The industrial-age model of instruction (note the emphasiswas not on learning) assumes a curriculum with set outcomes, written by asubject-matter expert or by an instructional designer, delivered by a teacheror teacher-surrogate (such as asynchronous eLearning), with criterion testingto confirm attainment of the outcomes, and a defined physical or virtual spacefor delivery. This set of assumptions gave us the ISD (instructional systemsdesign) approach to education and training. We call education and training “learningand development” now, but it’s still all about instruction.
That model is working less and less well in the twenty-firstcentury as traditional ways of working evolve and as technology facilitates access to information and access to other people. Because of theirfamiliarity with “Web 2.0” and changes in primary and secondary education, thenext generation of workers will probably assume and expect an approach tolearning that supports self-determined processes and outcomes. It may be truethat expert- and instructor-driven instruction (lecture, curricula, mosteLearning) will always have a role to play in the development of skills andknowledge, but it is being complemented, even pushed off of center stage, bythe appeal of new media and the affordances of new technologies that supportmore effective learning.
In this article, I present two closely-related concepts thatoffer a path to effective learning as we leave the industrial age further andfurther behind.
Transforming learning: Heutagogy
The first of the concepts that is transforming learning hasan alien-sounding name: heutagogy. This is a term that originated in the 1990swith Stewart Hase and Chris Kenyon at Southern Cross University in Australia.(See the References at the end of this article.) The term is new, but itdescribes a very old human learning strategy. Hase and Kenyon define it as “thestudy of self-determined learning” or “the strategy of self-determined learning.”Most significantly, according to Hase and Kenyon, “Heutagogy looks to thefuture in which knowing how to learn will be a fundamental skill given the paceof innovation and the changing structure of communities and workplaces.”
Heutagogy is a kind of complement to two earlier concepts,pedagogy (a strategy for teaching children) and andragogy (a strategy forteaching adults). The key difference is that heutagogy is self-determinedstrategy—an instructor, teacher, or other arbiter is not necessarily involved,unless the individual chooses to involve one at some point. It is important tothink of it as self-determined learning, not “informal learning” as contrastedto “formal learning.” It is also important to reflect on the fact that everyonewith access to the Internet has, to one extent or another, already adoptedheutagogy as a key part of their personal learning strategy. Before the Internet,for that matter, anyone with access to a library, a newspaper, a correspondenceschool catalog, or a social network did the same thing. Further back, BenFranklin and many other individuals found their own paths to self-determinedlearning. It’s just the word itself that is new.
Many who read this article will be employed as instructionaldesigners or training managers in some kind of organizational context.Heutagogy is clearly a personal strategy of individuals. If yours is anorganizational context, how can you support heutagogy in a way that bothsatisfies business requirements and at the same time allows for self-determinedlearning?
Transforming learning: Personalization
The second concept, directly answering that question, ispersonalization. George Couros, an education blogger who is division principal forParkland School Division in Canada, points out that people mean differentthings by “personalized.” Not only that, people get different concepts ofindividualized learning and of “personalized” mixed up. You can read about thisin his blog entry, “Individualized and Personalized Learning” (see theReferences).
Couros thinks of individualized learning as “…havingstudents go through different paths to get to the same end point. How you getthere is different, but the destination is the same.” He looks at personalizedlearning as “…having students go through their own paths to whatever endpointthey desire. How you take the path and where you end up is totally dependentupon the strengths and interests of the learner.” In his blog entry, heprovides a couple of examples. He based this distinction on comments by Dr.Yong Zhao, presidential chair and director of the Institute for Global andOnline Education in the College of Education at the University of Oregon.
Dr. Zhao makes a helpful differentiation between two typesof personalization. Most educators, he says, think of personalization as amatter of personalizing the learning process.The destination (objective, competency, etc.) is set by the organization orinstitution, but the learner selects his or her individual path to it, usingresources and guidance provided by the instructor or other support system. Zhaoclaims that this can actually improve learning. The other form of personalizationgoes beyond predefined curricula by allowing the learner to determine the outcome based on personal strengths andpassions, using a path (or paths) of the learner’s choosing. Dr. Zhao believesthat this approach may better prepare the learner for the future, and alsoaddresses the question of “learning how to learn.” In his blog entry of July20, 2015, he provides several examples of how these two forms ofpersonalization can be and have been implemented. (See the References.)
Putting the ideas to work
The examples provided by Hase and Kenyon, Couros, and Zhaoare taken from education, but they should spark some ideas as to implementationin other settings. You will also find the 2012 article by Lisa Marie Blaschke, “Heutagogyand Lifelong Learning: A Review of Heutagogical Practice and Self-DeterminedLearning” (see the References) helpful in providing additional background onthe concept and examples.
References
Blaschke, Lisa Marie. “Heutagogy and Lifelong Learning: AReview of Heutagogical Practice and Self-Determined Learning.” The International Review of Research in Open& Distributed Learning. January 2012. Retrieved 4 March 2016 from https://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1076/2087
Couros, George. “Individualized and Personalized Learning.” 18February 2015. Retrieved 1 March 2016 from https://georgecouros.ca/blog/archives/5090
Kenyon, Chris and Stewart Hase. “Moving from Andragogy toHeutagogy in Vocational Education.” Researchto Reality: Putting VET Research to Work. ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED456279. 2001. Retrieved 1 March 2016 from https://www.lindenwood.edu/education/andragogy/andragogy/2011/Kenyon_2001.pdf
Zhao, Yong. “Outcome vs. Process: DifferentIncarnations of Personalization.”
20 July 2015. Retrieved 1 March 2016 from https://zhaolearning.com/2015/07/20/outcome-versus-process-different-incarnations-of-personalization/
