s fellow human beings, the capacity to perceive
of one’s world as made up of problems, and the desire and ability to take charge of one’s
life in a problem-oriented fashion. In short, it requires the development of learning at a
higher, more comprehensive level than what is foreseen in most textbook approaches to
the development of designed instruction. One could also say that it requires a broadening
of the set of competencies and attitudes with which instructional designers come
equipped, a broadening that should be based on a more complete perspective of the
contribution that learning in an instructional context can make to human learning in
general.
2
became more and more aware of the ethical responsibility (and probably also of the
socio-economic wisdom) that every citizen should be given the same chances in society.
With the increase in and development of the schooling practice it is not surprising
that learning has become identified, in the minds of many people, with “being instructed”
and all the various connotations that go with that phrase. It has thus become less evident
that learning also occurs in non-instructional contexts, pertaining to the social, economic,
cultural, historical and spiritual spaces, in addition to the school, in which people operate.
As a consequence, the awareness in society about where to invest its creative and
material resources to promote and facilitate learning became highly focused on – if not
obsessed with – formal institutionalized instruction, particularly the school system. This
coincided with a growing neglect – also occasioned by other transformational processes
in society – of, for instance, the important role for the development of learning at both the
cognitive and metacognitive level, as well as in terms of its – often unrecognized –
emotive dimension, played by the family environment, the broadcast media (in more than
their mere educational use), as well as in exploratory spaces such as provided by
museums, nature, libraries, reading rooms, the Internet, community centers, and
clubhouses for the young and the old.
Not only is the strong focus on instruction problematic because it keeps resources
and attention away from other contexts in which people learn, there is also another
problem with particularly the schooling practice, at least when interpreted as a way to
prepare young people for life, providing them with the kind of skills that are the standard
offering of most schools around the world. The existing conception of the school is based
on the premise that the past generation is able to determine what the new generation
should learn and that change is sufficiently slow so that the evolution of how humans
deal with change can occur at the pace with which generations replace each other, i.e. a
timeframe of approximately 20 years. That premise no longer holds. Change has become
so rapid that it has overtaken the pace of generational change. Consequently, there is now
an essential need for people to take their learning life in their own hands. If the school
still has an important preparatory function, and we believe it has, then it must prepare
people for the autonomous development, throughout their lives, of their capacity to learn.
When we say “autonomous,” we mean that to include awareness of one’s being part of
social settings and thus to reflect on the learning individual in his or her ever changing
social environment. That objective is poorly served by programs and curricula that deal
with skills in isolation; compartmentalize knowledge; encourage and evaluate learning
emphasizing individual achievement; dissociate learning from its context of application.
What we are saying here does not mean that we think the school should no longer
have a role in the development of such important basic skills as reading, writing and the
ability to deal with numbers. Nor do we say that the school should not give to those
graduating from it a broad frame of reference in history, geography, the arts and sciences,
in addition to knowledge about their own body and the ability to maintain and develop its
adequate functioning. What we are saying is that the development of such important
faculties should be undertaken with the foresight that people, during their entire lives,
will be dealing with problems that mostly transcend the boundaries between disciplines.
We are also saying that the development of these faculties should be integrated with the
development of other important abilities that allow students to take charge, in an
increasingly autonomous manner, of their own learning.
3
What applies to the school, applies no less to any other instructional setting, as
any such setting is an opportunity to enhance the development of learning of the
individual benefiting from the instruction. It is, in our view, an ethical responsibility of
the instructional designer to have that opportunity in mind and to act on it. Consequently,
we argue that the training of instructional designers should include the creation of
awareness of this more complex world of learning in which designers intervene as well as
provide designers with relevant competencies that allow them to intervene more wisely in
that world of learning. One may compare this with how in the field of medicine the
attention must be on the well-being of the whole human being rather than on some
technical procedures that restrict a medical intervention to dealing with a specific piece of
tissue or a particular organ. Much is still to be developed for the suggested change in the
training of instructional designers. Among other things it requires recognizing the
importance of context as well as understanding context as a multifaceted concept (e.g.
Tessmer & Richey, 1997; J. Visser & Berg, 1999). It equally requires introducing in the
training of instructional designers (and thus also in the evaluation of their training
outcome) of a continuous focus on real-life problems, in a similar fashion as innovative
medical schools and schools of architecture apply this concept (J. Visser & Y.L. Visser,
2000, October).
4
This is a world that calls for deep understanding and wisdom. As the events of the day on
which these lines are being written, September 11, 2001,4 show, it is a world in which
relatively small human entities are able to wreak unprecedented havoc on their fellow
human beings, doing so consciously and by design. It is also a world in which our
collective behavior is able to cause even greater disaster – unwanted by anyone, yet
resulting from the cumulative effect of the actions of us all – as together we contribute to
slowly developing demographic, socio-economic and environmental instability. As
Lederman goes on to comment:
In order to deal with the challenges and opportunities of our time, and more so even of
the future, we are insufficiently equipped if our learning continues to have too strong and
exclusive a focus on gaining specified knowledge, particular ways of understanding the
world, specific skills, prescribed sets of memorized facts, or well defined behavioral
change. What we need most, in addition to all those things, is the ability to see ourselves
using all those faculties we gained and then to reflect on what we are actually doing with
them. In other words, we must look for points of view that lift us above ourselves as mere
organisms able to do clever things without ever questioning our own behavior. For that to
happen we must liberate our ideas about learning from their current narrow focus. In
short, we must “undefine” learning (J. Visser, 2001). The following five considerations
are in order.
First it needs to be recognized that learning is not something one does every now
and then, with periods in between when one does not learn. The faculty to be reflective of
what we do with what we learn can only be turned off to our peril. We thus better keep it
on and think of learning as a lifelong disposition.
A second important point is that for anything we do we are always impacting on
the lives of others. Being now more than six billion on a small planet, using technologies
that can extend the radius of impact of any individual’s action to the entire planet, the rate
and cumulative effect of interaction has dramatically increased. This must once again
make us realize that learning is what it always was: dialogue. The emphasis on learning
as dialogue is clearly present also in the work of, for instance, John Shotter (1997 and
2000, October). It transpires from John-Steiner’s (2000) work on “creative
collaboration.” It is a corollary of the emphasis that Tessmer and Richey (1997) put on
“context” as an important factor in the design of learning environments as well as of the
idea that learning and activity are inseparable concepts (Jonassen, 2000, October). It is
4
The day of the terrorist attack on the cities of New York and Washington.
5
also embedded in how Cole & Engeström (1993) see the building of knowledge as a
cultural-historical process.
In the third place, and as exemplified by, for instance, the development of the arts
and sciences, the learning dialogue is not only a dialogue with other human beings. It is
in general a dialogue with our human, social, biological and physical environment. As in
the case of any true dialogue, we are talking here about a reciprocal process. Not only do
we, as individuals, interact with our environment; that same environment also interacts
with us.
One realizes immediately, and this is our fourth point, that if, as we said above,
our environment interacts with us, we are ourselves also part of that environment and are
integrated in it not as isolated individuals, but at different levels at which we organize
ourselves socially. We should thus perceive of the dialogue as one that has multiple
dimensions; takes place at different levels of complex organization; and is engaged in by
both individual human beings, and all manner of social entities to which they pertain. By
logical extension, this means that learning is an ecological phenomenon (see also
J. Visser, 2001).
Finally, and in the fifth place, it is a dialogue engaged in with a purpose. That
purpose is concerned with our ability to interact constructively with change. The adverb
“constructively” is deliberate and essential. The faculty to choose between being
constructive and destructive, to reflect on whether we enhance existence or subtract from
it, is a profoundly human faculty. We thus conclude, as one of us already proposed
elsewhere, that human learning should be undefined as follows:
6
Aymara and Quechua speaking communities in the highlands of Bolivia, making audio
recordings of the stories as they are being told. We also have stories expressed in the
form of drawings and one in the form of a poem (in Hindi).
Standing out in our initial analysis of people’s accounts of their most meaningful
learning experiences is the low incidence of references to the school or similar
instructional contexts. What is referred to as playing a significant role in initiating and
sustaining people’s most meaningful learning experiences is curiosity - such as a child’s
interest in exploring principles of electronics by taking apart and reassembling electronic
equipment, and challenge - such as working through a seemingly impossible problem, or
developing alternative solutions in the face of resource constraints. Equally of interest in
the research findings is the considerable number of cases in which reference is made to
constructive and conscious involvement in someone else’s learning – for instance as a
teacher, parent or sibling – as a powerful way of learning oneself in a meaningful way.
Not unrelated to this is also the identification of the presence of a role model or
emotionally significant support as an important condition for learning to take place.
7
The highlight on conscious and constructive involvement in someone else’s
learning sustains our reasoning that learning is best interpreted as dialogue, and thus that
instructional design should emphasize opportunities for creative collaboration. Moreover,
such conscious and constructive involvement is only possible when those involved in the
learning situation are consciously engaged, in other words when they reflect on the
learning situation. This supports our emphasis on the inclusion among the concerns of the
instructional designer of metacreativity, metalearning and metacognition, requiring
inventiveness in identifying opportunities and relevant mechanisms in the instructional
setting for instructors and students to become conscious of and assess how learning
happens.
The reference to emotionally significant support in the learning context points to
two important recommendations. The designed instructional environment should have
ample opportunities for people to be collaboratively involved in the shared attainment of
both individual and collective learning goals. Due attention should be given, by the
designer, to ways in which students and instructors can attend to each other’s emotional
needs. Motivational design (Keller, 1983) is part of this concern, but not all of it (see also
Driscoll, 2000).
At the broadest level, the nature of the learning stories research speaks to the
merits of integrating the learners’ perceptions of the meaning of learning into the
instructional design process. Instructional design emphasizes careful analysis and
evaluation throughout the planning and implementation of instructional interventions,
with particular emphasis on such things as determining performance outcomes, salient
learner attributes, and prior knowledge, skills and attitudes. However, learners’
perceptions are rarely integrated into the analysis and evaluation processes, since the
instructional designers and subject matter experts are often regarded as having a better
sense of learners’ dispositions and attitudes than the learners themselves. We would
propose, however, that instructional designers give more careful consideration to the
learners’ perceptions of what constitutes meaningful learning, and that they integrate this
information into all major phases of the instructional design process, with particular
emphasis on the analysis and evaluation phases.
In general, a focus on problems and integration with real-life situations (for
instance Marshall, 2000), and thus the recognition of the “purposeful act” (Kilpatrick,
1918, p.3) as the typical unit for instruction, are, in our view, among the most natural, and
also most adequate ways to attend to the totality of concerns expressed in the above
recommendations.
References
Bower, P. (2001). Stone Age folk in Asia adapted to extremes. Science News, 160, 7.
Brantingham, P.J., Olsen, J.W. & Schaller, G.B. (2001). Lithic assemblages from the
Chang Tang region, northern Tibet. Antiquity, 75, 319-27.
8
Driscoll, M. P. (2000). Psychology of learning for instruction. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Marshall, S. P. (2000, October) The learning story of the Illinois Mathematics and
Science Academy. Paper presented at the Presidential Session on In Search of the
Meaning of Learning (J. Visser, Chair) at the International Conference of the
Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Denver, CO.
Available on the World Wide Web at www.learndev.org/dl/DenverMarshall.PDF.
Shotter, J. (1997). The social construction of our 'inner' lives. Journal of Constructivist
Psychology, 10, 7-24.
Tessmer, M & Richey, R. C. (1997). The role of context in learning and instructional
design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(2), 85-115.
9
Tudge, C. (1998). Neanderthals, bandits and farmers: How agriculture really began.
Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London, UK.
Visser, J. & Berg, D. (1999). Learning without frontiers: Building integrated responses to
diverse learning needs. Educational Technology Research and Development,
47(3), 101-114.
Visser, J. & Visser, Y.L. (2000, October). On the difficulty of changing our perceptions
about such things as learning. Paper presented at the Presidential Session on In
Search of the Meaning of Learning (J. Visser, Chair) at the International
Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology,
Denver, CO [Online]. Available: www.learndev.org/dl/DenverVisserVisser.PDF
[2001, September 20].
Visser, Y. L. & Visser, J. (2000, October). The learning stories project. Paper presented
at the International Conference of the Association for Educational
Communications and Technology, Denver, CO.
10