Change isn’t always good, but in the case of education – change is necessary. Any teacher will tell you that there are problems with the education system. While many of these problems surround funding and a lack of resources, there are some problems with education that may not be immediately obvious. One of the largest issues with education today is that learners are changing the way they think and process new information due to the highly technologized world we live in. The technology we use is literally rewiring the way our brains think and process information, according to the article by George Siemens titled, “Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age”. It is time for education to catch up with this trend.

In addition to the change in our brains, there are other trends in learning that are cited in the article “Connectivism…” such as the fact that much of learning is becoming an informal process as opposed to a formal one. People use technology and social media to access information immediately and sometimes even add their own knowledge or expertise to what they find. This makes learning more of a lifetime process and may be part of the reason that people are more likely to change careers at least once in their lives. It also points to these information systems being similar to ecological systems because they are not static and are able to be changed by those who access them.

Perhaps the most important summation of these new trends in learning is stated in the article as, “Know-how and know-what is being supplemented with know-where (the understanding of where to find the knowledge needed).” The author summarizes some of the more traditional learning theories and comes to the conclusion that a new theory of learning is needed, as opposed to the ‘knee-jerk’ reaction of simply modifying the older theories. He calls this new theory ‘connectivism’ as it focuses on the learner as being connected to many sources of information in a variety of ways, creating a complex network of sorts.

With this new theory in mind, you may be wondering, ‘How would this apply to the classroom? We can’t simply expect students to acquire new information on their own without guidance, can we?’ Of course, the answer to this question is: no. Teachers are still an important and integral part of the student’s educational experiences. What may need to change is the type of scaffolding students receive from their teachers, how they will make meaningful connections to new material, and how that information is delivered.

Another article by Douglas Thomas and John Seely Brown, titled “A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a World of Constant Change”, describes what they feel is a key component in this new, more fluid educational infrastructure. That component is imagination. As an art educator, my interest was sparked at this word because it is also a key component in the arts. My students use their imagination almost every class to incorporate the material I teach them with their life experiences to create an individual work of art or product. The article continues to highlight examples where imagination is shown to be a key component in the new ecology of learning. Essentially, in each example, learners are shown to communicate in a social network related to their interests. This social learning allows ideas to be exchanged, enhanced, and shared. Since these same ideas are key components of online gaming, it is no coincidence that there are references to MMOs (massively multiplayer online) in this article. Again, my interest was sparked by this, as I am an avid gamer and play World of Warcraft almost every day.

The ideas discussed in these two articles really resonate with me as an artist, art teacher, and gamer. Some of them, I already implement in my own classroom such as trying to cultivate imagination. Others, such as social networking as a resource for learning, are more foreign. As someone who has already seen firsthand the social implications of using technology on a daily basis, I believe that these new learning ecologies would fit in well with the way that I teach and think about learning. My struggle in an inner-city school will, of course, be funding and resources. However, since many students have their own technology that they bring with them each and every day, perhaps it is just a matter of using what is already there and transforming it to meet educational purposes and not just social purposes.

In Web 2.0, learning occurs in communities through a variety of social and digital resources. The lines blur between the roles of educator and learner as both are responsible for adding to the information in a particular circle. This is a far cry from the dreaded ‘group assignments’ we had to do in school and instead depends on the motivation of the learner to search out new material and apply it to their particular situation. It doesn’t just depend on the ‘strongest link’, so to speak, but also the input and questioning of the ‘weaker links’ as well. In, Learning, Working, and Playing in the Digital Age, the author describes a situation in which two groups of learners were taking one of his courses. Both received the exact same instruction from him, but the group that took time to reflect, question, argue, and come to a solution about small portions of his instruction, did notably better than the group that learned passively. This gives evidence to the idea of learning ecologies and their potential successes in today’s classrooms. Instead of students passively learning information from their teacher or a group leader, they are all questioning and contributing in a way that benefits all parties involved.

The role of the facilitator and the role of the learner have changed since Web 2.0. In many instances, the internet has caused fluidity between the two roles as information is exchanged, modified, and debated. One specific example that highlights this fluidity was given in the article Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0. about the website Wikipedia. Anyone can add or edit articles on Wikipedia, however, the final say is given by people who are deemed ‘administrators’ of this material. The article adds that there are often heated arguments and debates about what information is valid and accurate, and what is not. I think that this process is valid considering my philosophy on learning. As an art teacher, communicating differing ideas and backing them up with valid arguments is the keystone of a good critique. While students in younger grades don’t have intensive critique sessions, they still practice this methodology of learning. They can look at the work of their peers and learn from them, both through their successes and mistakes. It is also important that they recognize that different answers don’t mean failures. This idea supports the idea of learning communities, fostering a culture of learning, and learning how to learn (mentioned in the week 1 article).

The article Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0 sums up the implications this type of learning shift would have when it mentioned “I think, therefore I am,” versus “We participate, therefore we are.” Not only can you think of this type of learning as hyper-differentiated, but you can also think of it as a connected entity of learners. This entity can include smaller microcosms such as schools, all the way up to global communities of connected learners. With this idea in mind, it would behoove the instructor to use these learning communities to their advantage. In my own classroom, I could allow students to choose how they learn about a particular topic via the internet. I would provide scaffolding in this type of classroom so that students need not focus on the validity of their resources, as an expert (myself) had already vetted them and deemed them appropriate and valid. They could then teach themselves, and others in their classroom about the type of art they choose and then use that information to produce a work of art, brochure, essay, or another type of final product to showcase their ideas. There is certainly a lot more to take into consideration when incorporating Web 2.0 into the classroom.