Content uploaded by Ulf- Daniel Ehlers
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ulf- Daniel Ehlers on Aug 24, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
NEW LEARNING
CULTURES FOR
ADULT LEARNING -
LEARNING
BETWEEN WEAK
AND STRONG TIES
Ulf-Daniel Ehlers, Duisburg-Essen, April 2009
Reference: Ehlers, U.-D. (2009): NEW LEARNING CULTURES FOR
ADULT LEARNING - LEARNING BETWEEN WEAK AND
STRONG TIES
Correspondence address: Prof. Dr. phil. habil. Ulf-Daniel Ehlers
Duale Hochschule Baden-Württemberg | Baden-Württemberg Cooperative State University
Friedrichstraße 14, 70174 Stuttgart
Deutschland | Germany
mail: ehlers@dhbw.de | ulf.ehlers@googlemail.com
skype: ulf.ehlers
web: www.dhbw.de | www.ulf-ehlers.net
1
NEW LEARNING CULTURES FOR
ADULT LEARNING
LEARNING BETWEEN WEAK AND STRONG TIES
Ulf-Daniel Ehlers, University Duisburg-Essen, Germany
1. Introduction
Download a lecture off the training web page as a pod cast in the morning,
take part in an online session of an international studying group for the pur-
pose of preparing for an exam in the afternoon and log into the virtual world
of Second Life to take part in a tutorial relating to the morning’s lecture – the
daily routine of adult learning looks like this or similar more and more often.
In companies, online trainings are no longer visions of a distant future, but
reality for more and more employees. Teaching and learning is changing as
well. The term „e-learning“ comprises the use of online tools such as blogs,
wikis or pod casts for learning and teaching. Learners can create their own
contents and exchange information in networks like the video platform
YouTube (http://www.youtube.com).
In many cases, reality looks different still and e-learning means merely put-
ting seminar texts online on a learning platform. E-learning platforms today
are used as islands on the Internet, which could become gates through the use
of e-learning 2.0. These gates could help the whole world use the Internet as a
world of learning where content can be found, changed and shared with oth-
ers. Viewed like this, the Internet itself would be the learning platform. Ste-
phen Downes, who coined the term „e-learning 2.0“, describes it with words
such as “learner centred", "immersive learning", "connected learning", "game-
based learning", "workflow (informal) learning", "mobile learning". Will this
development have consequences for quality assurance, management and de-
velopment in e-learning? And if so: Do we need new methods and concepts to
improve and assure the quality of e-learning 2.0. These questions are the be-
ginning of many debates around the term e-learning 2.0. Even though the
question of quality was already discussed controversially in the time of e-
learning 1.0, there is even more insecurity in the area of e-learning 2.0.
This article will deal with these questions. In three steps I will firstly describe
e-learning 2.0 and what has changed concerning e-learning 1.0. In a second
step, the consequences for quality development in e-learning resulting from
this will be shown by working out principles of quality development for
learning communities in learning 2.0 scenarios. Lastly, a range of methods
will be listed as examples of quality development in community oriented
learning. In an outlook I will discuss whether a new learning culture also
leads to a new quality culture.
2. New Learning Cultures
2
To let the cat out of the bag right away: e-learning 2.0 is not a scientific term.
It is not about further development, a new paradigm or a replacement in the
sense of a new release. Strictly speaking it is not even about a new technolo-
gy, a new model of learning or a new, separate, innovative variety of e-
learning. E-learning 2.0 rather describes a number of developments, trends
and points of view, which require change from teaching to learning. The new
point of view essentially connects e-learning with five characteristics:
1. Learning takes places always and everywhere (ubiquitous) and there-
fore in many different contexts, not only in the classroom.
2. Learners take on the role of organizers.
3. Learning is a life-long process, has many episodes and is not (only)
linked to educational institutions.
4. Learning takes place in communities of learning (so called communi-
ties of practice: Wenger 1998): Learners participate in formal, as well
as informal communities.
5. Learning is informal and non-formal, takes place at home, at the work
place and during leisure time and is no longer centred on teachers or
institutions.
E-learning 2.0 means using social software and learning services, which can
be combined according to individual needs. The word „can“ is significant
here, as technology alone does not determine its use. Only by linking it to a
learning model the existing possibilities of learning can be enhanced to go
further than in former contexts. The metaphor of life-long learning makes
clear that learners cannot take classes for the rest of their lives. Rather, new
forms of learning have to be found which are designed to be self-directed,
quick, flexible and aimed at problem solving. Informal learning “which is de-
veloped in oblique life and experience contexts outside of the formal educa-
tional institutions” (Dohmen 2001), is becoming the focus of the discussion
once more. It comprises, as is known today, 70-80 % of all learning activities.
In his latest book, Jay Cross talks of only 10-20 % of all learning being ac-
quired in formal learning scenarios while 80 % happens through informal
learning. He demands a formalizing of informal learning and an informalizing
of formal learning. Nevertheless, formal education is still more focussed on
than informal (Cross 2003).
Empirical studies prove this issue. The result of a survey conducted in spring
2003 in the 15 member states of the European Union by the European Centre
for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) shows that most of
the citizens are of the opinion that they learn predominantly in an informal
way. The non-formalized acquisition of competences at the place of work,
either by exercising one’s profession (44 %) or by talking to colleagues or
reading of subject-related literature (41 %) has the largest meaning next to
acquisition of competences taking place outside of gainful employment in the
private sector (69 %). Other results of a current study also point at the mean-
ing of informal learning contexts. According to it, formal advanced training is
only the smallest part of advanced professional training. The majority of em-
ployees considers informal learning contexts in work and family life more
3
often than not crucial respectively the only main learning context in which
they have learned most of what they know: 87 % of the people asked stated
that they had learned most of their knowledge in informal learning contexts,
compared to only 13 % who ascribed the largest meaning to formal learning
contexts (Baethge/ Baethge-Kinsky 2002).
3. Learning Communities and Networks
E-Learning 2.0 is about learners learning in a self-directed way in social net-
works and learning communities. Although being used often in a synonymous
way, there is a difference between communities and networks – especially
with a view to learning. Building on Granovetter (1983) the difference be-
tween communities (as closer relationships) and networks (as more lose rela-
tionships) becomes apparent. Granovetter's (ibid.) explores in his influential
social network theory the strength of weak ties. Accordingly, interpersonal
relationships in networks have two basic forms: strong ties, which are based
on the immediate work and life contexts and build the core of communities,
and weak ties, which stretch beyond our direct and close contexts into other
domains and are rather peripheral to the communities we are participating in –
they in turn constitute networks.
While strong ties are characterised as regular and continuous, weak ties are
rather sporadic, casual and serve us as bridges between different social
spheres and domain contexts. For learning this differentiation can be utilised
in powerful ways when peripheral influences can be brought into the centre of
interaction and learning. It is exactly this characteristic which allows to link
peripheral influences into closer social network structures. The benefit being
that networks (weak ties) help to transmit innovative ideas and new
knowledge into communities and serve as a transversal bridge between people
of different contexts and domains. Gronevetter emphasized that weak ties –
i.e. relations in loose networks – are high loaded with information, whereas
strong ties are significantly less loaded with information. This somewhat par-
adox situation seems to be of enormous importance for learning. While strong
ties are reliable and steady, and give opportunities for deep exploration, irrita-
tion and innovation emerge from weak ties as they bring in the unexpected.
Weak ties can function as opportunities for new information, can help to be
exposed to unpopular opinions and bring in fresh food for through into learn-
ing communities. Learning Communities are characterised as social entities
with a high degree of overlap in interests, close connections and steady conti-
nuity. Networks are more distinct, of episodic and sporadic nature and give
access to unexpected and new ideas. E-learning 2.0 and community infra-
structures are building on these concepts and allow learners to tie elements of
informal, sporadic, innovative and critical nature from their networks into
their more formal and continuous learning communities. The interplay be-
tween the expected and steady on the one hand, and the innovative and dis-
rupted on the other creates learning environments which allow tying in net-
works into communities. In order to tap these benefits learners need to learn
4
to configure their own personal learning landscape – not only in a technical
way when it comes to building the personal learning environment but espe-
cially with a view to assembling weak and string contacts and connections
into the portfolio of their own social learningscape. While Granovetter's
strength of weak ties idea has been originally perceived as a paradox and
counter-intuitive idea, it unfolds with the application of social software as a
webbased extension which shows the power of communities and networks for
learning.
This (constructivist) learning-theoretical perspective fundamentally questions
the possibility of instruction in e-learning 2.0 learningscapes. This is argued
for by saying that a self-directed system (learner) cannot be determined by its
environment but only perturbed and stimulated by it. This has consequences
for the organisations of learning environments. While it has been argued that
learning is an individual experience which needs learner oriented (cf.
Holzkamp 1993: 184) planning and organisation processes, in e-learning 2.0
learning communities and networks are configured and activated learner-
initiated. The concept of self-directed learning comes to be of enormous im-
portance to e-learning 2.0 – from an educational-theoretical point of view.
Self-directed learning is often understood to be a generic term for all forms of
learning in which the learners can determine and be responsible for their
learning processes respectively tasks, methods and amount of time invested
themselves (and/ or take part in the decision) (Deitering 1996: 45).
George Siemens relates directly to this when unfolding his theory of connec-
tivism (Siemens 2004). He states that his design of connectivism goes beyond
the former learning-theoretical approaches of behaviourism, cognitivism and
constructivism and takes into consideration the growing tendency of learners
to use informal, networked and electronically supported learning. Learning is
increasingly viewed as a continuous, life-long process, which extends into the
fields of work and leisure time activities and thus influences the individual as
well as the organization and its connections among each other. Siemens goes
on to explain that knowing the “who” and “where” of a subject is more im-
portant today than the “how” and “why”. Even though Siemens’s design is
not clearly distinct from existing learning theories and describes more of a
network-oriented learning philosophy, the approach is valuable as it clearly
emphasizes the development of e-learning 2.0 and social processes as the ba-
sis for learning and interaction processes which take place.
To conclude, it can be said that e-learning 2.0 contains fundamental and pro-
found changes. Not only does the form of learning itself become a topic in the
process but the principle of how learning functions is partially redefined and
cannot be grasped by using existing learning-theoretical approaches.
Table 1: Different conditions and subjects of quality assessment in com-
munities vs. networks
Learning Communities
Learning Networks
Interests
Largely Overlapping
Distinct
5
Ties
Strong, high cohesion
Weak, low cohesion
Information load
Low
High
Characteristic
Expected information,
deep exploration,
Innovative,
Unexpected,
4. Quality development for E-Learning 2.0
Quality development for education and e learning, which means evaluating
learning contents and processes, certifying and accrediting programs and in-
stitutions, is becoming more and more important. What, however, happens in
learning scenarios in which e-learning 2.0 is involved? In cases in which
learning material is not fixed beforehand, learning processes are highly di-
verse and not unified and learners find their own way of learning? And what
about those education processes which happen outside of the programs and
formal educational institutions? Who determines the quality of such learning
scenarios, what can then be assessed at all and which methods can be used to
improve quality?
The sections before have shown that strong learner autonomy is pre-condition
as well as objective for e-learning 2.0. Learners are highly self-directed, as
learning does not only take place in institutions, but everywhere, during the
course of one’s whole life in a number of different episodes, in learning
communities and social networks, using social software and individually
compiled contents. Securing and developing quality in such learning scenari-
os thus has to focus mainly on the individual learning processes and the
shown achievements (performance). The learner’s perspective is more im-
portant than the organizational processes and / or the co called input factors.
Quality assessment does not take place by using classical methods of expert-
and standard based quality management, quality assurance or control, but by
making use of more participative methods and responsive designs. The aim of
the process is to reach an individualized assessment, which relates to the
learning process. Table 4 shows the different subjects to which quality assur-
ance for e-learning 2.0 relates.
Table 2: Different conditions and subjects of quality assessment
E-Learning 1.0
E-Learning 2.0
Quality is assessed by experts
Quality is assessed by learners and
peers
Learning platform
Personal Learning Environment
Content
User-created content
Curriculum
Learning diaries/ e-portfolios
Structure of classes
Communication
Availability of tutors
Interaction
Multimedia (interactive)
Social networks and communities of
practice
Appropriation processes
Participation processes
6
Taking a look at the relevant literature on quality in the educational sector, it
quickly becomes clear that quality can definitely be more than a “check by
means of standards”: Harvey & Green view not one but five basically differ-
ent pedagogical ways of understanding quality at work in the educational sec-
tor. They conclude that quality is a philosophical term (Harvey & Green 2000:
36). Similarly, Posch & Altrichter point at quality being a relative term which
has to be more closely defined with regard to the values of different pressure
groups (Posch & Altrichter 1997: 28). It follows that they talk about quality as
a relative term, which has to be organized as a negotiation process in the rela-
tion between stakeholders (ibid, similarly also: Harvey & Green 2000: 17).
Heid emphasizes that quality is not a characteristic of an educational process
that can be observed generally. Rather, it is the result of an assessment (Heid
2000: 41). Quality in education can thus not be understood as an overall clas-
sification of good schools, programs or learning scenarios, but needs to be
seen as a result of clear negotiating processes of value systems, requirements
and results (cf. also Ditton 2000: 73). Posch & Altrichter (1997: 130) con-
clude that it is impossible to achieve more than clearly defining the criteria
which every stakeholder uses in his quality assessments and take into consid-
eration those competing points of view when making quality assessments.”
For the quality of educational processes this means that it needs to be asked
which stakeholders having which interests take part in the educational scenar-
io in which way. In this regard, an obvious difference between the broadcast-
ing-oriented understanding inherent in e-learning 1.0 and the rather participa-
tion-oriented understanding predominant in e-learning 2.0 can be perceived.
e-learning 2.0 not only centers the learners as receivers but also as active ac-
tors which take part in the definition and evaluation of the learning resources’
and processes’ quality. While in e-learning 1.0 learning material is more often
than not compiled or designed, as well as assessed by experts and learning
platforms are quality-assured by institutions and experts, in e-learning 2.0
learners compile their own Personal Learning Environments (PLE), create
their own content and learn together with and from others. Learning material
is simultaneously assessed through the peers.
One thing needs to be said beforehand: e-learning 2.0 does not require a new
mode of thinking or method of quality development, such as a new and com-
pletely altered philosophy of quality – no educational quality 2.0 is needed.
However, changed basic conditions and contexts need to be taken into ac-
count. Doing justice to these different contexts, different questions need to be
posed when dealing with quality development, different objects evaluated,
different criteria of quality applied and specific methods of quality assurance,
enhancement and development used. In short: the role of quality development
is changing. While in traditional learning scenarios it mostly means the
checking and controlling of quality, in e-learning 2.0 scenarios it is becoming
more the role of an enabler of learning progress. Learning methods and quali-
ty development are moving closer together. Methods such as feedback, reflec-
7
tion and recommendation mechanisms are becoming more important. Typical
basic conditions, which need to be taken into account in quality development
for e-learning 2.0 scenarios, are explained in the following:
From reception to participation: the metaphor used for learning is
changing. In e-learning 2.0, quality cannot be tied to the evaluation of a
pre-determined learning environment or learning contents produced by an
expert. Not the reception but the active participation is most important,
that means the question in how far a learning scenario stimulates the crea-
tion of individual PLEs, the compilation of individual learning contents
and sharing them with others.
From inspection to reflection: quality development for e-learning 2.0
scenarios shifts the focus from conformity to a reflection of the learning
process. Learners are supported in reflecting, recognizing and putting into
effect their own learning progress, educational strategies, needs, etc. and
in the course of their actions critically reflect the contribution of educa-
tional media. The aim is to achieve a personally ideal configuration of ed-
ucational media and strategies, which is continuously developed through
autonomous reflection.
From product orientation through process orientation to perfor-
mance and competence orientation: the material that is used for learn-
ing and the processes of its supplier are not the focus of quality develop-
ment. Quality development focuses on the learners’ performance, their in-
dividually developed learning products, steps in development and similar
aspects (for example in e-portfolios), which shape their way to decision-
making and responsibility.
From planning education for the leaner to planning education by the
learner: quality of learning scenarios is often attempted to be achieved
through careful analysis of the need for education, a comprehensive con-
ception phase, feedback as far as the design of learning material and de-
velopment processes are concerned and the evaluation of learning pro-
cesses. In e-learning 2.0 scenarios, many of these processes shift from the
supplier of a program to the leaner. Quality concepts must therefore sup-
port the learners in their ability to develop quality through reflection, ena-
ble leaner-oriented forms of evaluation and offer the necessary tools for
quality development to the learners in their PLEs.
From receiver to developer of learning materials: Quality assessment
in e-learning 2.0 scenarios does not follow the logic of a marketing effec-
tiveness research to find out how the materials and characteristics of me-
dia optimally affect the learning process. It is not about learning process
taking part in a unified learning scenario. Rather, the focus lies on pro-
cesses of development, flexible usage and the validation of social com-
munication processes with other learners.
From the “learning island” LMS to the internet as a learning envi-
ronment: Kerres (2006) points at learning management systems (LMS)
functioning as islands, which present a closed area, in the enormous mate-
rial ocean that is the World Wide Web. E-learning 2.0 scenarios under-
8
stand LMS as a mere starting point, as a signpost for their own search and
use of material from the internet, their development and linking to other
tools which can be flexibly arranged to become personal learning portals.
Quality assessment then does not focus on materials from the LMS any-
more but rather on the learning products and perhaps on the learning pro-
cesses documented in an e-portfolio.
From tests to performance: learning progress and achievements become
visible not only in tests but rather in the learning process documented in
portfolios (for example in wikis or web logs), learning products and social
interactions.
Quality assessment of e-learning 2.0 focuses on the learning process. There is
no use of external standards and inter-individual comparisons (such as tests or
assessments). Rather, methods of self-evaluation, intra-individual develop-
ment processes are employed for this purpose, which are not made via tests
but via reflection and evaluation of learning products and e-portfolios. Even
though e-learning 2.0 is a new development as a trend, substantial experienc-
es have already been made with the learning models of autonomous learning
and learning in communities, which are the basis for it, as well as with meth-
ods for quality assessment of learning processes. Teacher can use these
methods in order to evaluate the learning progress together with students and
to enable individual planning. Teachers take on the role of mentor who gives
feedback and helps with reflecting the learning experiences or evaluates e-
portfolio postings.
Table 3: Methods of quality development for E-Learning 2.0
Methods of quality development
Quality assessment by
1 Self-evaluation
Learners with the help of/ feedback by
teachers
2 Assessment of e-portfolios
Teachers
3 Social recommendation
Peer Review
Peer Assist
Peer-Learning
Peer Reflection
Bench-Learning
Peers, learning communities
4 Target group oriented evaluation
Teachers
5 „Holes in the wall”: Quality for new Learningscapes
In a presentation at the Innovations in Learning Conference by Brandon Hall,
Stephen Downes (2007) used the metaphor of “walled gardens”, He uses it to
refer to Kerres’ (2006) talk of island-like e-learning when talking about “e-
learning 1.0”. E-Learning 2.0 cuts holes into these garden walls, which leads
to a new culture of learning. This new culture of learning is characterized by
more autonomy for learners, leading away from a model of knowledge trans-
fer, which is predominant in many educational contexts, to a model of mutual
construction of knowledge and development of competences. The emphasis
lies on making learners fit for an uncertain future, to support them in their de-
9
velopment to becoming “reflected practitioners” (Schön 1983) and to supply
them with a portfolio of acting competences with the help of which they can
create their respective working and living contexts and innovatively develop
them.
Naturally, learning itself is not invented anew by this method. The basic con-
cept of learning remains the same. Rather, we realize new pedagogical ap-
proaches and didactic forms of how learning/ teaching scenarios can be de-
signed. Thus, we reach a new culture of learning. It challenges educational
institutions by not being restricted to “walled gardens” but going beyond –
physical as well as conceptual – limits of institutions. In the process, it chal-
lenges a large number of regulations and beliefs, such as curricula written in
stone, traditional examinations, the “LMS to be used for all organizations”,
etc.
A new culture of teaching and learning, as has been described in the article,
also questions the understanding of evaluating, developing and assuring quali-
ty. The emphasis herein lies on methods that are aimed at a participating
learner and the learning process directly and not as much on processes can-
tered on organizations. A quality culture for e-learning, which wants to add
something to methods and processes for e-learning 2.0, aims at participation-
oriented procedures, creates space and chances for reflection and includes
learners in feedback processes. Learning communities are involved in review-
ing processes and evaluation processes for material, concepts and problems.
Quality assessments are aimed at a target group and not at external standards.
Such a conception of what quality instruments, concepts and methods ought
to look like challenges educational institutions on all levels. Institutionally,
new basic conditions need to be fixed, which for example enable the ac-
ceptance of e-portfolio-supported evaluation processes as examination
achievements. On the level of the program, it is important to construct learn-
ing methods and curricula in a manner that leaves room for the influence of
learners’ feedbacks. On the level of learner activities, learners need to be fa-
miliarized more with reflection and peer-review processes, which make it
possible for them to give feedback on the quality of their learning processes.
In this process, learners require entirely new competences, which enable them
to use social software tools for the described processes of quality develop-
ment in courses.
5. References and Links
1. Baethge, M. and Baethge-Kinsky, V. (2002), “Arbeit – die zweite Chance.
Zum Verhältnis von Arbeitserfahrungen und lebenslangem Lernen“, in
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Betriebliche Weiterbildungsforschung (Eds.), Kom-
petenzentwicklung 2002, – Auf dem Weg zu einer neuen Lernkultur,
Münster, pp. 69–136
2. Cross, Jay (2003), “Informal Learning - the other 80%”, Internet Time
Group, available at:
10
http://www.internettime.com/Learning/The%20Other%2080%25.htm (ac-
cessed 12.12.2008)
3. Ditton, H. (2000), “Qualitätskontrolle und -sicherung in Schule und Un-
terricht. Ein Überblick zum Stand der empirischen Forschung“, in: Helm-
ke, A., Hornstein, W. and Terhart, E. (Eds.), Qualität und Qualitätssiche-
rung im Bildungsbereich, Weinheim
4. Dohmen, G. (2001), Das informelle Lernen. Die internationale Erschlie-
ßung einer bisher vernachlässigten Grundform menschlichen Lernens für
das lebenslange Lernen aller, Bundesministerium für Bildung und For-
schung, Bonn
5. Harvey, L. and Green, D. (2000), „Qualität definieren - Fünf unterschied-
liche Ansätze“, in Helmke, A., Hornstein, W. and Terhart, E. (Eds.), Qua-
lität und Qualitätssicherung im Bildungsbereich: Schule, Sozialpädago-
gik, Hochschule, Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, vol. 41, Beiheft, Weinheim,
Basel, pp.17-40
6. Heid, H., 2000, “Qualität: Überlegungen zur Begründung einer pädagogi-
schen Beurteilungskategorie“ in Helmke, A., Hornstein, W. and Terhart,
E. (Eds.), Qualität und Qualitätssicherung im Bildungsbereich: Schule,
Sozialpädagogik, Hochschule. Weinheim und Basel
7. Holzkamp, K. (1993), Lernen. Subjektwissenschaftliche Grundlegung,
Frankfurt a. M., New York.
8. Kerres, M. (2006), “Potenziale von Web 2.0 nutzen“, in Hohenstein, A
and Wilbers, K. (Eds.) Handbuch E-Learning, München.
DWD – temporary version, 05.08.2006 [PDF]
available at: http://mediendidaktik.uni-duisburg-essen.de/files/web20-
a.pdf
(accessed 20.10.2006)
9. Posch, P. and Altrichter, H. (1997), Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Qua-
litätsevaluation und Qualitätsentwicklung im Schulwesen, StudienVerlag,
Innsbruck
10. Schön, D. (1983), “The Reflective Practitioner. How professionals think
in action”, London
11. Siemens, G. (2004), “Connectivism” available at:
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
12. Wenger, E. (1998), Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and
identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
