Student and Teacher Motivational Needs in the School Setting

Motivation is not only important in its own right; it is also an important predictor of learning and achievement. Students who are more motivated to learn persist longer, produce higher quality effort, learn more deeply, and perform better in classes and on standardized tests. It’s commonsense, but it’s also reinforced by hundreds of studies (An Important Piece of the Student Motivation Puzzle).

The topic of teacher and student motivational needs is too often given tangential thought and discussion. I know that teachers, curriculum specialists, and administrators believe in its importance, but I rarely see it brought up in readings and professional development. I propose that it is at the core of learning and as such, needs to be forefront of all teaching and learning.

In addition to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, motivation theories of William Glasser, David McClelland, and Fredrick Herzberg have application to a school environment. Looking at theories of motivation can create a broader perspective as well as give educators additional ideas for meeting their own and their students’ needs. In this post, I discuss some of these motivational theories and propose an integration of these theories. This discussion is relevant for both teachers and students. If teachers aren’t getting their growth needs met, then it is very difficult for them to help their students get theirs met.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Note: When referencing Maslow, it is important to note and acknowledge that Maslow was heavily influenced by Blackfeet ideas but did not credit them for that influence. For articles that discuss this, see https://elink.io/p/9155b1f.

Every teacher I’ve met has studied Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs so I won’t include any detailed explanation as part of this discussion. As a review, I included some resources that follow:

Source: https://dey.org/applying-maslow-to-schools-a-new-approach-to-school-equity/

Resources:

• Addressing Our Needs: Maslow Comes to Life for Educators and Students https://www.edutopia.org/blog/addressing-our-needs-maslow-hierarchy-lori-desautels
• Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in Education – https://educationlibrary.org/maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-in-education/

Take-Aways:

Almost all teachers know about Maslow and believe in the validity of this theory. A key point is that there are deficit and growth needs. I believe that most schools do a great job insuring that students’ (and teachers’) deficit needs are met. Most students would say that they aren’t hungry (due to free and reduced programs), have a roof over their heads, enough light, and a chair to sit on. Even though there are still too many exceptions, most would also say that they don’t feel unsafe by peers or teachers. Too many teachers and students, though, would say that school doesn’t address their growth needs; that they don’t spend enough, or even any, time pursuing personal interests and talents.

Willian Glasser’s 5 Basic Needs

---

William Glasser’s theory isn’t studied or discussed as much as it was a decade or two ago. He identified basic motivation needs: Survival, Belonging, Power, Freedom, and Fun. Survival and Belonging are similar to those identified by Maslow but Power, Freedom, and Fun are different and are important in the discussion of student and teacher motivators.

Power: Power is a sense of em­powerment, worthiness, self-efficacy, and achievement, and an outer sense of being heard and respected and feeling competent and attaining recog­nition. Power in a school setting may be defined by the stu­dent’s (and teacher’s) ability to make choices and be an equal contribu­tor in learning. Students (and teachers) want activities to be relevant and to bring them competence and pride.

Freedom: Freedom is the need for independence and autonomy; the ability to make choices, to create, to explore, and to express oneself freely; to have sufficient space, to move around, and to feel unrestricted in determining choices and free will. To achieve this, students (and teachers) need indepen­dence, options, choices, autonomy, and liberty in both physical and psychological aspects. Ideally, it will include having the freedom to create, having time to generate one’s own thoughts, and sharing what’s been have created in the context of learning.

Fun: Fun is the psychological need for enjoyment-the desire to enjoy a job, to have a sense of humor, to engage in a hobby, to have interests, and to feel excitement about a work project or leisure time activity. Having fun includes experiencing enjoyment, pleasure, relaxation, laughter, and learning. In addition, the combination of laughing and learning can maximize the relationship that educators have with students.

(Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249832861_Our_Five_Basic_Needs)

Resources:

• Our 5 Basic Needs – https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249832861_Our_Five_Basic_Needs
• Student Needs Survey: A Psychometrically Sound Measure of the Five Basic Needs – https://www.academia.edu/29718966/Student_Needs_Survey_A_Psychometrically_Sound_Measure_of_the_Five_Basic_Needs
• Extra: The Neuroscience of Joyful Education https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/the-neuroscience-of-joyful-education

McClellands’ Learning Needs Theory

---

Resources:

• Learned Needs Theory and Students – https://educationalresearchtechniques.com/2021/02/03/learned-needs-theory-and-students/
• McClelland’s Three Needs Theory: Power, Achievement, and Affiliation https://educationlibrary.org/mcclellands-three-needs-theory-power-achievement-and-affiliation/

In his research, Mclelland states that people have three primary needs: need for achievement, need for affiliation, and a need for power.

Need For Affiliation: The need for affiliation is a need to have positive social relationships with other people. These are your classic extroverts who love the company of others. Everyone has some need for affiliation, but for many, this is a high need. For people who need affiliation, the task is not essential to them. Instead, people who need affiliation respond to situations in which people depend on them. For students, this can be situations such as group projects and or team sports. Nothing can cripple high affiliated people then isolation. In addition, students who have a low need for affiliation will equally cause issues if they are always expected to socialize and be a part of the group.

Need for Achievement: The need for achievement is how strongly a person wants to have success at completing a task. High-achieving people feel a personal responsibility when they are expected to do something. High achievement people like to take on projects that have a moderate success rate. In other words, high achievement individuals hate something that is too easy but equally loose motivation for suicide tasks that have a low success rate. High achievers also have a desire for feedback. This is because they want to know if they have achieved success.

Need for Power: The need for power is a need to control, which means to influence other people. McClelland indicates two types of power, and these are personal power and social power. Personal power is a power to control others and is often political with a secret agenda. Social power is also seeking to influence others but to achieve the goals of the group or organization (Source: https://educationalresearchtechniques.com/2021/02/03/learned-needs-theory-and-students/) .

Note: Both Glasser and McClelland discuss the power need. Glasser’s explanation and description makes more sense to me in terms of this discussion.

Key Take-Aways from Glasser’s and McClelland’s Theories

There is some overlap of these two theories. Schools often work toward helping students develop a sense of affiliation and belonging especially after the pandemic with a greater focus on implementing social emotional learning. This is less so for power and freedom needs. I love that Glasser included fun. Sadly, way too often there is an emphasis on compliance within schools which is the antithesis of power and freedom – sometimes it is also the antithesis of fun and play.

Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory

---

This is a good overview. It includes a comparison to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

Resources:

• Herzberg’s Motivation Two-Factor Theory – https://www.simplypsychology.org/herzbergs-two-factor-theory.html
• Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory: Two-factor https://educationlibrary.org/herzbergs-motivation-hygiene-theory-two-factor/

Frederick Herzberg, a behavioral scientist, proposed a two-factor theory or the motivator-hygiene theory. There are some job factors that result in satisfaction while there are other job factors that prevent dissatisfaction. The opposite of “Satisfaction” is “No satisfaction” and the opposite of “Dissatisfaction” is “No Dissatisfaction.

Hygiene factors are those job factors which are essential for existence of motivation at workplace. These do not lead to positive satisfaction for long-term. But if these factors are absent/if these factors are non-existant at workplace, then they lead to dissatisfaction. Hygiene factors are also called as dissatisfiers or maintenance factors as they are required to avoid dissatisfaction. These factors describe the job environment/scenario. The hygiene factors symbolized the physiological needs which the individuals wanted and expected to be fulfilled. 

The hygiene factors cannot be regarded as motivators. The motivational factors yield positive satisfaction. These factors are inherent to work. These factors motivate the employees for a superior performance.These factors are called satisfiers. These are factors involved in performing the job. Employees find these factors intrinsically rewarding. (Source: https://www.managementstudyguide.com/herzbergs-theory-motivation.htm)

Take Aways:

This theory was developed with a business setting in mind. The two factor model can be applied to a school setting, too. When teachers and students have their survival and safety needs met (Herzberg’s hygiene factors), they may not be dissatisfied with the school but that doesn’t mean they are satisfied it. The goal of every teacher and administrator should be to create motivator-based factors and an environment whereby every teacher and student is motivated to be there and learn; where everyone in the school setting has the potential to be quite satisfied with their roles and jobs.

Student and Teacher Needs Ladder Framework

As someone who has been passionate about and studied human motivation for decades, I propose an integration of these motivational theories. I developed this framework to put a greater emphasis on growth and actualization needs in the school environment. A ladder and steps are used as the metaphor as I prefer a more physical-oriented depiction than a hierarchy or pyramid, which is difficult to impossible to climb. Including both a ladder and steps symbolizes that there are multiple ways to climb to high levels. (Note: This framework is appropriate for grades 2nd/3rd up.)

It has the following characteristics:

1. The overall goal is to intentionally bring self-directed, self=determined, and joyful learning into the school environment.
2. Experiencing as state of flow and student-centered learning are important aspects of motivation and increase as one goes up the ladder of needs. For more about flow, see What did you do in school today? and Flow – A Measure of Student Engagement.
3. The needs ladder is split into safety and growth needs with a greater break down and emphasis on growth needs. I believe as Herzberg does in a two factor model. If student and teacher safety needs are met, then they are not dissatisfied with school but they aren’t satisfied with it either. Schools, as I’ve mentioned, typically do a good job with addressing needs. I believe it is now time to put a greater focus on growth needs so that both teachers and students are motivated, satisfied, and happy with their schools.
4. This differs from Maslow’s model in that teachers and students can and will move up and down the ladder depending on the situation and class setting.

• Basic Survival
  • Students and teachers have a safe physical environment and are fed if they are experiencing food insecurity. When school is unsafe for these students, their motivation is survival on a day-to-day basis.
• Extrinsically-Motivated Compliance
  • Student and teacher needs are centered around avoiding punishment and/or receiving rewards, or because it is the expectation. It might be all both teachers and students know as compliance has been the expectation through their school careers. Motivation is strictly based on extrinsic elements.
• Physically and Emotionally Safe with Peers, Teachers, and Staff
  • Physical safety involves freedom from physical harm or threats of harm; emotional safety refers to freedom from bullying, harassment, and humiliation (A comprehensive approach to promoting social, emotional, and academic growth in contemporary schools).
• Connection to School Community
  • This is the transition from safety needs to growth needs. For some teachers and students, it is solidly a growth need, connection to peers and other school personnel meets core growth needs. For others, it helps to create a safe place but it may not personally meet growth needs.
  • The underlying core need is Affiliation, Love & Belonging – The need for affiliation and to love and belong includes the need for relationships, social connections, to give and receive affection and to feel part of a group.
• Engagement and Excitement
  • Student engagement refers to the degree of attention, curiosity, interest, optimism, and passion that students show when they are learning or being taught, which extends to the level of motivation they have to learn and progress in their education (https://www.edglossary.org/student-engagement/).
  • The core underlying need is Fun. The need for fun is the need to find pleasure, to play and to laugh.
  • There is potential to experience flow and joy.
• Empowerment
  • Empowerment is the “process by which individuals and groups gain power, access to resources and control over their own lives. In doing so, they gain the ability to achieve their highest personal and collective aspirations and goals” (Robbins, Chatterjee, & Canda, 1998, p. 91 as cited in What is “empowerment” in education?).
  • The underlying core need is Power. To be powerful is to achieve, to be competent, to be skilled, to be recognized for our achievements and skill, and have a sense of self worth.
  • Empowerment occurs when teachers and students are given choice. John Spencer’s video provides some good suggestion 10 Ways to Empower Students With Choice.
  • A flow state is typically experienced; joy may or may not be present.
• Intrinsically-Motivated Mastery
  • Motivation stems from internal sources – the increased self-esteem, Confidence and recognition that comes from successful performance (Pedagogy, Andragogy, and Heutatgogy – a Continuum and Comparison).
  • The underlying core need is Power. To be powerful is to achieve, to be competent, to be skilled, to be recognized for our achievements and skill, and have a sense of self worth.
  • This can occur through teaching self-directed strategies. It can be mastery of content or of a skill, or in the case of the teacher, learning and successfully teaching new content or skill. It may be interest-driven or not. For example, I have a student who often expresses a disdain for math, yet he prides himself on being able to get correct answers of his math problems.
  • Flow State is evident and observable. Joy may or may not be present and observable.
• Actualization of Interest and Talents
  • Motivation, not only comes from being able to pursue their own interests and develop their own talents, but through developing self-efficacy, knowing how to learn, embracing creativity along with the ability to use these qualities in novel as well as familiar situations and working with others will be he thing that takes place (Pedagogy, Andragogy, and Heutatgogy – a Continuum and Comparison).
  • The core underlying need is Freedom, the need for independence, autonomy, to have choices and to be able to take control of the direction of one’s life while at school.
  • This can be facilitated through self-determined strategies. The goal is not only for students but for teachers whereby they have the permission, space, resources, and time to pursue their own self-determined learning and teaching
  • A flow state and joy are evident and observable, almost palatable.

The higher levels of Intrinsically-Driven Mastery and Actualization of Interests and Talents can be facilitated through self-directed/andragogy and self-determined/heutagogy teaching and learning strategies respectively.

Resources to Learn More About Self-Directed/Andragogy and Self-Determined/Heutagogy Teaching and Learning Strategies

• Experiences in Self-Determined Learning: Moving from Education 1.0 Through Education 2.0 Towards Education 3.0 –https://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/experiences-in-self-determined-learning-moving-from-education-1-0-through-education-2-0-towards-education-3-0/
• Self-determined learning: Creating personal learning environments for lifelong Learning – https://www.slideshare.net/lisamarieblaschke/selfdetermined-learning-creating-personal-learning-environments-for-lifelong-learning
• Pedagogy, Andragogy, and Heutatgogy – a Continuum and Comparison

Needs for BIPOC Students

It is important to add to this discussion a special note about addressing the human needs of BIPOC students. Here are some suggestions as identified by BMEsTalk (Black Male Educators):

• Allow what you know about each individual to inform your expectations and attitudes towards them. Who they are as a singular person, as part of their culture, and where they’re at developmentally. See the whole being they are. 
• This is a powerful position to take! Every teacher should desire to become familiar with the experiences of BIPOC students so they’re more aware of the unique challenges they face. As an educator, this knowledge can be shared, and racial equity can be advanced. 
• Give BIPOC students safe and brave spaces to share difficult topics such as racial inequality, bias, and social injustice. You are being invited into a world that is not your own. You can learn so much from your students to further a racially equitable future for them and the students around them. 
• As their current significant influence in their lives, educators should reinforce and redirect the language and conversation to model support for a student sharing their Black or BIPOC experience. When difficult topics arise during class time, you or your students may feel uncomfortable. Lean into the discomfort. Beyond the discomfort lies the opportunity to learn and educate more on these crucial issues. (https://bmestalk.com/social-emotional-learning-for-black-students/)

Maker Education: Pedagogy, Andragogy, Heutagogy

Maker education is currently a major trend in education. But just saying that one is doing Maker Education really doesn’t define the teaching practices that an educator is using to facilitate it. Maker education takes on many forms. This post provides an overview of how maker education is being implemented based on the teaching practices as defined by the  Pedagogy, Andragogy, Heutagogy (PAH) continuum.

created by Jon Andrews

Traditionally, Pedagogy was defined as the art of teaching children and Andragogy as teaching adults. These definitions have evolved to reflect teacher practices. As such, andragogical and heutagogical practices can be used with children and youth.

PAH within a Maker Education Framework

The following chart distinguishes and describes maker education within the PAH framework. All teaching styles have a place in Maker Education. For example, pedagogical practices may be needed to teach learners some basic making skills. It helps to scaffold learning, so learners have a foundation for making more complex projects. I do, though, believe that maker education projects and programs should go beyond pedagogical oriented teaching as the overriding goal of maker education is for learners to create something, anything that they haven’t before.

Driving Questions

• Pedagogy – How well can you create this particular maker education project?
• Andragogy –  How can this prescribed maker project by adapted and modified?
• Heutagogy – What do you want to make?

Overall Purpose or Goal

• Pedagogy – To teach basic skills as a foundation for future projects – scaffolding.
• Andragogy – To provide some structure so learners can be self-directed.
• Heutogogy – To establish an environment where learners can determine their own goals, learning paths, processes, and products for making.

Role of the Educator

• Pedagogy – To teach, demonstrate, help learners do the maker education project correctly.
• Andragogy – To facilitate, assist learners, mentor
• Heutagogy – To coach, mentor, be a sounding board, be a guide very much on the side.

Making Process

• Pedagogy – Use of prescribed kits, templates; step-by-step directions and tutorials.
• Andragogy  – Use of some templates; learners add their own designs and embellishments.
• Heutagogy -Open ended; determined by the learner.

Finish Products

• Pedagogy – A maker project that looks and acts like the original model.
• Andragogy – A maker project that has some attributes of the original model but that includes the learner’s original ideas.
• Heutagogy – A maker project that is unique to the learner (& to the learning community).

 

 

Experiences in Self-Determined Learning: Moving from Education 1.0 Through Education 2.0 Towards Education 3.0

Mrs. Lisa Marie Blaschke, Mr. Chris Kenyon, and Dr. Stewart Hase contacted a group of us due to our interest in heutagogy for the purpose of writing a chapter in an edited book.  This past week, because of their hard work, this book has been published through Amazon.  It is titled Experiences in Self-Determined Learning and can be found at http://www.amazon.com/Experiences-Self-Determined-Learning-L-M-Blaschke/dp/1502785307/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1417217745&sr=8-1&keywords=Experiences+in+Self-Determined+Learning

What follows is:

• The Book Description
• The Table of Contents
• My Own Chapter: Moving From Education 1.0 Through Education 2.0 Towards Education 3.0

Book Description

Self-determined learning or heutagogy is fast gaining interest from educators around the world interested in an evidence-based approach to learning. Grounded as it is on brain research and extensive research into how people learn self-determined learning is particularly popular among those interested in innovative approaches to learning. This edited book is the perfect primer on self-determined learning or heutagogy. It consists of an introductory chapter explaining the main concepts and principles of this exciting approach to educational practice. This is followed by 16 chapters describing the experience of practitioners in using the approach. These experiences come from a wide variety of interests including school education, higher education, workplace learning, consulting, lifelong learning, training, and community education. Full of links to resources, curated sites,and discussion forums, this is a valuable ‘how to’ book for the interested practitioner and theoretician alike.

Table of Contents

The Basics

• An Introduction to Self-determined Learning (Heutagogy): Stewart Hase
• Heutagogy and Systems Thinking: A Perfect Marriage for Conducting Learning Experiences: Stewart Hase

The Learners

• Embracing Opportunities for Self-Directed Learning in Formal Learning Environments: Bernard Bull
• Moving Forward in the PAH Continuum: Maximizing the Power of the Social Web: Lisa Marie Blaschke
• Assessment as an Ongoing Act of Learning: A Heutagogical Approach: Melanie Booth
• New Pathways to Knowledge and Learning: Rónán O’Beirne
• Moving From Education 1.0 Through Education 2.0 Towards Education 3.0: Jackie Gerstein

The Teachers

• Skills for the Learner and Learning Leader in the 21st Century: Stewart Hase
• Heutagogy and Social Communities of Practice: Will Self-determined Learning Re-write the Script for Educators?: David Price
• Professional Performance Appraisal: From Ticking the Boxes to Heutagogy: Jill Ridden
• Creating Learning Legacies Using Blogs: Robert Schuetz
• Heutagogy and the Impact on Adult Learning in Higher Education: Denise Hexom

The Curriculum

• Cultivating Creative Approaches to Learning: Thomas Cochrane and Vickel Narayan
• From Obstacle to Opportunity: Using Government-mandated Curriculum Change as a Springboard for Changes in Learning and Teaching: Jon Andrews
• One Way of Introducing Heutagogy: Chris Kenyon
• Applying Heutagogy in Online Learning: The SIDE Model: Eric Belt
• Engaging the Wider Community – A Heutagogic Journey Made by a Heutagogic Learner to Develop a Heutagogic Project: Mark Narayan

My Chapter: Moving From Education 1.0 Through Education 2.0 Towards Education 3.0

What follows is my chapter.  For a full picture and understand of Heutagogy, I recommend that you purchase the book.

The evolution of the web from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and now to Web 3.0 can be used a metaphor of how education should also be moving, developing, and evolving from Education 1.0 towards that of an Education 3.0. The Internet has become an integral thread of the tapestries of most societies throughout the globe. The web influences people’s way of thinking, doing and being; and people influence the development and content of the web. The Internet of today has become a huge picture window and portal into human perceptions, thinking, and behavior. Logically, then, we would expect that schools would follow suit in matching what is happening via the Internet to assist children and youth to function, learn, work, and play in a healthy, interactive, and pro-social manner in their societies-at-large. This, sadly, is more often than not the case. Many educators are doing Education 1.0; talking about doing Education 2.0; when they should be planning and implementing Education 3.0.

Education 1.0: A Pedagogical, Essentialist Education

Education 1.0 is a type of essentialist, behaviorist education based on the three Rs – receiving by listening to the teacher; responding by taking notes, studying text, and doing worksheets; and regurgitating by taking the same assessments as all other students in the cohort. Learners are seen as receptacles of that knowledge and as receptacles, they have no unique characteristics. All are viewed as the same. It is a standardized/one-size-fits-all education.

Figure X.1. Education 1.0: Learners as Receptacles of Knowledge

Teachers prior to the Internet, as we know it today, were one of the primary gatekeepers of information. Education 1.0 was often the best choice given the resources and technologies of that time in history.   Other than libraries and news outlets, students were dependent on the educator to provide them with information. As such, a major role of the educator, similar to the beginning stages of the web, was to provide students with content knowledge in a one-way, often didactic format.

Education 1.0 can be compared to Web 1.0 where there is a one-way dissemination of knowledge from teacher to student.   Derek W. Keats and J. Philipp Schmidt (2007) provide an excellent comparison of how Education 1.0 is similar to Web 1.0.

Education 1.0 is, like the first generation of the Web, a largely one-way process. Students go to school to get education from teachers, 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 (Keats & Schmidt, 2007, para. 6).

Education 1.0: An Essentialist Philosophy. Education 1.0 can be classified as an essentialism or instructivism teaching and learning philosophical orientation. These educational frameworks or philosophies fit the characteristics of an Education 1.0 or a traditional pedagogical teaching framework.

Essentialism is defined as:

Essentialism tries to instill all students with the most essential or basic academic knowledge and skills and character development. In the essentialist system, students are required to master a set body of information and basic techniques for their grade level before they are promoted to the next higher grade. Essentialists argue that classrooms should be teacher-oriented. The teachers or administrators decide what is most important for the students to learn with little regard to the student interests. The teachers also focus on achievement test scores as a means of evaluating progress (Essentialism, n.d., para. 1).

Instructivism can be described as:

In the instructivist learning theory, knowledge exists independently of the learner, and is transferred to the student by the teacher. As a teacher-centered model, the instructivist view is exhibited by the dispensing of information to the student through the lecture format. This theory requires the student to passively accept information and knowledge as presented by the instructor (Pogue, 2009, para. 2).

The final piece of understanding the philosophical underpinnings of an Education 1.0 is that of pedagogy:

There is little doubt that the most dominant form of instruction in Europe and America is pedagogy, or what some people refer to as didactic, traditional, or teacher-directed approaches. The pedagogical model of instruction was originally developed in the monastic schools of Europe in the Middle Ages. Young boys were received into the monasteries and taught by monks according to a system of instruction that required these children to be obedient, faithful, and efficient servants of the church (Knowles, 1984). In the pedagogical model, the teacher has full responsibility for making decisions about what will be learned, how it will be learned, when it will be learned, and if the material has been learned. Pedagogy, or teacher-directed instruction as it is commonly known, places the student in a submissive role requiring obedience to the teacher’s instructions. It is based on the assumption that learners need to know only what the teacher teaches them (Hiemstra & Sisco, 1990, para. 2-3).

This essentialist, instructivist, pedagogical teaching model is still the most predominant model in current Kindergarten through College public education, even in these modern times of  ubiquitous information and technology. The learner in an essentialist, instructivist, pedagogical learning environment, given 21st century technologies, and through instruction of the teacher may:

• Access information via ebooks and websites, but these often lack any type of interactivity or capabilities for the learner to comment, share, or interact with the content.
• Watch, learn, and take notes from live and/or video lectures that focus on didactic dissemination of content and information.
• Use technologies and mobile apps based on drill and grill where learners are given direction instruction via these technologies and asked to provide the correct answers via quiz questions. (I classify these technologies as worksheets on steroids.)

Figure X.2. Education 1.0 Learning Environment

Education 2.0: An Andragogical, Constructivist Approach to Teaching and Learning

Education 2.0, like Web 2.0, permits interactivity between the content and users, and between users themselves. With Web 2.0, users moved from just accessing information and content to being able to directly interact with the content through commenting, remixing, and sharing it via social networks. Web 2.0 also saw the development of social media which permits users to communicate directly with one another synchronously and asynchronously.

Similar to Web 2.0, Education 2.0 includes more interaction between the teacher and student; student to student; and student to content and expert. Education 2.0 has progressive, humanistic roots where the human element is important to learning. The teacher-to-student and student-to-student relationships are considered as part of the learning process. Education 2.0 focuses on the three Cs – communicating, contributing, and collaborating.

Figure X.3. Education 2.0: Learners as Communicating, Connecting, and Collaboration

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 (Keats & Schmidt, 2007, para. 7).

Some school administrators and educators have taken steps and moved into a more connected, creative Education 2.0 through using project-based and inquiry learning, cooperative learning, global learning projects, Skype in the classroom, and shared wikis, blogs and other social networking in the classroom. With Education 2.0, the teacher, though, is still the orchestrator of the learning. S/he still develops the learning activities and is the facilitator of learning.

Education 2.0: An Andragogical, Constructivist Approach to Teaching and Learning. Education 2.0 takes on the characteristics of an andragogical, more constructivist teaching orientation where the principles of active, experiential, authentic, relevant, and socially-networked learning experiences are built into the class or course structure. Andragogy has been described for teaching adult learning, but basic principles can be extracted from Andragogy and applied to the teaching of most age groups.

The andragogical model is a process concerned with providing procedures and resources for helping learners acquire information and skills. In this model, the teacher (facilitator, change-agent, consultant) prepares a set of procedures for involving the learners in a process that includes (a) establishing a climate conducive to learning, (b) creating a mechanism for mutual planning, (c) diagnosing the needs of learning, (d) formulating program objectives (content) that will satisfy these needs, (e) designing a pattern of learning experiences, (f) conducting these learning experiences with suitable techniques and materials, and (g) evaluating the learning outcomes and re-diagnosing learning needs (Holmes & Abington-Cooper, 2000, para. 17).

Project-based learning with a focus on authentic, real world problems, networked learning, and use of collaborative digital tools would fit into an Andragogical orientation.

A growing number of educators are heralding the arrival of an era of technology-enhanced PBL. Using educational software and online tools to promote learning is nothing new in most schools. Many teachers remember the days of steering students to educational internet sites and having them present reports in PowerPoint. Now, teachers and students can choose from an ever-expanding cornucopia of digital tools that enable a new level of collaboration, analysis, and presentations (Schachter, 2013, para. 6).

Figure X.4. Education 2.0 Learning Environment

An andragogical, constructivist learning environment typically has the following characteristics:

1. Constructivist learning environments provide multiple representations of reality.
2. These representations represent that complexity of the real world.
3. Knowledge construction is emphasized over knowledge reproduction.
4. Learners participate in authentic tasks in meaningful contexts.
5. Real world settings are provided.
6. Thoughtful reflection on experience is encouraged.
7. Collaboration and social negotiation is encouraged among learners.
8. There’s an integration and activation of prior knowledge.
9. Discovery learning, collaborative activity, and hands-on activities are often integrated into the learning activities. (Abdal-Haqq, 1998; Jonassen, 1994 as cited in Learning Theories/Print Version, n.d)

Education 3.0: A Heutagogical, Connectivist Approach to Teaching and Learning

Web 3.0 is affording us with relevant, interactive and networked content that is freely and readily available and personalized based on individual interests.

Web 3.0 will provide users with richer and more relevant experiences. Many also believe that with Web 3.0, every user will have a unique Internet profile based on that user’s browsing history. Web 3.0 will use this profile to tailor the browsing experience to each individual (Strickland, 2008, para. 15). Web 3.0 will be able to search tags and labels and return the most relevant results back to the user (Strickland, 2008, para. 30).

Education 3.0 is based on this understanding – a personalized, self-determined education. Education 3.0 is self-determined, interest-based learning where problem-solving, innovation, and creativity drive education.

Education 3.0 is characterized by educational opportunities where the learners themselves play a key role as creators of knowledge artifacts that are shared, and where social networking and social benefits play a strong role in learning. 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. There is an emphasis on learning and teaching processes with the breakdown of boundaries (between teachers and students, institutions, and disciplines (Keats & Schmidt, 2007, para. 9).

Figure X.6: Education 3.0: Learners as Connectors, Creators, Constructivists

Education 3.0 is also about the three Cs but a different set – connectors, creators, constructivists. These are qualitatively different than the three Cs of Education 2.0. Now they are nouns which translates into the art of being a self-determined learner rather than “doing” learning as facilitated by the educator. The learners become the authors, drivers, and assessors of their learning experiences with the educator truly being the guide on the side.

In the absence of a more relevant learning process in schools, our nation’s students increasingly are taking their educational destiny into their own hands and adapting the various tools they use in their personal lives to meet their learning needs and prepare themselves for the future, according to the 2009 Speak Up survey of 300,000 students nationwide. This “free-agent learner” student profile accurately depicts the way many of today’s students are approaching learning. For these students, the school house, the teacher and the textbook no longer have an exclusive monopoly on knowledge, content or even the education process. These students are leveraging a wide range of learning resources, tools, applications, outside experts and each other to create a personalized learning experience that may or may not include what is happening in the classroom   (Project Tomorrow, 2010, p. 1).

Learners already possess many skills related to self-determined learning due to their informal learning experiences interacting with the web. Educators can and should assist learners in transferring these abilities and skills in more formal learning settings. With Education 3.0, the educator’s role truly becomes that of guide-as-the-side, coach, resource-suggester, and cheerleader as learners create their own learning journey. The educator has more life experience, knows (hopefully) about the process of learning, and has more procedural knowledge about how to find, identify, and use informational resources and social networking for learning purposes. Not only, then, does the educator help steer students in some more productive directions, s/he models the process of self-determined learning increasing the students’ aptitude for this type of learning. Learners, themselves, also become mentors, teachers, and model learners for one another sharing best practices and strategies for effective learning.

Education 3.0: A Heutagogical, Connectivist Approach to Teaching and Learning. Education 3.0 is a more of a heutagogical, connectivist approach to teaching and learning. The teachers, learners, networks, connections, media, resources, tools create a unique entity that has the potential to meet individual learners’, educators’, and even societal needs. Education 3.0 recognizes that each educator’s and student’s journey is unique, personalized, and self-determined.

The heutagogical, connectivist orientation is closely aligned with Education 3.0.

In a heutagogical approach to teaching and learning, learners are highly autonomous and self-determined and emphasis is placed on development of learner capacity and capability. The renewed interest in heutagogy is partially due to the ubiquitousness of Web 2.0, and the affordances provided by the technology. With its learner-centered design, Web 2.0 offers an environment that supports a heutagogical approach, most importantly by supporting development of learner-generated content and learner self-directedness in information discovery and in defining the learning path (Blaschke, 2012, p. 56).

Even though heutagogy is usually defined and described for adult learners, given these times where we are living with open education resources and information abundance , learners as young as the elementary level have the potential to engage in educational experiences based on heutagogy.   In other words, they can engage in self-determined and self-driven learning where they are not only deciding the direction of their learning journey but they can also produce content that adds value and worth to the related content area or field of study.

Added to this equation is that this new landscape of learning has created opportunities for deep, broad, and global connections. George Siemens (2004) has defined the characteristics Connectivism:

• Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
• Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
• Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
• Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known.
• Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
• Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
• Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
• Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision (para. 25).

All of these principles of learning natural lead to Education 3.0. The learners in an Education 3.0, heutagogical, connectivist learning environment:

• Determine what they want to learn and develop their own learning objectives for their learning, based on a broad range of desired course outcomes.
• Use their learning preferences and technologies to decide how they will learn.
• Form their own learning communities possibly using social networking tools suggested and/or set up by the educator. Possible networks, many with corresponding apps, include: Facebook, Twitter, Edmodo, Instagram, Blogging sites, Youtube, and other social networks.
• Utilize the expertise of educators and other members of their learning communities to introduce content-related resources and suggest Web 2.0 and other online tools for that the students could use to demonstrate and produce learning artifacts.
• Demonstrate their learning through methods and means that work best for them. It could include using their mobile devices to blog, create photo essays, do screencasts, make videos or podcasts, draw, sing, dance, etc.
• Take the initiative to seek feedback from educators and their peers. It is their choice to utilize that feedback or not.

Teacher Mindset: Barriers to Change

So given that the that the time is ripe for Education 3.0, that we are in a perfect storm of free and available online resources, tools for creating and sharing information, and networking opportunities, what is stopping administrators and educators from implementing an Education 3.0 approach . . . at least some of the time? Some of the reasons educators profess include: “I don’t have enough time.”; “I don’t have enough resources.”; “I need more training.”; “I need to teach using the textbook.”; “I need to teach to the test.”; “I might lose control of the class.”; “I have always successfully taught this way.”

Figure X.7: Teacher Mindsets: Barriers to change

These are the symptoms, of a fixed mindset, of educators being both learners and teachers in an Education 1.0. Many educators feel forced into this paradigm of teaching. But, in reality, these are external obstacles whereby most of blame for resisting change is placed outside of educator responsibility. The result is a fixed mindset of learned helplessness, “I cannot change because the system won’t let me change.” Sometimes educators are creating some obstacles for themselves that in reality don’t exist. “Talking them into” or insisting on specific changes often creates more and stronger walls of resistance.

Making the Shift from a Fixed to a Growth Mindset

A mental shift occurs when a fixed mindset which often leads to learned helplessness is changed to a growth and positive mindset, believing that there are options; that one can grow, change, and be significant. It becomes focusing on what can work rather than what is not working. This is not to devalue the obstacles that educators face. It becomes about noting where change is possible and making some small changes in teaching. Small changes often result in larger, more systemic change.

Figure X.8. Moving to a Growth Mindset

The bottom line, though, is not is what is in the best interests of the teacher, the administration, or the politicians. It is what is in the best interests of the learner. The student should be central to education – not the content, not the tests, not the standards, not what we think students should know and do. Teachers did not become teachers to teach to the test, to develop practice tests or worksheets, to work with pre-scripted curriculum to meet standards. Teachers became teachers to teach students, first and foremost. The learner needs to be central to all teaching endeavors.

References

Blaschke, L. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. The International Review Of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 13(1), 56-71. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1076

Essentialism. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.siue.edu/~ptheodo/foundations/essentialism.html.

Gerstein, J. (2013). Schools are doing Education 1.0; talking about doing Education 2.0; when they should be planning Education 3.0. Retrieved from https://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/schools-are-doing-education-1-0-talking-about-doing-education-2-0-when-they-should-be-planning-education-3-0/ .

Gerstein, J. (2013). Education 3.0: Altering round peg in round hole education. Retrieved from https://usergeneratededucation.wordpress.com/2013/06/09/education-3-0-altering-round-peg-in-round-hole-education/ .

Hiemstra, R., & Sisco, B. (1990). Individualizing instruction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Holmes, G., & Abington-Cooper, M. (2000). Pedagogy vs. andragogy: A false dichotomy? Journal of Technology Studies, 26(2). Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JOTS/Summer-Fall-2000/holmes.html.

Keats, D., & Schmidt, J. (2007). The genesis and emergence of Education 3.0 in higher education and its potential for Africa. First Monday, 12(3). doi:10.5210/fm.v12i3.1625.

Learning Theories/Print version. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Learning_Theories/Print_version

Pogue, L.S. (2009).   Instructivism vs, constructivism. Ezine @rticles. Retrieved from http://EzineArticles.com/1857834.

Project Tomorrow. (2010, March). As schools lose relevancy, students take charge of their own learning. Retrieved from http://www.tomorrow.org/speakup/pdfs/Speak_Up_09_March_Release_FINAL.pdf

Schachter, R. (2013, December). Schools embrace project-based learning 2.0. District Administrator. Retrieved from http://www.districtadministration.com/article/schools-embrace-project-based-learning-20.

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.

Strickland, J. (2008, March 8). How web 3.0 will work. HowStuffWorks.com. Retrieved from http://computer.howstuffworks.com/web-30.htm.

Education 3.0 and the Pedagogy (Andragogy, Heutagogy) of Mobile Learning

The evolution of the web from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 and now to Web 3.0 can be used a metaphor of how education should also be evolving, as a movement based on the evolution from Education 1.0 to Education 3.0.  I discussed this in Schools are doing Education 1.0; talking about doing Education 2.0; when they should be planning and implementing Education 3.0.

Many educators are doing Education 1.0; talking about doing Education 2.0; when they should be planning and implementing Education 3.0. This post compares the developments of the Internet-Web to those of education.  The Internet has become an integral thread of the tapestries of most societies throughout the globe.  The web influences people’s way of thinking, doing and being; and people influence the development and content of the web.  The Internet of today has become a huge picture window and portal into human perceptions, thinking, and behavior.  Logically, then, it would seem that schools would follow suit in mimicking what is happening via the Internet to assist children and youth to function, learn, work, and play in a healthy, interactive, and pro-social manner in their societies-at-large.

Most schools are still living within and functioning through an Education 1.0 model.  They are focusing on an essentialist-based curriculum with related ways of teaching and testing.

Similar to Web 2.0, Education 2.0 includes more interaction between the teacher and student; student to student; and student to content/expert.  Some educators have moved into a more connected, creative Education 2.0 through using cooperative learning, global learning projects, shared wikis, blogs and other social networking in the classroom.

Education 3.0 is a connectivist, heutagogical approach to teaching and learning.  The teachers, learners, networks, connections, media, resources, tools create a a unique entity that has the potential to meet individual learners’, educators’, and even societal needs.  Many resources for Education 3.0 are literally freely available for the taking.

Source: http://www.slideshare.net/moravec/toward-society-30-a-new-paradigm-for-21st-century-education-presentation?type=powerpoint

Taking this one step further or from another angle, moving from Education 1.0 to Education 3.0 can be compared to moving from Pedagogy/Essentialism/Instructivism to Heutagogy/Constructivism/Connectivism.  This can be looked at as a continuum going from Pedagogy to Andragogy to Heutagogy (PAH).  The following graphic describes these three approaches to teaching. (I understand that educators may differ in the descriptions and definitions especially that of pedagogy).

http://www.blog.lindymckeown.com/?p=52

This translates into moving from an education approach driven by essentialism or instructivism to one that is based on constructivism and connectivism.

Essentialism is defined as:

Essentialism tries to instill all students with the most essential or basic academic knowledge and skills and character development. In the essentialist system, students are required to master a set body of information and basic techniques for their grade level before they are promoted to the next higher grade.  Essentialists argue that classrooms should be teacher-oriented. The teachers or administrators decide what is most important for the students to learn with little regard to the student interests. The teachers also focus on achievement test scores as a means of evaluating progress. Source: http://www.siue.edu/~ptheodo/foundations/essentialism.html

Instructivism can be described as:

In the instructivist learning theory, knowledge exists independently of the learner, and is transferred to the student by the teacher. As a teacher-centered model, the instructivist view is exhibited by the dispensing of information to the student through the lecture format. This theory requires the student to passively accept information and knowledge as presented by the instructor. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/1857834

These descriptions fit the characteristics of an Education 1.0 or a traditional pedagogical teaching framework.

The andragogical, more constructivist orientation takes on the characteristics of Education or Web 2.0 where the principles of active, experiential, authentic, relevant, socially-networked learning experiences are built into the class or course structure.

The heutagogical, connectivist orientation is closely aligned with Education 3.0.

In a heutagogical approach to teaching and learning, learners are highly autonomous and self-determined and emphasis is placed on development of learner capacity and capability. The renewed interest in heutagogy is partially due to the ubiquitousness of Web 2.0, and the affordances provided by the technology. With its learner-centered design, Web 2.0 offers an environment that supports a heutagogical approach, most importantly by supporting development of learner-generated content and learner self-directedness in information discovery and in defining the learning path.  Source: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1076

Even though heutagogy is usually defined and described for adult learners, given these times where we are living with open education resources and information abundance, learners as young as the elementary level have the potential to engage in educational experiences based on heutagogy.   In other words, they can engage in self-determined and self-driven learning where they are not only deciding the direction of their learning journey but they can also produce content that adds value and worth to the related content area or field of study.

Choosing the Teaching Orientation

It should not be as simple as stating that one, as an educator, uses one teaching orientation over another.  Educators need to examine what they are teaching and the population to whom they are teaching.  For example, procedural knowledge such as how to do first aid or fix a car; or a fixed body of knowledge such as human anatomy (for the medical field) or the study of law is typically best taught through a more teacher directed, “pedagogical” style. It becomes teaching with intentionality and strategically using the teaching and learning philosophies and approaches to reach desired outcomes.

Applications to Mobile Learning

The Pedagogy of Mobile Learning

With the idea that pedagogy is in line with a instructivist-essentialism method of teaching-learning, mobile learning in this category typically falls into the dissemination of content knowledge via apps.  [In my opinion, there are way too many apps developed for education fall into this category, with start-ups trying to take advantage of the use of iDevices in educational settings.]  Their goal is to directly teach students content knowledge or a skill whereby they can repeat and/or be tested on the content provided to them through interacting with the apps.  I have classified these apps as worksheets on steroids.  Typical examples include flash card types of apps like Netter’s Musculoskeletal Flash Cards. The U.S. Constitution – Flash Card Trivia, and Math Drills. I use a simple criteria to determine their efficacy, “Would the learner choose to use the app if given the choice or use it during his/her free time?”

As stated above, though, there are cases in which a body of knowledge needs to be learned by the students.  Some more engaging, interactive apps are available (and probably more interesting) to the learner.  Examples include:  Solar Walk™ – 3D Solar System model, Frog Dissection, and highly interactive eBooks.

The Andragogy of Mobile Learning

Again, although Andragogy has been described for teaching adult learning, we can extract his basic principles and apply them to the Andragogy of Mobile Learning for most age groups. Many project-based learning characteristics (authentic, real world problems; networked learning; use of collaborative digital tools) would fit under the category of the andragogy of mobile learning. Here are some resources and examples:

• Project Based Learning In Hand
• 15 Tools For Better Project-Based Learning
• Mobilizing Creativity: Celllphones for Project-Based Learning

The following presentation demonstrates project-based learning with mobile devices in a High School Science class.

The Heutagogy of Mobile Learning

Creating a heutagogical-based mobile learning environment is in line with some of the recommendations from the ECAR National Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2011 report:

Use technology in more transformative ways, such as participatory and collaborative interactions and for higher-level teaching and learning that is engaging and relevant to students’ lives and future plans. Use technology more to extend learning beyond the classroom.

The learners in a heutagogy of mobile learning environment:

• Determine what they want to learn and develop their own learning objectives for their learning, based on a broad range of desired course outcomes.
• Use their own mobile learning devices and technologies to decide how they will learn.
• Form their own learning communities possibly using social networking tools suggested and/or set up by the educator.  Possible networks, many with corresponding apps, include: Facebook, Twitter, Edmodo, Instagram, Blogging sites, Youtube, etc.
• Utilize the expertise of the educator and other members of their learning communities to suggest and introduce content-related resources.
• Utilize the expertise of the educator and other members of their learning communities to suggest Web 2.0 and other online tools for that the students could possibly use to demonstrate and produce learning artifacts.
• Demonstrate their learning through methods and means that work best for them.  It could include using their mobile devices to Blog, create Photo Essays, do Screencasts, make Videos or Podcasts, draw, sing, dance, etc.
• Take the initiative to seek feedback from the instructor and their peers.  It is their choice to utilize that feedback or not.

Some general learning activities that have the potential to be introduced by the education using a heutagogical approach include:

• Forming their Own Interest-Driven Personal Learning Networks (PLNs)
• Curating Online Resources
• Designing Apps or Games
• Developing a broad array of possible course assignments from which a learner can choose.  See the DS106 Assignment Bank as an example.
• Additional suggestions can be found in 20 strategies for learner interactions in mobile #MOOC.

Here is a slide deck that I prepared to present the concepts and ideas I presented above.