PrePrint

Jon Dron and Terry Anderson (2016) The Future of E-learning. In the SAGE Handbook of E-learning Research (2016) Second Edition. Edited by Caroline Haythornthwaite, Richard Andrews, Jude Fransman and Eric M. Meyers. Sage

The Future of E-learning

INTRODUCTION

This is not the first attempt to predict the future of e-learning and our first confident

prediction is that it will not be the last. Our intent in this chapter is to focus less on the digital

technologies involved and more on broad trends and consequences, especially as they affect

and are affected by the pedagogies and their surrounding educational infrastructures. We do

not wish to predict the future so much as to characterize its general form and examine the

implications for the present and the futures that emerge.

E-LEARNING

The term ‘e-learning’ was independently invented several times in the mid-1990s (Cross,

2008): ‘it was in the air’. Twenty years on, the term is beginning to sound like a quaint

anachronism. Before it dies out altogether, we will provide a definition so that future readers

may better understand the context of which we write: E-learning is a combination of

methods, structures and networked electronic tools orchestrated into systems that bring

about, or are intended to bring about, learning.

Inherent in this definition is that part of the orchestrated assembly must include methods

of teaching or, more concisely, pedagogies. From this perspective, pedagogies are

technologies (Dron, 2009). Like all technologies, no one part exists in isolation. All are

mutually constitutive and dependent on one another – parts of a single orchestration (Arthur,

1

2009) – and so all must fit together. The ‘e’ part of the term therefore matters as much as the

‘learning’ part. Neither occupies a privileged place, any more than the engine of a car is any

more or any less important than the skills of its driver. The orchestration matters as much as

does what is orchestrated.

The role of the orchestrator in e-learning is always distributed – programmed machines

and people such as teachers and textbook authors may do some of it, but learners themselves

always do at least as much. So too do the myriad of people that either directly or indirectly

contribute to the orchestration through direct interaction or the design of tools, content and

processes.

E-TEACHING

With the foregoing in mind, we make the distinction between e-learning and e-teaching. The

vast majority of uses of the term ‘e-learning’ in the literature actually describe e-teaching,

where the focus is on teaching interventions rather than directly on the learning that may

result (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999). Human learning, whether construed as a socially

distributed activity or an internal psychological or physiological event, is never electronic.

Moreover, professional teachers and learning designers have only a minor part to play in

most e-learning. In 1999, John Chambers, then head of Cisco Systems, was mocked for

predicting that Internet traffic caused by education over the Internet would make email usage

seem like a rounding error (Neal, 2007). He was, however, substantially correct. Almost

everything shared on the Internet, almost every interaction, is an opportunity for learning,

whether deliberately sought (e.g. Google, Wikipedia, MOOCs, YouTube) or as a side-effect

of interaction (e.g. Facebook, email, Twitter). Whether finding or passing on information,

challenging beliefs or affirming them, inciting critique or inspiring ideas, our reified online

interactions are learning interactions. The Internet has transformed in both scale and scope

2

the sharing and the collective construction of knowledge – thus exploding the opportunities

for learning. On the Internet, almost everyone is a teacher and everyone is a learner, whether

intentionally, effectively, accurately, reliably or not. Explicit e-teaching only scratches the

surface of e-learning’s impact. Before we explore the consequences of that, we consider a

little of the history of e-learning futures, to help explain where we are now and to provide

useful boundaries that allow us to shape our enquiry.

THE EDINBURGH SCENARIOS AND WHAT THEY TELL US

In 2004 what was, for a field named barely ten years previously, grandiosely described as the

Largest Scenario Planning Exercise ever undertaken in the e-learning community, the

Edinburgh Scenarios (Bell & Stewart, 2004) resulted in a spectrum of four possible broad

scenarios for the future of e-learning (Figure 26.1):

Virtually vanilla – technology to support e-learning mainly in the hands of

large corporations and institutions

Back to the future – trust lost in e-learning, with a subsequent return to

traditional values and face-to-face teaching

Web of confidence – the Web enables people to learn and work together in new

ways, leading to decentralization and a shift in power away from large

organizations

U choose – a world where people are frustrated by and reject new technologies

but find new ways to gain greater control over their learning and greater

independence from central authorities.

The scenarios were designed to be relatively neutral with regard to any specific electronic

technology. As we write this, more than 10 years on, it is informative to consider how they

have stood the test of time.

3

[TS: Insert Figure 26.1 here]

Figure 26.1 The Edinburgh Scenarios (after Bell & Stewart, 2004)

Virtually vanilla

The ‘virtually vanilla’ scenario is in full swing and stronger than ever. There is greater e-

learning centralization than there was ten years ago, whether in the form of instructivist

MOOCs, moves by publishers to take greater control of institutional learning, or the ubiquity

of learning management systems (LMSs) in both higher education and schools. The likes of

Blackboard and EdX are thriving as never before, replicating models of learning and teaching

that stretch back at least as far as medieval times; automating the well-entrenched process

models of most traditional institutions and thereby increasing access and market share of

these large organizations.

Back to the future

Although formal online learning is firmly established, with at least 32% of students in the

USA alone now taking at least one fully online course (Allen & Seaman, 2013, p. 4) and the

vast majority of all courses incorporating some online elements, the majority of students still

prefer face-to-face over online learning (Taylor et al., 2011). If it has achieved nothing else,

the popularity of MOOCs has renewed a focus on the strengths of traditional face-to-face

education (Ritzer, 2013) and traditionalists have found a new assertiveness about the value of

older pedagogies (Brooks, 2012).

Web of confidence

The ‘web of confidence’ is utterly pervasive. Technologies such as Google Search,

Wikipedia, Facebook, blogs, Twitter, Stack Overflow, the Khan Academy and Reddit have

come to dominate informal learning, largely replacing books, newspapers and journals for a

growing segment of the population, as well as making ever larger inroads into the formal

4

learning space, whether or not this is condoned by teachers. The first and still popular format

of MOOCs to share the name arose out of Connectivist theory (Siemens, 2005), relying on

decentralized, networked, learner-owned technologies that exemplify the web of confidence.

Technologies used for learning are cheaper and more distributed than ever before and are

increasingly learner-controlled.

U choose

The ‘U choose’ scenario, in which learners engage in physical spaces independently of

traditional institutions, is also thriving, growing in strength and reach. Trends like the Maker

Movement have led to an abundance of small local workshops and local events, while ‘Free

Universities’ that offer courses provided by enthusiasts in local settings, such as

http://freeuniversitybrighton.org, are trending, and the range of topics and contexts around

which people are ‘meeting-up’, from TEDx to book clubs, is expanding everywhere. Most

provide at least a website and other digital technologies to coordinate their activities, but the

actual learning activities themselves are local and face to face. Similarly, the home-schooling

movement has grown considerably, notably in the USA: for example, it experienced a 17%

growth rate in the period from 2007 to 2012 (NCES, 2013) and now accounts for over 1.78

million students. While this growth is only possible because of the widespread availability of

content and interaction online, much of the learning activity is both beyond institutions and

based on the physical co-presence of parents and children.

DIVERSITY AND DIVERGENCE

What the intervening decade between now and the formulation of the Edinburgh Scenarios

teaches us is that there is no single future of e-learning. If it can happen, it probably will. At

least as significantly, this does not normally cause the extinction of what came before. As

Kelly persuasively argues, old technologies seldom if ever die (Kelly, 2010). Moreover,

5

existing patterns become a part of the new and ever expanding tapestry. Technologies evolve,

as Arthur (2009) shows, through a process of assembly and recombination. Each innovation

builds on the last and, in turn, opens up new possibilities for further innovation as well as

new constraints and dependencies. The more technologies that are available, the more they

may be assembled into new ones. Kauffman (2000) explains this as an inevitable expansion

of the adjacent possible: every new change makes possible further changes which, in the

absence of catastrophic disaster, cannot but lead to greater diversity and complexity.

We can thus expect all of the Edinburgh Scenarios to persist and spawn new forms that

may not currently exist or, more likely, that already exist in nascent forms for, as Gibson

observed, the future is already here, just unevenly distributed (Rosenberg, 1992). No one

scenario will dominate forever because each will find its niches. It also depends on where one

chooses to draw the system boundaries. For example, while educational institutions have long

been in the thrall of the makers of learning management systems, with a strong centralizing

‘virtually vanilla’ trend, students (and even some teachers) at such institutions often embrace

the ‘web of confidence’, making extensive use of personal learning networks supported by

the likes of Facebook, Twitter and Whatsapp, not to mention learning-support sites like

Wikipedia and StackOverflow, Learni.st and Google Search.

THREE GENERATIONS OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

PEDAGOGIES

Diversity characterizes the future of online pedagogies as much as it does organizational

forms. We have previously described distance learning (and, by extension, e-learning) in

terms of generations of pedagogies (Anderson & Dron, 2011). Up to now we have observed

three generations: the behaviourist/cognitivist, the social constructivist and the connectivist.

In keeping with Kelly’s observations on the immortality of technologies, the emergence of

6

each new generation has not replaced the last, but coexists with and extends it. And, in

keeping with Arthur’s perspective on technologies as assemblies, the dominance of each

pedagogical norm is closely interwoven with the technological capabilities that it employs.

Generation 1: cognitivist/behaviourist (instructivist) pedagogies

Before cheap and ubiquitous many-to-many technologies like forums, newsgroups, email and

learning management systems, it was not economically viable to attempt many-to-many e-

learning, so the first generation of e-learning was necessarily concerned with individual-

oriented methods of teaching and training, employing behaviourist or cognitivist theories that

address the efficient transfer of knowledge to individual learners. It is characterized by well-

defined learning outcomes and an objectives-driven approach. The generation began by

assembling the pedagogical methods of books and written correspondence with multimedia

and computational features of computers, first through computer-based training, CD-ROMs

and, later, through web-based training through to modern instructivist MOOCs. The

interactivity of electronic media provides opportunities to simulate, stimulate and offer

adaptivity and feedback, but cognitivist/behaviourist methods are mostly premised on the

notion of knowledge transfer – teachers primarily provide, rather than nurture, knowledge.

Such approaches mainly fit firmly within the ‘virtually vanilla’ quadrant of the Edinburgh

Scenarios.

Generation 2: social constructivist pedagogies

Starting with PLATO in the 1960s through to bulletin boards and MOOs in the 1980s,

pioneers experimented with many-to-many pedagogies, but cost, technical limitations and

complexity limited their impact. As the Web grew in the 1990s, new many-to-many tools

emerged, at very low cost and with relatively high ease of use. Social interaction at last

became straightforward and reliable to achieve and social constructivist approaches came to

7

dominate. Following already popular precepts from earlier thinkers like Vygotsky (1978) and

Dewey (1916), these enabled more open, unpredictable, learner-focused approaches to the

social construction of richer knowledge through engagement, interaction and collaboration.

Through the 1990s and 2000s, this was assisted by the growth of tools such as learning

management systems that provided simple and usable forums and collaborative workspaces.

While far more open, flexible and accommodating of different learner needs, these social

constructivist approaches still assumed a set of group goals, set by teachers: they were about

intentional, guided learning. Thus, they also mainly sit within the ‘virtually vanilla’ quadrant

of the Edinburgh Scenarios.

Generation 3: connectivist pedagogies

The Internet’s virtual elimination of the expensive, rival nature of stored information, along

with its scale, it’s potential to connect people and a growing understanding of the significance

of socially distributed cognition (Pea, 1993; Saloman, 1993) have spawned changes in how

we perceive knowledge and the purpose of learning itself. This has led to a growth in

connectivist pedagogies of various flavours. The theory of Connectivism itself is chiefly

propounded by George Siemens (2005) and Stephen Downes (2012) but other theories and

models following a broadly connectivist pattern include, for instance, heutagogy (Hase &

Kenyon, 2007), rhizomatic learning (Cormier, 2008) and networks of practice (Wenger et al.,

2011). In connectivist-era pedagogies, learning and knowledge itself are seen as distributed

and networked, reified in shared objects that are part of the network. Learning is a process of

connection and sense-making through mediated interactions with machines and people,

directly, through shared objects, and through the formation of each learner’s networks.

Learning derives from emergent or individually specified goals, rather than through planned,

teacher-led processes. It is a result of engagement and of active creation, existing in a context

of an abundance of capacity to share, create and connect with others through networked

8

media. Such pedagogies fit neatly into the ‘web of confidence’ quadrant of the Edinburgh

Scenarios.

Generation 0

In our initial classification, our distance education focus meant we neglected to discuss face-

to-face teaching modalities, but their consequences are profound for understanding the nature

of the next generation of e-learning pedagogies.

Face-to-face pedagogies are diverse, notwithstanding deeply embedded instructivist

cognitivist/behaviourist tendencies in institutional learning. Social constructivist patterns also

occur naturally in campus-based education through tutorials, studios, study groups and other

collaborative processes. Connectivist pedagogies, though seldom explicit in teaching, have

always been implicit on university campuses, where bars, noticeboards, cafes, smoking areas

and hallways provide the social substrate where unplanned and emergent networked learning

occurs.

However, just as distance learning pedagogies have been affected by the technologies

available, so have those of physically co-present teachers and learners. The vast majority are

based on the pragmatic assumption that a set of learners will be collocated in a classroom for

a set period of time, on a paced schedule, within the confines of a set term or semester and

will be guided by a teacher while confined there. This is an efficient way to make use of

scarce teacher time to support many learners in a physical space. Two inevitable

consequences emerge. The first is that teachers need to have much greater control than

learners: every moment in the classroom is potentially and usually guided. Second, the

chances of all learners finding every moment of every lesson to be of innate interest are very

slim. Self-determination theory suggests that lack of perceived control and insufficient/too

much challenge is antagonistic to intrinsic motivation (Kohn, 1999; Ryan & Deci, 2006).

9

Consequently, most pedagogies of the physical classroom must be concerned with

restoring or replacing lost motivation that results from an inevitable lack of interest and a lack

of control over the process. Students may be allowed freer rein, but the key word is

‘allowed’. The most enlightened of learner-centred teachers use phrases like ‘I get my

students to…’, ‘students have to…’, ‘I make my students…’. Even in close online simulacra

of traditional classrooms such as a realtime webinar, an attendee is always in both a physical

and a virtual context uncontrolled by the teacher. Asynchronous course forums, blogs or

guided exercises afford considerably greater control. This shift of control is the fundamental

difference between online and face-to-face education. Originally a side-effect of the

educational process, the use of assessment as a means of control restores some power to

teachers, a pattern reinforced by LMSs that are based on replicating the technologies of

institutional learning (Dron, 2006).

The fundamental weakness of this replicant model becomes abundantly clear when we

look at courses where the same processes are employed without the use of threats or

punishments to drive them. MOOCs, courses that typically mirror traditional teaching

methodologies from the classroom, that are often designed with greater care and attention to

detail than their physical counterparts, that attract mature, competent and well-qualified

learners, but that offer no formal accreditation, have average completion rates of less than

10% (Jordan, 2014), regardless of pedagogy. Though some lack of commitment may be due

to reduced loss aversion (the potential loss of time, money or social face), this provides fairly

conclusive evidence that, once the pattern of control is removed from the picture, the

pedagogies that work within classrooms often have next to no value in and of themselves.

Without the assumption of control and related credentialing, it is like building a gas engine

but leaving out the gasoline. The orchestration is missing its central motif. With that in mind,

10

we turn our attention more clearly towards the future and suggest how the next generation of

pedagogy may emerge.

THE FOURTH GENERATION OF E-LEARNING

PEDAGOGIES

We begin with the technological toolset that extends the adjacent possible. This includes,

non-exhaustively:

1. Learning analytics, adaptive hypermedia and personalization: traces of learning

activity (past and current) are captured and may then be used to either teach

teachers about their students or, more directly, guide or support students

themselves.

2. Collective technologies: traditional communication tools have been one-to-one,

one-to-many or many-to-many. Internet technologies such as collaborative filters,

tag clouds, reputation systems, network-mining algorithms and crowd-driven search

algorithms make many-to-one communication possible. The crowd, in conjunction

with intelligent aggregation of its actions, in effect becomes a teacher.

3. Deep learning and artificial intelligence: simple AI approaches have been

supporting learning for decades, from Microsoft’s Clippy to intelligent tutoring

systems. More recently, deep learning algorithms that mimic aspects of human

learning have become significantly more powerful and are beginning to provide

everything from contextual help to machine translations.

4. Disaggregated tools and services: the monolithic LMS is giving way to small,

interoperable services. The technical infrastructure ranges from older standards like

RSS and LTI (Learning Tools Interoperability) to emerging standards like

OpenBadges (enables learners to maintain personal ‘backpacks’ to collect evidence

of accredited competence from many sources), xAPI (also known as TinCan,

enables collection and aggregation of evidence of learning from any networked

source) and Caliper (a standard for capturing learning activity data used in learning

analytics and other tools, as well as service-based architectures). These standards

11

support aggregated services as well as one-size-fits-all monoliths. The recently

announced EduCause next generation digital learning environment (NGDLE)

exemplifies this trend (www.educause.edu/library/resources/next-generation-

digital-learning-environment-ngdle). In this context, personal learning

environments (PLEs) are becoming increasingly relevant and significant, as many

have predicted for some time (Attwell, 2007). The Learning Performance and

Support System (LPSS, www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/solutions/collaborative/lpss.html),

currently being developed by Stephen Downes and his team, is a good example of a

designed tool to provide this individually focused but highly networked toolset,

though many other more generic tools, from news aggregators like Pocket, to note

aggregators like Evernote, to Wordpress sites, already provide much of the

functionality needed.

5. Mobility and device diversity: e-learning is no longer the sole domain of personal

computers but extends to cellphones, tablets, watches, clothing and more. The Web

paradigm is being slowly eroded by the growth of apps that offer both the promise

of greater interactivity and customization, and the threat of locked-in silos

controlled by cloud-based providers. Perhaps more significantly, they open up far

more opportunities to collect data through different sensors – audio, video, location,

direction, velocity and more and, most important of all, they are with learners any

time and any place.

6. The Internet of Things and ubiquitous computing: increasingly, computation is

being integrated into our environment, and the objects we use are increasingly both

networked and smart. Because they are networked, they can interact with us in new

and complex ways, blurring the lines between the physical and the virtual.

7. Virtual and augmented reality: virtual and (especially) augmented reality has been

making inroads into the educational and training space for more than two decades.

Virtual reality has seen extensive use in the form of simulations for training as well

as in offering richer co-presence in systems like Second Life and ActiveWorlds, and

technologies like Oculus Rift and Google Cardboard are sparking renewed interest

in its potential. Augmented reality has moved out of the laboratory in the past 15

years, not just in high-profile technologies like Google Glass but in a prolific range

of mobile apps that overlay virtual information on physical spaces.

12

8. 3D printing: a wide range of methods of creating physical objects from virtual

representations are reaching the mainstream and are as affordable as 2D printers

were less than a decade ago. As the range of materials, speed, reliability,

affordability and ease of use all increase, these further blur the lines between virtual

and physical spaces.

The first three of these trends – analytics, collectives and AI – are mainly concerned with

delegating processes to computational agents that were formerly the domain of human

beings. The fourth – disaggregation – speaks to an overlapping trend of increasing learner

control, as well as a general trend towards greater flexibility, which is increasingly enabling

alternatives to the traditional form and content of institutional learning as well as, potentially,

for learners to build their own custom learning environments. The final four trends build on

and incorporate the former but share in common an encroachment of the virtual onto the

physical. While e-learning moved the act of learning out of the classroom, it was performed

at a desk or on a laptop computer and so remained an activity that removed learners from the

flow of their lives. Learners might periodically leave their computers to engage in learning

activities elsewhere but the computer was the nexus of it all. Mobile, locative, situated and

augmented reality systems bring learning opportunities to everywhere and anywhere, making

it possible to knit an intentional learning process with the fabric of learners’ lives. Combined

with the algorithmic innovations that make such devices smarter, and the ability to assemble

and mash up pieces on demand, the patterns of teaching that assume teacher control within a

fixed space and time frame are therefore broken beyond repair. Such tools enable learning to

be embedded in practice, as part of the process of living, rather than demanding a separation

of life and education. In this way, the pedagogies suggested by these affordances bear more

resemblance to those employed by hunter-gatherer tribes and informal apprenticeships than

those used in formal teaching.

13

We have formerly described the forthcoming generation emerging from these adjacent

possibles as the holistic generation (Dron & Anderson, 2014), in part because it will

undoubtedly incorporate parts of each of the previous generations, but also because of its

deep integration within learners’ whole lives and those of others. We are sure there is a better

term that captures its integrational quality. Though we cannot yet know in detail the

pedagogical models and theories that exploit such adjacent possibles, let alone their names,

we can extrapolate what some of the elements and characteristics of this next generation of

pedagogies and methods will be:

1. It will be focused heavily on the individual learner

Whether through adaptive learning pathways, focused feedback on individual progress, or

provisioning means for individuals to both learn and assert competence, the individual will be

at the centre. This is far from asocial, however, as social networks will often be the means

through which that individual learning is accomplished and social context will be central to

the situated nature of the activity. Every individual is part of a social network that is different

from that of every other. A social network is constituted in the connections to people we

know, so the individual is always at its centre (Wellman, 2002). This makes it very distinct

from the traditional group model of formal education, where a purpose-driven group, such as

a class or cohort, is something that can be joined, that has a name, independent of its

members, and that is rich in process and design (Dron & Anderson, 2014).

A mixed blessing in this deeper focus on the individual will lie in the trend to

personalization, typically automated through adaptive hypermedia, AI, collective intelligence

and learning analytics tools, supported by sensors to track more than just computer-based

interactions, of which smart watches and cellphones are just the beginning. There are strong

dangers that such tools, in providing a personalized path, will reduce the agency of the

14

learner and, potentially, may impact on his or her crucial ability to learn to learn. Moreover,

as algorithms contribute more and more in guiding our learning journeys, we may see more

and more of what we want to see, and less that is neither serendipitous nor challenging

(Pariser, 2011). More positively, these tools will also make it possible, even within formal

institutional teaching, for each learner to be provided with a path that is more suited to his or

her needs. Where learning objectives are clear, this will provide great efficiencies and may

have a positive impact on the motivation of learners who will be less likely to be bored or

confused as a result. It remains to be seen whether this balances the demotivating effects

caused by the implied loss of control. We anticipate that this will become a significant area

for future research and design. Methods will be developed that are both adapted to learner

needs and that empower learners to choose between opportunities offered them (Dron, 2007)

and to be in control of the personalized student models that drive learning activity selection.

Learners will increasingly orchestrate learning themselves, through PLEs that aggregate

the flow of information from a network, organize it, support contribution to it as creators, and

support planning of learning pathways. Meanwhile, tools to aggregate evidence of learning

for individuals, rather than through institutional accreditation, will enable activities in many

different systems to be treated at an individual, rather than platform-dependent or

institutional, level.

2. It will be distributed, technically, socially and organizationally

While centralized institutions, organizations and learning management tools will continue to

play a role for the foreseeable future, both the process of learning and its accreditation will be

more distributed. This will affect both the individual’s approach to learning and the manner

of teaching. It will be rare for learning to be orchestrated through a single organization or

technology, and the role of the professional teacher in the process will be significantly

15

disaggregated. Some may take on an orchestrating role, others may be role models, while still

others will provide an on-demand support role. The teacher will become more of a service

provider rather than a controller of the process. The centralized LMS will become far less

significant as it becomes simply one of many service providers, whether as a learning record

store or as a purveyor of content or interaction in a broader web of tools and social

opportunities.

One notable effect of this will be to change how professional learning designers, or learner

experience designers (Kop & Fournier, 2013), go about the design process. E-learning has

long relied on variants on ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation and

evaluation), an approach to project management inspired by the engineering models that

drove first-generation cognitivist/behaviourist pedagogies. While such approaches will not

disappear (technologies do not die), the distributed, componentized nature of the environment

will support a trend towards bricolage-based ways of building (Turkle & Papert, 1992).

Bricolage is concerned with making use of available materials and technologies. It is a means

of assembly and, as our existing technologies gain in sophistication and diversity, such

assemblies can become very rich, and be built and adapted very fast. Learners will be able to

do this too.

3. It will be crowd-driven and emergent

Learners already find inspiration, advice, help, support, guidance and other teacher-like

features distributed among the people they connect with, and such connections are expanding

exponentially. In the next generation, such assistance will increasingly not only be from

people that they know but also people that they do not. Systems like Wikipedia, Google

Search, YouTube and Q&A sites like StackOverflow are already far less network-driven than

they are set-driven (Dron & Anderson, 2014). They are driven by interest rather than

16

connection, with cooperative rather than collaborative processes enabling people to learn

from one another. Crowd-driven support, using collective algorithms to aggregate and refine

crowd knowledge, will become more sophisticated.

At present, most approaches to using the crowd for support employ simple preference or

taste: for example, the collaborative filters of Amazon or Netflix, the PageRank of Google

Search or the ratings or ‘likes’ of countless social sites. Preference does not necessarily

indicate pedagogical value so, increasingly, we will see tools of this nature developed

specifically for learning (e.g. (Brusilovsky et al., 2004; Dron et al., 2000; Drachsler, 2009;

Graf et al., 2008; Hummel et al., 2007; Vassileva, 2004) that recommend, adapt, filter and

support with pedagogical intent. Unlike most adaptive systems so far, these will operate on an

open corpus, supported by traces left for analytics purposes and pattern matching between

learners. In keeping with deep learning approaches in general, the pedagogies such systems

use will not necessarily be explicitly programmed in, but will emerge from the data. To a

significant extent, therefore, pedagogies will not be theory-driven but data-driven, emergent

rather than designed. It is very possible that this next generation will largely be discovered

rather than invented: as we uncover patterns that appear to work, these will allow us to derive

more generalizable insights from large-scale empirical data.

4. It will be integrated, just-in-time and authentic

Without the need to enter a classroom but with the assistance of machine and human

intelligence, learning may truly be achieved any time, anywhere. Those of us who already

use cellphones to seek answers in conversations, information about places we visit, advice

from friends, even bus times or a way home that avoids the traffic, are already familiar with

the leading edge of this. Combined with smarter algorithms, crowd-sourced knowledge,

intentional support and smart sensors that know what we are doing and how we do it, the

17

sophistication of these tools will improve and the need for separation of life and learning will

diminish, resulting in a technologically augmented return to the ways of our ancestors, in

which children learned through observing and participating in the activities of their families,

friends and others in their tribes, receiving advice, stories, correction and inspiration from

those already skilled. Such integrated approaches were formerly impossibly complex to

manage in even a moderately complex, hierarchical society, which is why schools,

universities and accompanying Generation 0 pedagogies were needed. Coming full circle,

mobile, augmented, ubiquitous, locative and always-on digital technologies return us to

integrational ways of learning for which we are naturally adapted.

5. Courses will play a less significant role

The course as an organizational structure is not built to serve learners but to enable

institutions to manage the teaching process. As technologies and pedagogies improve, this

will no longer be such a constraint. We already see a proliferation of finer-grained credits,

unpaced options, differently sized courses and alternative aggregations as a very significant

trend. Among the simpler and coarser of current alternative aggregations are the nano-

degrees offered by Udacity and the Signature Tracks provided by Coursera, which offer

small, targeted programs for developing specific ‘industry-ready’ skills, comprised of

variable-length courses. The finer the granularity, the more likely a course will be to suit

learner needs, and to be an appropriate size for the task, rather than for the timetable. Sites

offering small just-in-time learning chunks like the Khan Academy and Wikipedia, or those

offering support and answers to questions like StackOverflow or Reddit, or the ‘how-to’

videos on YouTube or Instructables, illustrate how deliberate learning activities enabled by e-

learning will become increasingly fine-grained and potentially more assemblable. This relates

to both the personal and distributed nature of next-generation pedagogies.

18

6. Learning will be divorced from accreditation

While self-guided learning using diverse, fine-grained tools and ubiquitous access to a vast

crowd of teachers already dwarfs in quantity the formal learning that goes on in institutions, it

has, till recently, been difficult to accredit (Livingstone, 1999). The disaggregation of

learning from accreditation may be the single most important pedagogical innovation to

emerge in the forthcoming generation. Given the individualized nature of learning in the next

generation, and the reduction in significance of the traditional course, individual learners will

no longer need to be driven by accreditation needs and grades in their learning process. They

will learn what they wish to learn, when they need to learn it and, as a result of fine-grained

recording of the process and products, will naturally acquire evidence of competence and

success while doing so.

There will likely remain an ongoing need for authority to support that assertion, but it does

not need to be a single institution. One competent individual or organization might assert our

competence in one area, while an institution might support it in another, while aggregated

endorsements, records of contribution, recommendations or even likes/favourites might

provide more evidence from the crowd. It will not be necessary to receive a certificate from a

single institution and, indeed, there may be a spectrum of information about an individual’s

competence gleaned from more and less reliable sources that will provide a machine-readable

confidence profile which those that care, such as employers, may use to decide how much

they trust the assessment.

Increasingly, we will see crowd-based, data-mining approaches being used to assert

authority, along the lines of the crude methods currently used to assert reputation in Linked-

In endorsements, eBay reputations, StackExchange karma or citation indexes. Rather than

resting on institutional credibility, endorsement will come from the network, of which

19

institutions will only be one kind of player. A mechanism like PageRank (Page et al., 1999),

which iteratively calculates relative weights for objects in a network, may make this more

reliable and enable it to scale: authority may be established by millions, rather than a few

appointed judges. This will not only help learners to find the most appropriate help, but will

also give authority to their assertions of competence.

THREATS FROM THE FUTURE

Here, we describe a handful of the more pressing issues that will continue to emerge as a

result of the next generation of pedagogies.

Open versus closed

The struggle between those that seek ways to profit from online learning and the nature of

knowledge as a non-rival social good that gains value from being spread will continue. A

combination of digital rights management (DRM) and legislative tools like copyright, patent

and trademarks will continue to support commercial providers with income. Relatedly, non-

owned rental models – typically through the provision of cloud-based services – will be

aggressively pursued by traditional and new providers.

Revenue will not only come directly. Most of the technologies we have mentioned imply

that substantial data will be collected about learners and, in many cases, could not operate at

all without doing so. Such data may be owned neither by the student nor by a trusted

institution. Already, complex moral and legal issues surround, say, requiring student

engagement on commercial social media sites or publisher-owned e-textbook systems. In

many cases, the traces left by learners through standards-based aggregation mechanisms will

be more commercially valuable than the services they purchase, particularly in advertising

revenue. In search of ownership of such data, large publishers and other commercial

organizations will compete with traditional institutions for parts of the learning market, likely

20

in partnership with tools providers like Blackboard, Canvas or Desire2Learn. Rather than

paying one provider, learners may need or desire to spread learning costs across multiple

providers. Perhaps, micro-payment systems like BitCoin may enable individual experts to

offer on-demand services that are part of this trend. It is likely that aggregation and

integration services intended to simplify such issues will become significant: universities and

colleges may well play such a role. How or whether such efforts will compete with copious

free support provided by individuals remains to be seen. As now, support for accreditation

may be the most valued service, whether distributed or not.

It is equally certain that open educational resources will play an ever-more important role

in both formal and informal learning. When learning resources are open, they may be

modified and re-shared, following a Lamarckian evolutionary dynamic. Prolific replication

with variation and competition for limited attention means the best will thrive while the worst

will decline. This means they will continue to improve, diversify and spread. The benefits of

open educational resources already greatly exceed those of traditional closed resources

(Wiley & Hilton III, 2009). This is exactly the dynamic that has resulted in the almost total

dominance of Wikipedia over traditional encyclopaedias and its emergence into information

realms never penetrated by paper-based encyclopaedias. We may see more public funding

diverted to such efforts as their role as a social good begins to be seen on a par with

traditional universities and public libraries, and as those older institutions continue to

diminish in relevance.

The loss of mind, the loss of soul

Perhaps the most vague and yet the most troubling of threats to the future of e-learning comes

from the backlash from prominent authors (e.g. Brabazon, 2007; Carr, 2011; Greenfield,

2004; Harris, 2014; Keen, 2007; Turkle, 2011) who bemoan the very changes that we have so

21

far celebrated. They argue that we are becoming less focused, drawing shallow content from

diverse sources, our critical skills are being diminished, our social skills becoming

caricatures, and our connection with others diminished in quality while quantity increases.

All technologies change us, especially those affecting something as fundamental as how we

learn, and not all of those changes will be positive.

To handle such big issues in a small chapter is over-ambitious. Instead, we focus on a

narrow but illustrative example. Some of the more disruptive effects of e-learning have been

to demolish the foundations of traditional teaching assignments and examinations, making

plagiarism, real-time examination answer-sharing and contract cheating even more ubiquitous

than before. A whole industry has grown up around contract cheating, with many sites

dedicated to providing custom-written assignments for a fee. This has led to an unwinnable

arms war. Over two-thirds of American college students admit to cheating within the last

year (McCabe et al., 2012) and, in some countries, the rates are considerably higher.

In the first place, this makes a nonsense of assignments that rely on easily reproducible

facts or simply discovered writings. In the second place, it challenges the role of universities,

colleges and schools as accreditation agencies and is one of the main reasons that we foresee

a bleak future for that role. Traditional accreditation methods make no sense in a context of

abundance, where the best of traditional educational outputs is often easily outclassed by the

worst of Internet inputs. The focus of both courses and students on accreditation is a

consequence of Generation 0 pedagogies that are broken by the distributed, personal,

ubiquitous, situated, data-intense world of the coming generation. In microcosm, this battle

is an analogue of the changes that are radically changing how we learn and how what we

learn is accredited – both a symptom of the change and a catalyst for it.

22

CONCLUSION: PEERING INTO THE FURTHER FUTURE

FROM THE DISTANT PAST

The known

Some of the future of e-learning is very knowable: it will be like the past. Technological

revolutions seldom if ever fully replace their forebears and almost always incorporate parts of

them. The same tools and methods that we use now will continue to exist, just as remnants of

archaic technologies of traditional education, libraries of books, lectures, classes and

medieval trappings of academia, still persist, not just physically but in our LMSs. As always,

the old will accompany, be integrated with and aggregated with the new.

At the beginning of the 19th century, Pestalozzi influentially sought techniques to teach

that were largely independent of teachers:

I believe it is not possible for common popular instruction to advance a step, so long

as formulas of instruction are not found which make the teacher … merely the

mechanical tool of a method, the result of which springs from the nature of the

formulas and not from the skill of the man who uses it. (Pestalozzi, 1894, p. 41)

Traditional schools and universities are designed as machines for learning that deliberately

harden the process. The use of timetables, curricula, tiered lecture theatres, corridors and

classrooms are all designed to reduce possible choices for the teacher as well as the learner.

Technologies can equally soften and support creativity, however. For instance, the invention

of the blackboard augmented the teacher’s capacity to explain and library indexing systems

brought powerful tools for exploration.

The capacity of electronic devices to be universal tools, media and environments affords

both softening and hardening. From early Skinnerian behaviourist teaching machines to the

latest learning analytics tools, hard, prescriptive tools that play one or more roles of the

23

teacher are ubiquitous. Equally common are softer holistic tools, from electronic whiteboards

to webinars, which enable teachers (including learners) to do more, in new and different

ways. This tension between softening, creative opportunities and hardening, efficiency-

building approaches to learning will undoubtedly continue to play out in the future of e-

learning.

The unknowable

In a boundaried system, be it a school, a university or an individual learner, if changes in the

ecosystem of which it is a part occur faster than the boundaried system itself, its chances of

survival are slim. Those boundaries are changing very fast indeed, as the relentless logic of

the adjacent possible predicts they must. Some shifts may be profound. For instance, it is far

from ridiculous to imagine a future in which we might, for example, take a pill to learn

Spanish or learn to read (Negroponte, 2014). There are enormous ethical concerns with doing

so – rewiring brains to adopt or influence a particular political, religious or social perspective

is an extremely dangerous idea, quite apart from the potential for viruses and deliberate

manipulation, and we predict enormous resistance to such technologies. Nonetheless, the

eagerness with which many of us enhance our brains with chemical, electrical or magnetic

stimulation suggests a willing market.

Such near-adjacent possibles bring into question what kinds of pedagogy may emerge as a

result. The focus of learning would be far more on doing and connecting ideas, on creation

and creativity, on building learning networks, on working with other people and on

developing approaches to the construction of ideas and objects rather than memory and skills.

With less need to concern ourselves with the mechanics of learning facts and basic skills,

learning would become more concerned with application, and thus with aesthetic and moral

values. Though the notion of an educational institution as we know it, including both its

24

teaching and accreditation role, might seem profoundly archaic in such circumstances, it may

be exactly what is needed to bring stability and value to this brave new world. Perhaps that

continuity and integration will be institutional education’s lasting gift to society when its

traditional teaching role of skill and knowledge transfer is gone. Perhaps that is what it should

have always been.

REFERENCES

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in

the United States. Retrieved from

www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf

Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy.

International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3). Retrieved from

www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/890

Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves (Kindle edn).

New York: Free Press.

Attwell, G. (2007). Personal learning environments: The future of eLearning? eLearning

Papers, 2(1), 1–7.

Bell, M., & Stewart, C. (2004). The Edinburgh Scenarios. Retrieved from

www.internettime.com/lcmt/archives/001121.html

Brabazon, T. (2007). The University of Google: Education in a (post) information age.

Aldershot: Ashgate.

Brooks, D. (2012). The campus tsunami. The New York Times, 4, A29.

25

Brusilovsky, P., Chavan, G., & Farzan, R. (2004). Social adaptive navigation support for

open corpus electronic textbooks. Proceedings from AH 2004, Eindhoven.

Carr, N. G. (2011). The shallows: How the Internet is changing the way we think, read and

remember. London: Atlantic Books. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=9ta-

uQAACAAJ

Cormier, D. (2008). Rhizomatic education: Community as curriculum. Innovate: Journal of

Online Education, 4(5), 2.

Cross, J. (2008). Origins of ‘eLearning’. Retrieved from

www.internettime.com/2008/11/origins-of-elearning/

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan. Retrieved 21 May 2001

from www.ilt.columbia.edu/projects/digitexts/dewey/d_e/contents.html

Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge: Essays on meaning and

learning networks. Stephen Downes Web, Commentary, 19 May. Retrieved 5 October 2015

from http://www.downes.ca/files/books/Connective_Knowledge-19May2012.pdf

Drachsler, H. (2009). Navigation support for learners in informal learning networks. PhD

thesis, Open Universiteit Nederland, Heerlen.

Dron, J. (2006). Any color you like, as long as it’s Blackboard®. Proceedings from E-Learn,

Honolulu, HI, 13–17 October.

Dron, J. (2007). Control and constraint in e-learning: Choosing when to choose. Hershey,

PA: Idea Group International.

26

Dron, J. (2009). Pedagogies as educational technologies. World Conference on E-Learning in

Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2009, pp. 2120–2127. Retrieved

from www.editlib.org/p/32777

Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2014). Teaching crowds: Social media and distance learning.

Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press. Retrieved from http://teachingcrowds.ca

Dron, J., Mitchell, R., Siviter, P., & Boyne, C. (2000). CoFIND: An experiment in n-

dimensional collaborative filtering. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 23, 131–

142.

Graf, S., Kinshuk, & Liu, T.-C. (2008). Identifying learning styles in learning management

systems by using indications from students’ behaviour. Proceedings of Advanced Learning

Technologies, pp. 482–486. IEEE: ICALT’08.

Greenfield, S. (2004). Tomorrow’s people: How 21st-century technology is changing the way

we think and feel. London: Penguin.

Harris, M. (2014). The end of absence: Reclaiming what we’ve lost in a world of constant

connection. HarperCollins Canada. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?

id=4DJ0AwAAQBAJ

Hase, S., & Kenyon, C. (2007). Heutagogy: A child of complexity theory. Complicity: An

International Journal of Complexity and Education, 4(1), 111–118. Retrieved March 2008

from

www.complexityandeducation.ualberta.ca/COMPLICITY4/documents/Complicity_41k_Has

eKenyon.pdf

27

Hummel, H. G. K., Van Den Berg, B., Berlanga, A. J., Drachsler, H., Janssen, J., Nadolski,

R., & Koper, R. (2007). Combining social-based and information-based approaches for

personalised recommendation on sequencing learning activities. International Journal of

Learning Technology, 3(2), 152–168. Retrieved from

http://inderscience.metapress.com/content/A1302V75036X4H02

Jordan, K. (2014). Initial trends in enrolment and completion of massive open online courses.

The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(1).

Kauffman, S. (2000). Investigations (Kindle edn). New York: Oxford University Press.

Keen, A. (2007). The cult of the amateur. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Kelly, K. (2010). What technology wants (Kindle edn). New York: Viking.

Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s,

praise, and other bribes (Kindle edn). New York: Mariner Books.

Kop, R., & Fournier, H. (2013). Developing a framework for research on personal learning

environments, eLearning Papers. Retrieved from

www.openeducationeuropa.eu/en/elearning_papers

Livingstone, D. W. (1999). Exploring the icebergs of adult learning: Findings of the first

Canadian survey of informal learning practices. Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult

Education, 13(2), 49–72. Retrieved January 2006 from

www.oise.utoronto.ca/depts/sese/csew/nall/res/cjsaem.pdf

McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Treviño, L. K. (2012). Cheating in COLLEGE: Why

students do it and what educators can do about it. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University

Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.ca/books?id=DfBLxVIq5IAC

28

NCES. (2013). Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_206.10.asp?current=yes

Neal, L. (2007). Not all the world’s a stage: Hi-def video will only revolutionize e-learning

when students get comfortable on camera. eLearn, 8, 1.

Negroponte, N. (2014). A 30-year history of the future [Video]. TED.

Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., & Winograd, T. (1999). The PageRank citation ranking:

Bringing order to the web. Retrieved from http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/

Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you (Kindle edn). New

York: Penguin.

Pea, R. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Saloman

(ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pestalozzi, J. H. (1894). How Gertrude teaches her children (L. T. Hooland & F. C. Turner,

trans.). Syracuse, NY: Swan Sonnenshchein & Co.

Ritzer, G. (2013). MOOCs and the McDonaldization of education. Retrieved from

https://georgeritzer.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/moocs-and-the-mcdonaldization-of-

education/

Rosenberg, S. (1992). Virtual reality check digital daydreams, cyberspace nightmares. San

Francisco Examiner, 19 April, p. C1.

29

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy:

Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74(6),

1557–1585.

Saloman, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International

Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from

www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm

Taylor, P., Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Patten, E. (2011). The digital revolution and higher

education: College presidents, public differ on value of online learning. Retrieved from

www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2011/PIP-Online-Learning.pdf

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together. New York: Basic Books.

Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1992). Epistemological pluralism and the revaluation of the

concrete. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 11(1), 3–33. Retrieved from

http://papert.org/articles/EpistemologicalPluralism.html

Vassileva, J. (2004). Harnessing P2P power in the classroom. Proceedings from ITS 2004,

Maceio, Brazil.

Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and

teaching. Learning and Instruction, 9(3), 257–280.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

30

Wellman, B. (2002). Little boxes, glocalization and networked individualism. In M. Tanabe,

P. van den Besselaar, & T. Ishida (eds), Digital Cities II: Second Kyoto workshop – revised

papers. Springer. Retrieved from

http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/littleboxes/littlebox.pdf

Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & Laat, M. D. (2011). Promoting and assessing value creation in

communities and networks: A conceptual framework. Ruud de Moor Centrum/Open

Universiteit. Retrieved 5 October 2015 from

http://wenger-trayner.com/documents/Wenger_Trayner_DeLaat_Value_creation.pdf

Wiley, D., & Hilton III, J. (2009). Openness, dynamic specialization, and the disaggregated

future of higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed

Learning, 10(5). Retrieved from www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/768

31