36151 4 pages within 12 hrs

Reference1wkp635.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >36151 4 pages within 12 hrs

Competences, Learning Theories and MOOCs: Recent Developments in Lifelong Learning

Karl Steffens

Introduction We think of our societies as ‘knowledge societies’ in which lifelong learning is becoming increasingly important. Lifelong learning refers to the idea that people not only learn in schools and universities, but also in non-formal and informal ways during their lifespan.The concepts of lifelong learning and lifelong education began to enter the discourse on educational policies in the late 1960s (Tuijnman & Boström, 2002). However, these are related, but distinct concepts. As Lee (2014, p. 472) notes ‘the terminological change (from lifelong education, continuing education and adult education, to lifelong learning) reflects a conceptual departure from the idea of organised educational provision to that of a more individualised pursuit of learning’.

One of the first important documents on lifelong learning was the report of the International Commission on the Development of Education to UNESCO in 1972, titled ‘Learning to be. The world of education today and tomorrow’. In his introductory letter to the Director-General of UNESCO, the chairman of the Commission, Edgar Faure, stated that the work of the Commission was based on four assumptions (see Elfert pp. and Carneiro pp. in this issue). The first was related to the idea that there was an international community which was united by common aspirations and the second was the belief in democracy and in education as its keystones. The third was ‘that the aim of development is the complete fulfilment of man, in all the richness of his personality, the complexity of his forms of expression and his various commitments — as individual, member of a family and of a community, citizen and producer, inventor of techniques and creative dreamer’. The last assumption was that ‘only an over-all, lifelong education can produce the kind of complete man, the need for whom is increasing with the continually more stringent constraints tearing the individual asunder’ (Faure, 1972, p. vi).

Following the Faure Report, the UNESCO Institute for Education, which was founded in Germany in 1951, started to focus on lifelong learning and subsequently became the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning (UIL, http:// uil.unesco.org/home/). It was under its leadership that a formal model of lifelong education was developed and published in the book ‘Towards a System of Life- long Education’ (Cropley, 1980). The concept of lifelong learning also became manifest in the ‘Education for All’ (EFA) agenda that was launched at the World Conference on Education for All which took place in Jomtien (Thailand) in 1990 (Inter-Agency Commission, 1990). Ten years later, at the World Education Forum in Dakar (Senegal) in 2000, the Dakar Framework for Action was designed ‘to enable all individuals to realize their right to learn and to fulfil their responsibility to contribute to the development of their society’ (UNESCO, 2000, p. 15). Six development goals were set to promote lifelong learning. These were:

bs_bs_banner

European Journal of Education, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2015 DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12102

1. Expanding and improving comprehensive early childhood care and education, especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children.

2. Ensuring that by 2015 all children, particularly girls, children in difficult circumstances and those belonging to ethnic minorities, have access to and complete free and compulsory primary education of good quality.

3. Ensuring that the learning needs of all young people and adults are met through equitable access to appropriate learning and life skills programmes.

4. Achieving a 50 per cent improvement in levels of adult literacy by 2015, especially for women, and equitable access to basic and continuing education for all adults.

5. Eliminating gender disparities in primary and secondary education by 2005, and achieving gender equality in education by 2015, with a focus on ensuring girls’ full and equal access to and achievement in basic education of good quality.

6. Improving every aspect of the quality of education, and ensuring their excel- lence so that recognized and measurable learning outcomes are achieved by all, especially in literacy, numeracy and essential life skills.

The idea of lifelong learning was supported by the Report of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century to UNESCO (Delors, 1996). In the same year, the OECD in its report ‘Lifelong Learning for All’ (OECD, 1996) presented the following definition which also refers to life-wide learning, including formal and informal learning: ‘Lifelong learning is best under- stood as a process of individual learning and development across the life-span, from cradle to grave — from learning in early childhood to learning in retirement. It is an inclusive concept that refers not only to education in formal settings, such as schools, universities and adult education institutions, but also to “life-wide” learning in informal settings, at home, at work and in the wider community’ (Tuijnman & Boström, 2002, p. 101).

At the same time, lifelong learning became a topic in European educational policies (Borg & Mayo, 2005). In 2000, the European Commission, with its ‘Memorandum on lifelong learning’, initiated a Europe-wide consultation which resulted in a communication from the European Commission on ‘Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality’ (European Commission, 2001). In this document, lifelong learning was defined as ‘all learning activity undertaken throughout life, with the aim of improving knowledge, skills and competence with a personal, civic, social and/or employment-related perspective’ (European Commission, 2001, p. 9). The knowledge, skills and competences that were supposed to be acquired or improved through lifelong learning needed to be defined more specifically.The European Commission therefore initiated a number of activities which centred on the identification of key competences which were considered to be necessary for the achievement of personal fulfilment, active citizenship, social cohesion and employability in a knowledge society. A catalogue of eight key competences was finally suggested in ‘Key Competences for Lifelong Learning — A European Reference Framework’ (European Council, 2006).

In the documents cited so far, the learning that takes places throughout life is not linked to any specific theory of learning. It therefore seems useful to examine how far recent developments may explain the process of acquiring and improving knowledge, skills and competences. There are basically three new approaches to

42 European Journal of Education

learning: one that focuses on findings from neuroscience and two that focus on learning in digital networks using open educational resources. They all stress the fact that learning is an integral part of meaning- making. Since the latter two theories are strongly related to learning in technology-enhanced learning environ- ments, it is important to point out that this kind of learning requires the compe- tence to self-regulate one’s learning to a much higher degree than in traditional learning environments.

The importance of digital technologies has been recognised in educational policies for some time. In the Dakar Framework for Action, one of the 12 Edu- cation for All (EFA) strategies was to harness new information and communication technologies to help to achieve the EFA goals (UNESCO, 2000, p. 21). Digital technologies play an important role in the Europe 2020 framework for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe (European Commission, 2010a). The Digital Agenda for Europe (European Commission, 2010b) is part of this frame- work and is based on seven pillars, most of which refer to economic and techno- logical aspects. However, the agenda does include a pillar that is dedicated to ‘Enhancing digital literacy, skills and inclusion’ (Pillar VII). Digital competence was also listed by the European Parliament and Council (European Council, 2006) as one of eight 21st century key competences, together with the competence for self-regulated learning (learning to learn). One important aspect of digital technologies is that they have the potential to support learning. While it is not prudent to ask if they do indeed support learning, one should explore which kind of digital technology can enhance which kind of learning. One of the most recent developments in the field of learning with digital technologies is Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs).This is a relatively new development and it is certainly too early to say something definite about their potential to enhance learning, but they could have an impact on how we think about lifelong learning. Although much is being written about MOOCs, there is still relatively little empirical evidence concerning their potential to support learning, but it is likely that they will stay. From an educational point of view, I do not see the added value of massive participation in online courses, but there are certainly other standpoints from which MOOCs may seem a worthwhile adventure. I do believe that a MOOC of good quality will help people who are already experienced learners to improve their knowledge and skills in a specific area.Therefore, MOOCs are likely to play a role in lifelong learning.

Approaches to learning based on findings from neuroscience seem very attrac- tive because they are based on empirical studies of what is happening in our brains. It does seem that the search for meaning is a fundamental characteristic of our brains. However, the neural activities which take place when we are learning are extremely fine-grained and complex, and, while these approaches may help us to understand how we learn, it is still difficult to design teaching strategies that support brain-friendly learning. The other two theories, connectivism (Siemens, 2004) and generativism (Carneiro, 2010) aim to explain collaborative learning in virtual learning environments.They could therefore better be able to describe and explain lifelong learning in a digital age. At the same time, they present visions that perceive learning as an integral part of meaning-making.

The acquisition and improvement of competences lie at the core of lifelong learning. Catalogues of 21st century key competences have been suggested by the major institutions involved in educational policies in the new millennium. While

Karl Steffens 43

these do have their merits, I believe that we need a deeper conception of what people should know and be able to do. Delors’ (1996) four pillars of lifelong learning (learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together and learning to be) seem to me to be a good example of such a conception. Erikson in his writings (Erikson, 1974) emphasises that care should be an important concept in lifelong development and lifelong learning, a virtue to be acquired. These concepts share the belief that man is a lifelong learner and that lifelong learning is an integral part of his quest for meaning.

Lifelong Learning and Competences Ever since education has been practised, there have been discussions on what to teach. Catalogues of learning goals go back to the septem artes liberales in Greek and Roman times and extend to present day lists of 21st century key competences.The basic question has, however, remained the same: how can education help individ- uals to develop their personality and prepare them for life in society?

In 1997, the OECD initiated the ‘Definition and Selection of Competencies’ (DeSeCo project, OECD, 2001) project which was to provide a conceptual frame- work for the identification of key competencies to be acquired and improved in lifelong learning. The project’s outcome served as a foundation for international surveys such as PISA which were to measure these competencies (OECD, 2001; OECD, 2005).

In 1995, the European Parliament and Council declared 1996 the European Year of Lifelong Learning (European Parliament, 1995), the main objective of which was to raise awareness among European citizens about the need for and the possibilities of lifelong learning. In 2000, the European Commission issued a Memorandum on Lifelong Learning which formed the basis of a European-wide consultation, the results of which were published by the European Commission in 2001 (European Commission, 2001). In this publication, the European Commis- sion stated: ‘In addition to the emphasis it places on learning from pre-school to postretirement, lifelong learning should encompass the whole spectrum of formal, non-formal and informal learning.The consultation also highlighted the objectives of learning, including active citizenship, personal fulfilment and social inclusion, as well as employment-related aspects’. (European Commission, 2001, p. 3). In outlining the idea of an innovative pedagogy for lifelong learning, the European Commission observed that a shift from knowledge to competence and from teaching to learning was taking place (European Commission, 2001, p. 23).

In 2006, the European Parliament and the Council recommended a catalogue of eight key competences for lifelong learning: 1. communication in the mother tongue; 2. communication in foreign languages; 3. mathematical competence and basic competences in science and technology; 4. digital competence; 5. learning to learn; 6. social and civic competence; 7. sense of initiative and entrepreneurship; 8. cultural awareness and expression (European Council, 2006).

The first three are domain-specific. Their definition, implementation in school curricula and measurement seem to be fairly simple. The last five are

44 European Journal of Education

domain-general or transversal. As Halász and Michel (2011) pointed out, they may be perceived and interpreted differently in different European countries.

In line with the idea that lifelong learning refers to learning throughout life, the European Commission proposed a ‘New skills for new jobs’ programme in 2008. Its activities aimed to ‘upgrade skills of the EU population and to ensure a better match with labour market needs’ (European Commission, 2008, p. 11).

Lifelong Learning and Learning Theories Lifelong learning is a very general concept. It applies to all learning activities in which individuals engage throughout their life in formal (school and university), non-formal (other forms of institutionalised learning) or informal settings (at home, with family members of peers). It is therefore impossible to single out a theory of learning that is capable of explaining all forms of lifelong learning. Yet new theories that could have an impact on our understanding of lifelong learning have recently been suggested.

Although there are several definitions of learning, the one proposed by Driscoll (2000) seems very fitting because it makes a distinction between performance and performance potential, thus allowing us to make a distinction between overt and observable behaviour on the one hand and competences as performance potential on the other. At the same time, it seems wide enough to include different approaches to learning. Driscoll (2000, p. 11) defines learning as ‘a persisting change in human performance or performance potential . . . [which] must come about as a result of the learner’s experience and interaction with the world’.

Theories of learning were developed in behaviourism, cognitivism and con- structivism.They are well-established, but they explain only relatively simple forms of learning. They could therefore be called nano- or micro-level theories of learn- ing. To explain learning activities in lifelong learning, it is desirable to have macro-level theories of learning.Theories of this type were developed only recently and include learning theories based on findings from the neuroscience, connectivism as proposed by Siemens (2004), and generativism as suggested by Carneiro (2010).

Brain Research and Learning Neuroscience has benefited from advances in molecular biology, electrophysiology, and computational neuroscience in the second part of the last century and has become an interdisciplinary adventure (Finger, 2001). Findings from neuroscience may help us to overcome the fragmented view of human beings that psychology has been presenting in the last decades. It may help us to understand the relationship between body and mind (see Damasio, 1994, for a very readable presentation), between emotion and cognition (Damasio, 2003) and between the brain and consciousness (Damasio, 2010). There is also evidence that social competence (formerly social intelligence, Goleman, 2006) has neurological foundations: mirror neurons trigger in us behaviour and emotions that we observe in others.

In 1991, Renate and Geoffry Caine proposed 12 principles of brain-based learning: 1. The brain is a complex adaptive system. 2. The brain is a social brain. 3. The search for meaning is innate. 4. The search for meaning occurs through patterning.

Karl Steffens 45

5. Emotions are critical to patterning. 6. Every brain simultaneously perceives and creates parts and wholes. 7. Learning involves both focused attention and peripheral attention. 8. Learning always involves conscious and unconscious processes. 9. We have at least two ways of organizing memory. 10. Learning is developmental. 11. Complex learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat. 12. Every brain is uniquely organized (Caine & Caine, 1991).

Admittedly, these are very general principles, and, although they are in line with findings from neuroscience (Kandel et al., 2012), they do not allow us to fully understand the enormously complex processes that take place in our brains while we learn. At the same time, understanding how the brain works when we learn only provides us with limited clues on how to guide and improve learning processes (Bruer, 1997; Goswami, 2004). Yet there are suggestions for what is called neurodidactics (Herrmann, 2009). Whereas this area of research has benefited from advances in brain research, the next two examples aim at integrating advances in technology and open educational resources.

Connectivism In 2004, George Siemens published an article on the Internet called ‘Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age’. His basic argument was that classical theories of learning (in behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism) were developed when today’s technologies were not available and that they did not address learning that is taking place outside of people and within organisations. Connectivism, according to Siemens, is ‘the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, and complexity and self-organization theories’ and includes the following principles: 1. Learning and knowledge rest in diversity of opinions. 2. Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources. 3. Learning may reside in non-human appliances. 4. Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known. 5. Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual

learning. 6. Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill. 7. Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist

learning activities. 8. 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 (Siemens, 2004).

In his 2006 publication (Siemens, 2006, p. 25) on knowing knowledge, we find a more systematic approach to learning. ‘Learning is to come to know’ and this process takes place in three phases: (1) a preparatory phase (exploration, inquiry, decision making, selecting, and deselecting), (2) the actual learning phase (acqui- sition of knowledge) and (3) evaluation and assessment (which can also occur during the second phase). According to Siemens (2006, p. 29), ‘Learning is the process of creating networks. Nodes are external entities which we can use to form a network. Or nodes may be people, organizations, libraries, web sites, books,

46 European Journal of Education

journals, database, or any other source of information.The act of learning (things become a bit tricky here) is one of creating an external network of nodes — where we connect and form information and knowledge sources. The learning that happens in our heads is an internal network (neural)’. Hence, he uses the metaphor of a network to describe both learning in a community of learners and individual learning.

Generativism One of the most recent ideas on learning was espoused by Carneiro (2010). His basic argument is that Open Educational Resources (OER) have provided us with rich opportunities for learning and that classical learning theories such as those presented in behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism are unable to capture the complexity of learning that is made possible in technology-enhanced learning environments. He is also critical of the concept of connectivism as developed by Siemens (2004) because, in his point of view, Siemens’ concept focuses too much on the individual. What we may need, according to Carneiro, are new sets of competences and different ways of enhancing social learning. In his approach, called generativism, he conceives of learning as a knowledge-generating activity, i.e. an activity which generates new knowledge out of previously codified knowledge. ‘Generativism understood as a constant re-creation of knowledge appeals to the unique human ability to derive new meaning from experience and to build sense out of a shared body of conventional knowledge’(Carneiro, 2010).

Generative learning is considered to be different from conventional (adaptive learning). These differences are enumerated in Table I.

Learning, according to Carneiro (Carneiro & Draxler, 2008; Carneiro, 2010), is a step in a meaning-making process where data are transformed into meta-data, yielding information; information is transformed into meta-information as a result of learning, and learning in the form of meta-learning leads to meaning (see Figure 1); these transformations have their correspondences in transformations from simple to complex, from science of quantities to science of qualities and from product to service.

The underlying vision is that our societies which used to be‘clockwork orange societies’ (Carneiro, 2007) in which industrialism dominated and which were largely bureaucracy-led are going through a knowledge age which is characterised by globalisation and market-led arrangements and will eventually become

TABLE I. Adaptive learning versus generative learning (from Carneiro, 2010) .

ADAPTIVE LEARNING GENERATIVE LEARNING

Adjusting to change Expanding capabilities (preference for ‘fit’) (preference for ‘stretch’) Coping with threats Enhancing creativity Reacting to symptoms Looking in new ways Capturing trends and incorporating early signs Adressing underlying causes Eliciting flexibility Thinking differently Projecting trends Anticipating futures Seeking conventional knowledge Rewarding knowledge re-construction

Karl Steffens 47

learning societies, characterised by the advent of a New Renaissance and learning communities that are fully empowered to conduct the business of education and training in accordance with their communal identities (Carneiro, 2007, p. 157; see Figure 2).

FIGURE 1. Generativism: learning as an integral part of meaning making (from Carneiro, 2010)

FIGURE 2. Scenarios leading to a Learning Society (from Carneiro, 2007, p. 158)

48 European Journal of Education

In his more recent writings, Carneiro (2013, p. 369) developed the concept of a learning society further, slightly changing the focus from the learning society to the learning city. ‘The learning city becomes a powerful symbol of the living and of the learning that humanity so much aspires to achieve in a sustainable way’. Like in the concept of the learning society, the quest for meaning is seen as the dominant aim of mankind. The learning city is where a new humanism can grow and a new citizenship which is acutely aware of the democratic, social, egalitarian (gender-balanced), intercultural and environmental aspects of life can develop.

Self-regulated Learning Theories of self-regulated learning may be considered to be meta-learning theories because they do not describe learning per se. Rather, they focus on how individuals organise their learning. In fact, the concept of self-regulated learning bears some resemblance with that of metacognition. According to Zimmerman and Schunk (2008, p. 1), those who know how to self-regulate their learning ‘set better learning goals, implement more effective learning strategies, monitor and assess their goal progress better, establish a more productive environment for learning, seek assis- tance more often when it is needed, expend effort and persist better, adjust strategies better, and set more effective new goals when present ones are com- pleted’. Although several models have been developed in the past, the best known is probably the one proposed by Zimmerman. Zimmerman (2000) assumes that self-regulation consists of cycles of forethought, performance or volitional control, and self-reflection. Self-regulation involves ‘cognitive, affective, motivational and behavioural components that provide the individual with the capacity to adjust his or her actions and goals to achieve the desired results in light of changing envi- ronmental conditions’ (Zeidner et al., 2000, p. 751).

The concept of self-regulation of learning has recently received greater atten- tion in publications and policy statements in the field of lifelong learning. Delors (1996) in his report to UNESCO ‘Learning: The treasure within. Education throughout life’ listed four pillars for lifelong learning. The first was ‘learning to know’, which not only included the desire to know and a positive attitude towards learning, but also learning to learn. ‘Learning to know, by combining a sufficiently broad general knowledge with the opportunity to work in depth on a small number of subjects. This also means learning to learn, so as to benefit from the opportu- nities education provides throughout life’ (Delors, 1996, p. 37). Self-regulated learning or learning to learn is also one of the eight competences listed in the ‘Recommendations on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning’ which were adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in December 2006 (European Council, 2006). The capacity to self-regulate one’s learning has also become a competence to be assessed in PISA surveys. The PISA 2009 study saw it as: (1) awareness of strategies to understand and remember information, (2) awareness of effective strategies to summarise information and (3) use of memorisation, elaboration and control strategies (OECD, 2010b). PISA results show that self-regulated learning is related to reading proficiency and to learning outcomes. It is an important concept in lifelong learning.While in formal learning settings, teachers and tutors may guide individuals in their learning, this may not be the case in non-formal and informal learning settings. The capacity to self- regulate one’s learning is of particular importance in relatively open learning environments such as those where learning is enhanced by digital technologies

Karl Steffens 49

(Carneiro et al., 2011; Carneiro & Steffens, 2013). A point in case may be learning with MOOCs. Empirical studies show that there is an extremely high drop-out rate (Armstrong, 2013) which may be due to the fact that this kind of technology- enhanced learning requires a great deal of self-regulation. Providing scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments could be a good option to improve the situation (Azevedo & Hadwin, 2005; Van de Pol et al., 2010; Devolder et al., 2012).

Digital Technologies in Lifelong Learning and MOOCs The last three decades have seen an amazing development of digital technologies, allowing for an unprecedented degree of connectivity. They seem to have become indispensable in our daily lives and have not only entered households and com- panies, but also educational institutions. Much money has been invested in ICT for educational purposes.The expectations were that: (1) schools would equip their students with ICT skills, (2) schools would bridge the digital divide and (3) ICT would make teaching and learning more effective (OECD, 2010a).

At the European level, several policy proposals and research programmes were designed to foster the use of ICT for learning. In 1996, the European Council issued a resolution on educational multimedia software in the fields of education and training (European Council, 1996) which was ‘to help improve the quality and effectiveness of education and training systems and provide access to the informa- tion society for teachers, students and apprentices by giving them an insight into the use of these new tools and into training in the subject’ (Europa, n.d.). Based on this resolution, a programme on ‘Learning in the information society, action plan for a European education initiative’ was developed. Following the Lisbon European Council meeting in March 2000, the European Commission issued a paper on ‘eLearning — Designing tomorrow’s education’ (European Commission, 2000). Since then, technology-enhanced learning has been a priority in all Frame- work Programmes of the European Commission. ICT is also one of the four transversal programmes (key activities) of the European Commission’s Lifelong Learning Programme (EACEA, n.d.).

Although the use of ICT in schools has increased in the last ten years, it is still quite rare. Young people use digital technologies, but much more for leisure activities than for educational purposes (Steffens, 2014). There is a new develop- ment in technology-enhanced learning that could change this situation, particu- larly for young people studying at the higher education level: Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). MOOCs have received a great deal of attention in recent years (Armstrong, 2013).While they may be considered to be online courses which have a long tradition in distance education, their innovative aspect lies in the fact that they are online courses in which huge numbers of students participate. Some 2,200 participated in one of the first MOOCs, a course on ‘Connectivism and Connective Knowledge (CC08) developed by George Siemens and Stephen Downes (https//sites.google.com/site/themoocguide). Sebastian Thrun and Peter Norvig from Stanford University offered an online course called ‘Introduction to Artificial Intelligence’ in which over 160,000 students from more than 190 coun- tries enrolled. Coursera tells potential students ‘Take the world’s best courses, online, for free’ and invites them to ‘join 8,612,319 Courserians, learn from 702 courses, from our 110 partners’ (https://www.coursera.org/). EdX advertises ‘great online courses from the world’s best universities’ (https://www.edx.org/) and

50 European Journal of Education

Udacity encourages potential students to ‘STAND OUT. Get that ideal job. Grab that promotion. Stand out by learning in-demand tech skills from the best com- panies in SiliconValley’ (https://www.udacity.com/).The increase in the number of MOOCs has been quite impressive. Starting with about 100 in 2012, their number has increased to some 1200 in 2014 (see Figure 3). Coursera is the largest provider

of courses in the US (839 in October 2014), followed by edX (326) and Udacity (45).

MOOCs are also receiving a great deal of attention in Europe. In 2013, the Commission published a communication on opening up education in which the use of open educational resources and MOOCs in particular was strongly advo- cated (European Commission, 2013). In the same year, OpenupEd (http:// www.openuped.eu/) was launched by a group of mostly distance teaching European universities to open up education by offering MOOCs. The MOOCs provided by OpenupEd must fulfil the following eight criteria which are related to equity, quality and diversity: Openness to learners Digital openness Learner-centred approach Independent learning Media-supported interaction Recognition options Quality focus Spectrum of diversity (OpenupEd, n.d.)

MOOCs have also been the topic of eLearning Papers (Mor & Koskinen, 2013), a digital publication on eLearning by elearningeuropa.info, and a portal created by

FIGURE 3. Growth of MOOCs (from Shah, 2013)

Karl Steffens 51

the European Commission to promote the use of ICT in education and training. The European Commission is financing a number of European projects on MOOCs: Elearning Communication Open Data (ECO) (http://ecolearning.eu/), European Multiple MOOC Aggregator (EMMA) (http://europeanmoocs.eu/), Higher Education Online. MOOCs the European Way (HOME) (http://home .eadtu.eu/about), and the MOOCKnowledge project (http://is.jrc.ec.europa .eu/pages/EAP/OpenEduMOOC.html). EFQUEL, the European Foundation for Quality in eLearning (http://efquel.org/) is currently preparing a MOOC on eLearning Quality (EFQUEL, n.d.).The European MOOCs scoreboard provides an overview of European-provided MOOCs available on different open websites (Open Education Europa, n.d.).The list of available MOOCs is classified accord- ing to the providing (mostly European) countries (also included are Russia — 14, Turkey — 4 and Cyprus — 1) and regularly updated. At the time of writing (June 2014), it included 673 MOOCs, with Spain clearly leading the list (240 MOOCs). The fact that that there are still fewer MOOCs in Europe than in the US can probably be explained by the time lag in the onset of their creation. As can be seen in Figure 3, even a lag of six months can create a significant difference.

Discussion Of the three developments in lifelong learning, the advent of MOOCs is the most recent. It is still too early to tell if they constitute a revolution in higher education or just a fad. Kartensi (2013) reviewed some 100 studies on their use in univer- sities. He found that proponents of MOOCs claim that they have the potential to: • resolve problems of access to education, such as distance, the job-family-school

balance and high tuition fees, • foster students’ autonomy and • create learning communities.

Sceptics argue that: • many of the advantages of MOOCs are actually advantages associated with

traditional distance learning, • success rate among MOOC participants is in general very low, • there are copy right issues concerning course content, • assessment for certification purposes is problematic, • it is difficult to ensure support for the learning process which requires students

to be highly autonomous (Kartensi, 2013, p. 33)

Our own observations are that MOOCs are not really open, in the sense that there is the same probability for all to participate in one. On the contrary, studies show that the unemployed, women and participants from developing countries are clearly underrepresented. The successful MOOC participant already holds a uni- versity degree (Bartolomé & Steffens, 2015).

From a pedagogical and psychological point of view, there is no difference between traditional distance courses and MOOCs as far as learning content is concerned. In both cases, digital technologies are used to present learning content in a way that is favourable to learning. MOOCs seem to have some disadvantages compared with traditional online courses in that interaction with tutors and peers and feedback from these, as well as assessment and accreditation may be more limited. Blogs, chats and forums, which are usually not very well organised, cannot replace the guidance provided by teachers or tutors.Yet MOOCs may play a role

52 European Journal of Education

in lifelong learning.They provide those who are curious and eager to learn with the opportunity to increase their knowledge and improve their skills. As for assessment and accreditation, these services will not be available free of charge. MOOCs may continue to exist alongside traditional university courses and some providers have already started to offer nanodegrees, i.e. degrees which certify the completion of a course or a small number of courses (Ferenstein, 2014).

It is, however, important to make a distinction between traditional MOOCs or xMOOCs and cMOOCs. xMOOCs seem to support adaptive learning in the Carneiro sense (2010); they help students to acquire knowledge, but do not encourage them to create knowledge. Depending on the individual course, the content may be presented using different media (texts, pictures, videos) and students may or may not be provided with different forms of interaction, with the learning content and with tutors and peers (through blogs, forums, chatrooms, skype sessions). Hence, they tend to resemble traditional college courses. However, in most cases, certification of participation will not be part of an xMOOC. cMOOCs are based on Siemens’ (2006) concept of connectivism whose basic idea is that those who are interested in a specific topic communicate and interact in order to create knowledge out of existing codified knowledge.They therefore create a community of learners that engages in generative learning, or, in a broader sense, that collaborates in the quest for meaning. As Carneiro (2010) pointed out, learning is an integral part of the search for meaning. This is clearly evidenced in neurophysiological approaches to learning. Among the 12 principles of brain- based learning enumerated by Caine & Caine (1991), two are directly related to the quest for meaning: (3) The search for meaning is innate and (5) The search for meaning occurs through patterning.

In his concept of connectivism, Siemens (2006) describes collaborative learning that takes place in a community of people who are interested in a specific subject. This is reminiscent of ideas that other authors have proposed. Ivan Illich (1972), for example, suggested that schools should be abandoned and replaced by knowledge centres. Although schools will probably never be abandoned, Internet may be seen as one big knowledge centre. The idea of a community of practice had also been proposed by Lave & Wenger (1991; Wenger, 1998).There does exist a more specific digital version of Ivan Illich’s idea of knowledge centres: the school in the cloud (https://www.theschoolinthecloud.org/) which was developed by Sugata Mitra, a professor of educational technology at Newcastle University. In 1999, he conducted the ‘hole in the wall’ experiment in which he placed a free computer in a Delhi slum. He found that street children who were attracted by the unknown device not only learned how to use it, but also learned the English language. In November 2013, the first School in the Cloud was opened in Killingworth, England. Since then, four more have opened, one more in the UK and three in India, including the first independent School in the Cloud (TED, 2013).

Connectivism as a learning theory for the digital age has met with some criticism. According to Verhagen (2006), it is more of a pedagogical view than a learning theory. Duke, Harper & Johnston (2013, p. 10) come to the conclusion that connectivism as described by Siemens is ‘a tool to be used in the learning process for instruction or curriculum rather than a standalone learning theory. One must acknowledge, however, that many theories in the social sciences will probably not meet the rigorous criteria of a scientific theory as defined in the discourses of philosophy of science.

Karl Steffens 53

As described above, Carneiro (2010) in his approach called generativism assumes that learning is a step in a meaning-making process where data are transformed into meta-data, yielding information, information is transformed into meta-information as a result of learning, and learning in the form of meta-learning leads to meaning. His vision is that our societies will become learning societies where people are deeply aware of democratic, social, egalitarian (gender- balanced), intercultural and environmental aspects of life.

Of the three developments studied in this article, the search for competences which are essential for lifelong learning seems to me to be the most important because they are the most closely related to the human quest for meaning. While the current discourse on competences presents us with some new proposals on the issue of learning goals, we could ask if they are not proposals with a broader vision on the subject.

In the 1996 Delors report for UNESCO, the Commission expressed its view ‘that, while education is an ongoing process of improving knowledge and skills, it is also — perhaps primarily — an exceptional means of bringing about personal development and building relationships among individuals, groups and nations’ (Delors, 1996, p. 12). It wanted to stress the point that ‘education is at the heart of both personal and community development; its mission is to enable each of us, without exception, to develop all our talents to the full and to realise our creative potential, including responsibility for our own lives and achievement of our per- sonal aims. This aim transcends all others. Its achievement, though long and difficult, will be an essential contribution to the search for a more just world, a better world to live in’ (Delors, 1996, p. 17).

According to the Commission, Learning to know encompasses more than acquiring knowledge, it also includes the desire to know, a positive attitude towards learning and learning to learn. Learning to do refers to applying the acquired knowledge, but also to the ‘acquisition of a competence that enables people to deal with a variety of situations, often unforeseeable, and to work in teams’ (Delors, 1996, p. 21). Learning to live together requires people to develop an understanding of other people and respect the values of pluralism, mutual understanding and peace. Finally, learning to be refers to the development of people’s personalities and their talents as well as to their responsibilities towards their communities. When we talk about personality development, it is certainly worth looking at theories and models developed in the field of psychology. Erikson (1950, 1959) proposed a life-span model of personality development which encompasses eight stages which he named (1) basic trust versus basic mistrust, (2) autonomy versus shame and doubt, (3) initiative versus guilt, (4) industry versus inferiority, (5) identity versus identity diffusion, (6) intimacy and distantiation versus self-absorption, (7) generativity versus stagnation and (8) integrity versus despair and disgust. One of the basic assumptions of the model is that at each stage, internal or external changes may lead individuals into a crisis, and accord- ing to how individuals manage to cope with the crisis, their personality will develop more towards the positive or more to the negative pole of each stage. In presenting his developmental model, Erikson alluded to Maria Jahoda’s concept of a healthy personality (1950), whereby ‘a healthy personality actively masters his environment, shows a certain unity of personality, and is able to perceive the world and himself correctly’ (Erikson, 1950, p. 53). Erikson also remarked that Sigmund Freud was once asked what a normal person should be able to do well, and he is

54 European Journal of Education

supposed to have answered: ‘to love and to work’ (Erikson, 1950, p. 102). While Erikson’s model is a model of human development, it could be argued that it can also be interpreted as a catalogue of development tasks where, at each stage, successfully coping with the corresponding crisis would mean having completed another development tasks. In his later years, Erikson related these tasks to the concept of care. ‘In youth you find out what you care to do and who you care to be — even in changing roles. In young adulthood you learn whom you care to be with — at work and in private life, not only exchanging intimacies, but sharing inti- macy. In adulthood, however, you learn to know what and whom you can take care of’ (Erikson, 1974, p. 124).To take care of is — or should be — a dominant theme in adulthood, a stage which Erikson named ‘generativity vs. self-absorption and stagnation’. ‘The new “virtue” emerging from this antithesis, namely, Care, is a widening commitment to take care of the persons, the products, and the ideas one has learned to care for. All the strengths arising from earlier developments in the ascending order from infancy to young adulthood (hope and will, purpose and skill, fidelity and love) now prove, on closer study, to be essential for the genera- tional task of cultivating strength in the next generation. For this is, indeed, the “store” of human life’ (Erikson & Erikson, 1997, p. 67). While achieving ego- identity is certainly one of the most important development tasks, it should not be overlooked that Erikson places at least as much emphasis on the development of the virtue of ‘care’ as on the fundamental route to derive meaning and construct sense in life.

Lifelong learning continues to be an important issue in the new millennium (Majhanovich & Brook Napier, 2014). In the last 25 years, significant changes have taken place in the way people learn and are supported in their learning activities by digital technologies. Learning in pursuit of the acquisition and improvement of competences for lifelong learning is an integral part of human meaning-making. As Albert Schweitzer once pointed out: ‘Three kinds of progress are significant for culture: progress in knowledge and technology; progress in the socialisation of man; progress in spirituality.The last is the most important . . . technical progress, extension of knowledge, does indeed represent progress, but not in fundamentals. The essential thing is that we become more finely and deeply human’ (Schweitzer, 1965, pp. 33–41, cited from Carneiro, 2010).

Karl Steffens, University of Cologne, Institute of Didactics and Educational Research, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, 50923 Cologne, Germany, [email protected]

REFERENCES

ARMSTRONG, L. (2013) 2013- the year of ups and downs for the MOOCs, Changing Higher Education. http://www.changinghighereducation.com/ 2014/01/2013-the-year-of-the-moocs.html?goback=.gde_2774663_member _5832211875772788740#!

AZEVEDO, R. & HADWIN, A. F. (2005) Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition — implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds, Instructional Science, 33, pp. 367–379.

BARTOLOMÉ, A. R. & STEFFENS, K. (2015) Are MOOCs promising learning environments?, Comunicar, 44.

BORG, C. & MAYO, P. (2005) The EU Memorandum on lifelong learning. Old wine in new bottles? Globalisation, Societies and Education, 3, pp. 203–225.

Karl Steffens 55

BRUER, J. T. (1997) Education and the brain: a bridge too far, Educational Researcher, 26, pp. 4–16.

CAINE, R. & CAINE, G. (1991) Making Connections: teaching and the human brain (Alexandria, VA, ASCD).

CARNEIRO, R. (2007) The Big Picture: understanding learning and meta-learning challenges, European Journal of Education, 42, pp. 151–172.

CARNEIRO, R. (2010) Open Educational Practices and Generativism. http:// cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/3827

CARNEIRO, R. (2013) Living by learning, learning by living: the quest for meaning, International Review of Education, 59, pp. 353–372.

CARNEIRO, R. & DRAXLER, A. (2008) Education for the 21st century: lessons and challenges, European Journal of Education, 43, pp. 149–160.

CARNEIRO, R., LEFRERE, P., STEFFENS, K. & UNDERWOOD, J. (2011) Self- regulated Learning in Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments: a European perspective (Rotterdam, Sense Publishers).

CARNEIRO, R. & STEFFENS, K. (2013) Research on self-regulated learning in technology-enhanced learning environments: two examples from Europe, in: R. AZEVEDO & V. ALEVEN (Eds) International Handbook of Metacognition and Learning Technologies (New York, Springer), pp. 601– 614.

CROPLEY, A. (Ed) (1980) Towards a System of Lifelong Education: some practical considerations (Hamburg, UNESCO Institute for Education, and Oxford, Pergamon Press).

DAMASIO, A. R. (1994) Descartes’ Error: emotion, reason, and the human brain (New York, Grosset/Putnam).

DAMASIO, A. R. (2003) Looking for Spinoza: joy, sorrow and the feeling brain (New York, Harcourt).

DAMASIO, A. R. (2010) Self Comes to Mind: constructing the conscious brain (New York, Pantheon Books).

DELORS (1996) Learning: The Treasure Within. Education Throughout Life. International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century. Report to UNESCO (Paris, UNESCO). http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/ 001095/109590eo.pdf

DEVOLDER, A., VAN BRAAK, J. & TONDEUR, J. (2012) Supporting self-regulated learning in computer-based learning environments: systematic review of effects of scaffolding in the domain of science education, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, pp. 557–573.

DRISCOLL, M. (2000) Psychology of Learning for Instruction (Needham Heights, MA, Allyn & Bacon).

DUKE, B., HARPER, G. & JOHNSTON, M. (2013) Connectivism as a digital age learning theory?, The International HETL Review, Special Issue, pp. 4–13. https://www.hetl.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/09/HETLReview 2013SpecialIssueArticle1.pdf

EACEA (n.d.) About lifelong learning programme. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/ about_llp/about_llp_en.php

EFQUEL (n.d.) EFQUEL MOOC on eLearning Quality. http://efquel.org/efquel -mooc-on-e-learning-quality/

ERIKSON, E. H. (1950) Growth and crises of the “healthy personality”, in: M. J. E. SENN (Ed) Symposium on the Healthy Personality, Supplement II: Problems of

56 European Journal of Education

Infancy and Childhood. Transactions of the fourth conference, March 1950 (New York, Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation).

ERIKSON, E. H. (1959) Identity and the Life Cycle (New York, International University Press).

ERIKSON, E. H. (1974) Dimensions of a New Identity (New York, Norton). ERIKSON, E. H. & ERIKSON, J. M. (1997) The Life Cycle Completed (New York,

Norton). EUROPA (n.d.) Summaries of EU legislation. http://europa.eu/legislation

_summaries/other/c11031_en.htm EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2000) e-Learning — Designing Tomorrow’s Educa-

tion. http://ec.europa.eu/education/archive/elearning/comen.pdf EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2008) Communication to the European Parliament,

the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. New Skills for New Jobs. Anticipating and matching labour market and skills needs. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/ ?uri=CELEX:52008DC0868&from=EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2001) Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX: 52001DC0678&from=EN

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2010a) Communication from the Commission. Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (Brussels, European Commission). http://ec.europa.eu/news/economy/ 100303_en.htm

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2010b) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Digital Agenda for Europe (Brussels, Euro- pean Commission). http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri =CELEX:52010DC0245R%2801%29:EN:NOT

EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2013) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Opening up Education: Innovative teaching and learning for all through new Technologies and Open Educational Resources (Brussels, European Commission). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0654&from=EN

EUROPEAN COUNCIL (1996) Council Resolution of 6 May 1996 relating to educational multimedia software in the fields of education and training, Official Journal C 195, 6 July 1996. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31996Y0706(03)&from=EN

EUROPEAN COUNCIL (2006) Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006 :394:0010:0018:en:pdf

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (1995) Decision No 2493/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 1995 establishing 1996 as the ‘Euro- pean year of lifelong learning’. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/ PDF/?uri=CELEX:31995D2493&from=EN

FAURE, E. (1972). Letter from the Chairman, Edgar Faure, to René Maheu, Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization., in: E. FAURE, F. HERRERA, A.-R. KADDOURA, H. LOPES, A.V.

Karl Steffens 57

PETROVSKY, M. RAHNEMA & F. C. WARD (Eds) Learning to Be:TheWorld of Education Today and Tomorrow (Paris, UNESCO) pp. v—viii.

FERENSTEIN, G. (2014) AT&T and Udacity partner to create the ‘nanodegree,’ a new type of college degree. http://venturebeat.com/2014/06/16/att-and-udacity -partner-to-create-the-nanodegree-a-new-type-of-college-degree/.

FINGER, S. (2001) Origins of Neuroscience: a history of explorations into brain function (3rd ed) (New York, Oxford University Press).

GOLEMAN, D. (2006) Social Intelligence. The New Science of Human Relationships (New York, Bantam Dell).

GOSWAMI, U. (2004) Neuroscience and education, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, pp. 1–14.

HALÁSZ, G. & MICHEL, A. (2011) Key competences in Europe: interpretation, policy formulation and implementation, European Journal of Education, 46, pp. 289–306.

HERRMANN, U. (2009) Neurodidaktik. Grundlagen undVorschläge für gehirngerechtes Lehren und Lernen (2nd ed) (Weinheim, Beltz).

ILLICH, I.(1972) Deschooling Society (London, Marion Boyars). INTER-AGENCY COMMISSION (1990) Meeting Basic Learning Needs: a vision

for the 1990s. Background Document. World Conference on Education for All. Jomtien,Thailand. 5–9 March 1990 (New York, UNICEF House).

JAHODA, M. (1950) Toward a social psychology of mental health, in: M. J. E. SENN (Ed) Symposium on the Healthy Personality, Supplement II: Problems of infancy and childhood.Transactions of the fourth conference, March 1950 (NewYork, Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation).

KANDEL, E. R., SCHARTZ, J. H., JESSEL, T. M., SIEGELBAUM, S. A. & HUDSPETH, A. J. (Eds) (2012) Principles of Neural Science (5th ed) (NewYork, McGraw-Hill).

KARTENSI, T. (2013) The MOOC.What the research says, International Journal of Technologies in Higher Education, 10, pp. 23–37. http://www.ritpu.org/ spip.php?rubrique73&lang=en

LAVE, J. & WENGER, E. (1991) Situated Learning: legitimate peripheral participation (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

LEE, W. O. (2014). Lifelong learning and learning to learn: an enabler of new voices for the new times, International Review of Education, 60, pp. 463–479.

MAJHANOVICH, S. & BROOK NAPIER, D. (2014). Lifelong learning in the new millennium: voices from the XV World Congress of Comparative Education Societies, International Review of Education, 60, pp. 449–462.

MOR, Y. & KOSKINEN, T. (2013) MOOCs and Beyond. eLearning Papers, 33. http://www.elearningpapers.eu

OECD (1996) Lifelong Learning for All: meeting of the Education Committee at Ministerial Level, 16–17 January 1996 (Paris, OECD).

OECD (2001) Defining and Selecting Key Competences (Paris, OECD). OECD (2005) The Definition and Selection of Key Competencies. Executive Summary.

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf OECD (2010a) Are the new Millennium Learners making the Grade? Technology Use

and Educational Performance in PISA (Paris, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation).

OECD (2010b) PISA 2009 Results: learning to learn — student engagement, strategies and practices (Vol. Volume III) (Paris, OECD).

58 European Journal of Education

OPEN EDUCATION EUROPA (n.d.) European MOOCs Scoreboard. http:// openeducationeuropa.eu/en/european_scoreboard_moocs

OPENUPED (n.d.) Our Framework. http://www.openuped.eu/mooc-features/our -framework

SCHWEITZER, A. (1965) The Teaching of Reverence for Life (New York, Henry Holt & Company).

SHAH, D. (2013) MOOCs in 2013: breaking down the numbers. https://www .edsurge.com/n/2013-12-22-moocs-in-2013-breaking-down-the-numbers

SIEMENS, G. (2004) Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. http:// www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

SIEMENS, G. (2006) Knowing knowledge. http://www.elearnspace.org/ KnowingKnowledge_LowRes.pdf

STEFFENS, K. (2014) ICT use and achievement in three European countries: what does PISA tell us? European Educational Research Journal, 13, pp. 553–562.

TED (2013). School in the Cloud — Sugata Mitra. School in the Cloud — Sugata Mitra. http://www.ted.com/participate/ted-prize/prize-winning-wishes/school -in-the-cloud-sugata-mitra

TUIJNMAN, A. & BOSTRÖM, A. K. (2002) Changing notions of lifelong education and lifelong learning, International Review of Education, 48, pp. 93–110.

UNESCO (2000) The Dakar Framework for Action (Paris, UNESCO). VAN DE POL, J., VOLMAN, M. & BEISHUIZEN, J. (2010) Scaffolding in teacher-

student interaction: a decade of research, Educational Psychology Review, 22, pp. 271–296.

VERHAGEN, P. (2006) Connectivism:A new learning theory? http://elearning.surf.nl/ e-learning/english/3793

WENGER, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: learning, meaning, and identity (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

ZEIDNER, M., BOEKAERTS, M. & PINTRICHP, P. (2000) Self-regulation. Direc- tions and challenges for future research, in: M. BOEKAERTS, P. PINTRICH & M. ZEIDNER (Eds) Handbook of Self-regulation (New York, Academic Press), pp. 749–768.

ZIMMERMAN, B. J. (2000) Attaining self-regulation: a social cognitive perspective, in: M. BOEKAERTS, P. PINTRICH & M. ZEIDNER (Eds) Handbook of Self-Regulation (New York, Academic Press), pp. 13–39.

ZIMMERMAN, B. J. & SCHUNK, D. (2008) Motivation, in D. H. SCHUNK & B. J. ZIMMERMAN (Eds) Motivation and Self-regulated Learning. Theory, Research and Application (New York, Lawrence Earlbaum Associates), pp. 1–30.

Karl Steffens 59

Copyright of European Journal of Education is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.