16 June 2011 SUPORT meeting in Paris 2011, France 1

New Directions in E-Learning: Towards the Support of Informal and Social Learning

Suport project MeetingParis

Thierry NabethSenior Research Fellow

INSEAD

16 June 2011 SUPORT meeting in Paris 2011, France 2

… the delivery of boxed knowledge to a learner alone in front of his computer

Objective of this presentation

E-Learning is

NOT onlyLMS

16 June 2011 SUPORT meeting in Paris 2011, France 3

• The individual is (more) self directed in his/her learning and is (more) autonomous

• The learning process are more informal and more social (cf. Open Innovation, collective intelligence, etc.)Note: Collective intelligence: a vision making a large part to … the individual

Towards a self-directed individual… connected with others

Learn (and do not copy!)

I learn by myself and I interact with others

16 June 2011 SUPORT meeting in Paris 2011, France 4

The learning modes

Thierry Nabeth (1998); Virtual Learning Spaces: Expériences avec environnements de réalité virtuelle multi-utilisateurs accessibles via Internet dans l’enseignement; 6eme Forum des innovations pédagogiques

Learning byAbsorbing

Learningby Doing

Learning by Interactingwith others

Theory (knowledge elicitation)

Experimenting & practicing

Simulation

Knowledge ExchangeNetwork Communities

Lectures, readings

Business Cases

Multiplayer Simulation

Virtual classroom

Share experiences

Learning 1.0

Learning 2.0

16 June 2011 SUPORT meeting in Paris 2011, France 5

Types of memory,(understanding the brain)

• Declarative memory– semantic memory– episodic memory

• Procedural memory– (Routines, procedures)

• …

Localisation: Ongoing research in Brain sciences

16 June 2011 SUPORT meeting in Paris 2011, France 6

Reference:Jane Hart (2009) The future of e-learning is social learning. C4LPT 2009http://www.slideshare.net/janehart/supporting-formal-and-informal-sociil-learning

Beyond formal personal e-learning

Adapted from (Jane Hart 2009).

Formal(supervised)

Informal(self-directed learning)

Personal LMSE-learning 1.0

EPSS, Workplace learning

Social LMS 2.0; CSCL Social networking

16 June 2011 SUPORT meeting in Paris 2011, France 7

The learning modes

Jane Hart (2009) The future of e-learning is social learning.Part 3: Supporting formal and informal social learning. C4LPT 2009http://www.slideshare.net/janehart/the-future-of-elearning-is-social-learnng

Adapted from (Jane Hart 2009).

16 June 2011 SUPORT meeting in Paris 2011, France 8

• Provide a communication chanel for the acquisition of knowledge (sharing of experiences)

• Help the individual to determine the relevance of knowledge.

• Help to provide meaning to the content (knowledge is socially constructed)

• Position the individual as an acteur (participation).• Contribute to the motivation of the individual

Reference:Seely Brown, John; Adler, Richard P. (2008). Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review. 43(1):16–32 (January/February 2008):. http://www.educause.edu/library/erm0811

Social Learning

(Seely Brown & Adler 2008).

Reference:Seely Brown, John; Adler, Richard P. (2008). Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review. 43(1):16–32 (January/February 2008):. http://www.educause.edu/library/erm0811

16 June 2011 SUPORT meeting in Paris 2011, France 9

Access to sources “tacit knowledge”

• Forum posts

• Conversations

• etc.

Motive the individual

• Man is a social animal (Spinoza) - Man is a political animal (Aristote)

• The social has Neurocognitive basis

• contribution to intrinsic motivation

A channel of meta-communication

• Non-verbal communication • Orientation of attention• Assess the pertinence & confidence of knowledge• A form of “conditioning”

The role of the “social” in learning

16 June 2011 SUPORT meeting in Paris 2011, France 10

Directions & Risks

• Support the social process in the e-learning platforms (e.g. support of non-verbal communication )

• Use also the public platforms (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) for supporting the informal processes

• Nourish the flux so as to repeatedly expose learner to content … so as a way to “imprint” knowledge and make it sticky

• Interaction overload• Participation dropout• Effort required to manage

all this interaction• What about the

involvement of the professors?

• …

16 June 2011 SUPORT meeting in Paris 2011, France 11

Reference:Tapio Koskinen (2010). Design for Learning. Brussels – November 26, 2010http://www.slideshare.net/cascatelli/design-learn-tapio26112010

Types of delivery models (Tapio Koskinen 2010).

1. Training as usual

2. Blended Learning

3. Learning in Distance

4. Virtual World

TrainingParticipation Requires physical

presenceFlexible participation Very flexible

participationFlexible participation

Module size 2-3 days each 2-3 days each and Webinars 90 minutes each

1 hour …. Half day 1 hour …. Half day

Group size Apr 30 Apr 30 Flexible Flexible

Roll out 1 group / location / Q 1 group / location / Q Good scalability Good scalability

Costing Low sunk cost,High variable cost

Moderate sunk cost,Moderate variable cost

High sunk cost,Low variable cost

Very high sunk cost,Low variable cost

Success criteria Support of group learning.

Support of group learning during the F2F module. Professionally produced Webinars

Online learner support Good Virtual World Architecture

Risks, opportunities, strengths

Good potential for physical presence enabled peer learning. Lots of travel time and cost

Moderate travel time and cost. Learning benefits from extended lead time.

Requires commitment and motivation from the learners –Flexible scheduling. No travelling required.

Little known territory - Good opportunities for gaming and simulation. No travelling required.

16 June 2011 SUPORT meeting in Paris 2011, France 12

Reference:Downes Stephan (2011): After Moodle. http://www.slideshare.net/Downes/after-moodle

Contructivism / Connectionism

(Downes 2011)

16 June 2011 SUPORT meeting in Paris 2011, France 13

Thank you

Thierry Nabeth: Senior Research Fellow, INSEADnabeth.thierry@gmail.com