New “smart” ways of staging and marketing learning are frequently introduced. Typically, they do not actually describe a new way of learning, but a new way of conveying information, and perhaps also a method of giving the recipient of the message the opportunity to reflect on the information. Examples could be e-learning/e-learning, digital learning , gamification , adaptive learning , micro learning , collaborative learning, social learning, virtual learning, and so on.
There is a lot of buzzwords - and they promise a lot. A word like digital learning almost postulates that learning happens digitally - and that our analog brain can absorb learning at digital speed.
Let's just state it: Learning happens in the brain of the individual. Learning is what happens when the brain changes physically by forming - or changing - connections between nerve cells in the brain. In other words, learning is a very biological - and analog - process.
It's funny, because you don't talk about book learning or video learning when someone learns something by reading a book or watching a video. And there's no difference between learning something by watching a video on a digital computer or on an old analog VCR, right? Another term I'm a little amused by is virtual learning. Does that mean you don't learn anything in reality? Jokes aside - I know I'm being a bit polemical here.
The controversy is due to the fact that we use the word learning interchangeably to describe a number of different things:
- The facilitated method or process that leads to the learner having learned something. Examples: social learning, collaborative learning, situated learning, group work, ass-to-seat teaching/learning and so on.
- The media and material the “learning” is presented in. Examples: digital learning, micro learning, e-learning, podcasts, books, video.
- The result of the above process and material in the learner. For example, a person has gained insight and/or is able to perform an action that the learner was not previously able to do.
One could argue that the boundaries between method / process and material / medium are merging. Fine with me. It is not my business to go into that right now. My point is to distinguish between method/process and material/medium on the one hand, and the result on the other.
It is important to distinguish because there are consequences if this distinction is not made.
To put it bluntly, there is no guarantee that a process where participants are, for example, exposed to situated learning (method/process) using micro-learning (material/media) will result in participants learning what they are intended to learn.
The method and medium are of course important, as they each have some characteristics that may be more or less suitable for what the target group needs to learn.
Therefore, the focus should always be on the result, that is, that each recipient learns what we want them to learn, and not, in the first instance, on the method and the medium.
Do you want to? learn more?
If you are interested in reading more about motivation and learning, these articles may interest you.
- Self-determination theory. The most important theory you need to know about learning.
- Coercive design – how not to design e-learning .
- Which learning methods best support motivation for learning?
- Your brain is NOT a computer - Predictive Coding
- Flick 2 learn. Why Interactive elearning is NOT always exciting elearning
If you want to know more about digital learning and e-learning, you can start with our E-learning FAQ
... and are you looking for help developing exciting e-learning , or would you like to learn how to create exciting e-learning yourself - then give us a shout.