Beyond constructivism: navigationism inthe knowledge era

Tom H. Brown

Abstract

Purpose – This paper seeks to discuss past and present paradigm shifts in education and then to

explore possible future learning paradigms in the light of the knowledge explosion in the knowledge era

that is currently being entered.

Design/methodology/approach – New learning paradigms and paradigm shifts are explored.

Findings – Learning processes and learning paradigms are still very much founded in a content-driven

and knowledge production paradigm. The rapid developments in information and communication

technologies already have and will continue to have a profound impact on information processing,

knowledge production and learning paradigms. One needs to acknowledge the increasing role and

impact of technology on education and training. One has already experienced enormous challenges in

coping with the current overflow of available information. It is difficult to imagine what it will be like when

the knowledge economy is in its prime.

Practical implications – Institutions should move away from providing content per se to learners. It is

necessary to focus on how to enable learners to find, identify, manipulate and evaluate information and

knowledge, to integrate this knowledge in their world of work and life, to solve problems and to

communicate this knowledge to others. Teachers and trainers should become coaches and mentors

within the knowledge era – the source of how to navigate in the ocean of available information and

knowledge – and learners should acquire navigating skills for a navigationist learning paradigm.

Originality/value – This paper stimulates out-of-the-box thinking about current learning paradigms and

educational and training practices. It provides a basis to identify the impact of the new knowledge

economy on the way one deals with information and knowledge and how one deals with learning content

and content production. It emphasizes that the focus should not be on the creation of knowledge per se,

but on how to navigate in the ocean of available knowledge and information. It urges readers to

anticipate the on future and to explore alternative and appropriate learning paradigms.

Keywords Learning, Knowledge management

Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction

Educational practice is continually subjected to renewal, due mainly to developments in

information and communication technology (ICT), the commercialization and globalization of

education, social changes and the pursuit of quality. Of these, the impact of ICTand the new

knowledge economy are the most significant.

Changes in our educational environment lead, in turn, to changes in our approaches to

teaching and learning. These changes also impact on our teaching and learning paradigms.

Currently, as over the past few decades, we teach and learn in a constructivist learning

paradigm.

This article discusses past and present paradigm shifts in education and then explores

possible future learning paradigms in the light of the knowledge explosion in the knowledge

era that we are currently entering.

PAGE 108 j ON THE HORIZON j VOL. 14 NO. 3 2006, pp. 108-120, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1074-8121 DOI 10.1108/10748120610690681

Tom H. Brown is based in

the Department of

Telematic Learning &

Education Innovation,

University of Pretoria,

Pretoria, South Africa

The impact of ICT on education

The electronic information revolution currently being experienced internationally can be

compared to and reveals the same characteristics as the first information revolution started

by Gutenberg’s printing press. This implies that, just as present-day society accepts the

printing industry as a given and printed materials form an integral part of our daily existence,

electronic material will go the same route: Possibly in a drastically shorter period than in the

case of printed material.

We should acknowledge the increasing role and function of technology in the education

environment. Langlois (in Collis, 1999, p. 374) makes the following statement:New

information technologies, and particularly the Internet, are dramatically transforming access

to information, are changing the learning and research process, how we search, discover,

teach and learn . . .Restak (2003, p. 57) points out that, within the modern age, we must be

able to rapidly process information, function amidst chaotic surroundings, always remain

prepared to shift rapidly from one activity to another and redirect attention between

competing tasks without losing time.

Currently, as over the past few decades, the majority of our teaching and learning is based

upon a constructivist learning paradigm. However, due to the impact of ICT on education,

there are a number of issues to interrogate: How will ICT developments impact our

educational practice? Will we experience a drastic change in teaching and learning

strategies? Will we adopt a new learning paradigm in the next decade or two?

These questions lead us to explore new learning paradigms. But before we continue with the

exploration, let us look back over recent past decades and review the paradigm shifts we

have already experienced.

Paradigm shifts in education over recent decades

At this stage, it is useful to indicate that the term education be seen as the macro term which

includes the concepts teaching and learning (education ¼ teachingþ learning).

The most prominent paradigm shifts that we experienced in education during the 20th

century are discussed briefly.

Reproductive learning vs productive learning

Learners’ achievements were measured against their ability to reproduce subject content -

in other words, how well they could memorize and reproduce the content that the teacher

‘‘transferred’’ to them. With the emphasis on productive learning, it is rather about the

application of knowledge and skills, in other words, what the learners can do after

completing the learning process. Achievement is measured against the productive

contribution a learner can make, instead of what the learner can reproduce.

Behaviourism vs constructivism

According to a behavioristic view of learning, a learning result is indicated by a change in the

behavior of a learner (Skinner, 1938; Venezky and Osin, 1991). According to a constructivist

view, learning is seen as the individualized construction of meanings by the learner

(Cunningham, 1991; Duffy and Jonassen, 1991). Neither of these views can be regarded as

exclusively right or wrong. It is, however, necessary to know that constructivism is presently

accepted as the more relevant of the two and that education policies, education models and

education practices focus on constructivism.

Teacher-centered vs learner-centered

In the past, education activities focused on the strong points, preferences and teaching style

of the teacher. That which would work best for the teacher, determined the design of the

learning environment and the nature of activities. Teacher-centeredness is also

characterized by a view that the teacher is the primary source of knowledge for learners.

In a learner-centered environment, the focus is on the strong points, preferences and

VOL. 14 NO. 3 2006 jON THE HORIZONj PAGE 109

learning style(s) of the learner(s). The learning environment is designed according to the

needs and capabilities of the particular learner group.

A further distinction between teacher-centeredness and learner-centeredness lies in the

responsibility accepted for the learner’s learning process and learning achievement. In a

teacher-centered paradigm the teacher accepts this responsibility. Opposed to that, in a

learner-centered education paradigm, the learner accepts the full responsibility for his/her

own learning. It is for this reason that self-directed learning plays such an important role in

effective learner- centered education systems. Note however, that this does not mean that

the teacher or educational institution has no responsibility. The focus shifts towards the

instructional design of a conducive learning environment, in which effective learning can

take place.

Teaching-centered vs learning-centered

Education activities in the past were planned and executed from a teaching perspective. A

teacher would plan a teaching session (lecture) based on what the best teaching methods

would be to transfer the relevant subject content to the learners. The focus was on how to

teach. In the new paradigm, education activities are planned and executed from a learning

perspective. The emphasis is now on the learning activity and learning process of the

learner. So the focus is on how the learning, which should take place, can be optimized. ‘‘In

general, there must be a conversion from a teaching to a learning culture.’’ (Arnold in Peters,

1999)

Teaching vs learning facilitation

Teaching or instruction, as an activity of the teacher, is seen as an activity that relates to the

‘‘transfer of content’’ (an objectivist view) within a teaching-centered education paradigm.

The presentation/delivery of a lecture or paper falls into this category. The principle of

learning facilitation follows a learning-centered education paradigm. Learning facilitation

has to do with strategies and activities that focus on optimizing the learner’s learning

process. Just as the term indicates, the emphasis is on the facilitation of learning.

Teachers cannot be regarded as the only source of knowledge and cannot focus on the

traditional ‘‘transfer of content’’ any longer. They need to focus on the facilitation of learning.

‘‘Instructional staff no longer are the fountainhead of information since the technology can

provide students with access to an infinite amount of and array of data and information. The

role of the instructor, therefore, changes to one of learning facilitator. The instructor assists

students to access information, to synthesize and interpret it and to place it in a context – in

short to transform information into knowledge.’’ (Kershaw & Safford, 1998, p. 294)

Content-based vs outcomes-based

A content-driven approach to education is characterized by curriculation and education

activities that focus on subject content. The emphasis is on the content that learners should

master and a learner receives a qualification based on the nature, amount and level

(difficulty) of subject content he/she has mastered. In contrast, an outcomes-based

approach to education focuses on the learning outcomes to be reached by the learners. A

typical process for curriculation in an outcomes-based model is characterized by the

formulation and selection of learning outcomes that a learner should reach - that which the

learner must be able to do on completion of the learning process. The selection of subject

content is based on the relevance thereof to enable the learner to reach the learning

outcomes.

Content-based evaluation vs outcomes-based assessment

Content-based evaluation follows a reproductive view of learning where a learner’s

achievement is measured by the quantity and quality of content that is reproduced. On the

contrary, outcomes-based assessment refers to a productive view of learning where a

learner’s achievement is measured by the level and extent to which learning outcomes are

mastered.

PAGE 110 jON THE HORIZONj VOL. 14 NO. 3 2006

Recent developments and trends

Some of the more recent developments and trends that have emerged are outlined below.

From constructivism to social constructivism

Constructivist approaches are now also growing to include social constructivism.

Communities of Practice (COPs) are evolving and beginning to play a significant role in

teaching and learning environments. The focus is on the effective and productive use of

existing, social and natural resources for learning. The real expert is not the teacher, or any

other person for that matter, but the community of practice.

Constructivism refers to learning as the construction of new meanings (knowledge) by the

learner him/herself. Social constructivism refers to learning as the result of active

participation in a ‘‘community’’ where new meanings are co-constructed by the learner and

his/her ‘‘community’’ and knowledge is the result of consensus (Gruender, 1996; Savery and

Duffy, 1995).

From knowledge production to knowledge configuration

Because of the development in the field of ICT, increasing amounts of information are

available and accessible for many people in all parts of the world. The days when knowledge

and information were limited to libraries, books and experts, are over. Knowledge production

is making room for so-called knowledge configuration.

Gibbons (1998, p. i) expresses it as follows: ‘‘Universities have been far more adept at

producing knowledge than at drawing creatively (re-configuring) knowledge that is being

produced in the distributed knowledge production system. It remains an open question at

this time whether they can make the necessary institutional adjustments to become as

competent in the latter as they have been in the former.’’

Educational institutions should develop the necessary competent human resources in order

to conduct and manage knowledge configuration effectively. ‘‘This requires the creation of a

cadre of knowledge workers – people who are expert at configuring knowledge relevant to a

wide range of contexts. This new corps of workers is described in the text as problem

identifiers, problem solvers, and problem brokers.’’ Gibbons (1998, p. i)

Where educational institutions greatly emphasized the generation of content for learning

programs in the past, the evaluation, storage and re-use of content will become more

important. The generation of certain content might possibly not even happen at or through

the institution itself, but elsewhere. The educational institution could possibly, in such a case,

give attention to the evaluation, processing and packaging of the content. ‘‘Over 90 percent

of the knowledge produced globally is not produced where its use is required. The challenge

is how to get knowledge that may have been produced anywhere in the world to the place

where it can be used effectively in a particularly problem-solving context.’’ (Gibbons, 1998:i)

From knowledge management towards sense making

An emerging paradigm shift within management and information sciences suggests that the

focus should in future shift from knowledge management to sense making. Snowden (2005)

describes sense making as:. . .the way that humans choose between multiple possible

explanations of sensory and other input as they seek to conform the phenomenological with

the real in order to act in such a way as to determine or respond to the world around them.He

then continues to say that it is about ensuring cognitive effectiveness in information

processing in order to gain a cognitive edge or advantage. This trend makes a lot of sense

when we think about the difficulties we all experience in our daily work and life due to the

abundance of information and interaction that requires us to apply new skills in order to

manage our environments meaningfully.

All these paradigm shifts have contributed to the ever-growing need to innovate our

educational practice and to explore new learning paradigms. Cognisance needs to be taken

VOL. 14 NO. 3 2006 jON THE HORIZONj PAGE 111

of the fact that ICT developments are impacting educational practice and that we will, in the

near future, experience shifts in learning paradigms.

Exploring and anticipating future learning paradigms

Learning paradigms are already starting to shift beyond the changes experienced in the

20th century in terms of the role of teaching and learning. While the role of the teacher first

shifted from ‘‘teaching’’ to ‘‘learning facilitation’’, the latest shift is towards ‘‘facilitated and

supported enquiry’’. Soloway (2003), for example, argues that inquiry into authentic

questions generated from student experiences is now the central strategy for teaching.

The following is a summary of relevant highlights taken from the European Union’s aims for

2010 (Oliveira, 2003):

B We should experience a shift from PC centeredness to ambient intelligence. The ICT

environment should become personalized for all users. The surrounding environment

should be the interface and technology should be almost invisible. There should be

infinite bandwidth and full multimedia, with an almost 100 percent online community.

B Innovations in learning that we should expect are focused on personalized and adaptive

learning, dynamic mentoring systems and integrating experienced based learning into

the classroom. Research should be done on new methods and new approaches to

learning with ICT.

B Learning resources should be digital and adaptable to individual needs and preferences.

E-learning platforms should support collaborative learning. There should be a shift from

courseware to performanceware focused on professional learning for work.

B ICTs should not be an add-on but an integrated part of the learning process. Access to

mobile learning should be enhanced through mobile interfaces.

These highlights from the EU’s bold but realistic (in first world terms) aims for 2010 provide a

couple of indicators for the near future.

The knowledge economy and the accompanying commoditization of knowledge and

available information, have prompted a further step in the process. Nyiri (2002:2) quotes

Marshall McLuhan:

The sheer quantity of information conveyed by press-magazines-film-TV-radio far exceeds the

quantity of information conveyed by school instruction and texts.

This observation does not even mention the magnitude of information freely available on the

Internet. Therefore contemporary educational paradigms focus not only on the production of

knowledge, but are beginning to focus more and more on the effective

application/integration/manipulation/etc. of existing information and knowledge.

A new type of literacy is also emerging, namely information navigation. Brown (1999, p. 6)

describes this as follows:

I believe that the real literacy of tomorrow will have more to do with being able to be your own

private, personal reference librarian, one that knows how to navigate through the incredible,

confusing, complex information spaces and feel comfortable and located in doing that. So

navigation will be a new form of literacy if not the main form of literacy for the 21st century.

According to Gartner (2003) the new knowledge economy is merely in its emerging stages

and will only reach maturity from 2010 onwards. This is clearly indicated in Figure 1 taken

from Gartner (2003).

We have already experienced demanding challenges in coping with the current overflow of

available information. It is difficult to imagine what it will be like when the knowledge

economy is in its prime . . .

Knowledge, as codified information, is growing at a phenomenal rate. ‘‘While the world’s

codified knowledge base (i.e. all historical information in printed books and electronic files)

doubled every 30 years in the earlier part of this century, it was doubling every seven years

PAGE 112 jON THE HORIZONj VOL. 14 NO. 3 2006

by the 1970s. Information library researchers say that by the year 2010, the world’s codified

knowledge will double every 11 hours.’’ (Bontis, 2002, p. 22)

Just imagine the extensive information overload we will experience in a situation where the

world’s knowledge doubles every 11 hours! Not even to think of the growth after that . . .

This future scenario will have a significant impact on information processing (including

sense making) and most definitely on our learning processes and learning paradigms that

are currently still very much founded in a content and knowledge production paradigm.

The authors of the Computing Research Association’s report ‘‘Cyber Infrastructure for

Education and Learning for the Future’’, stated that ‘‘the new methodologies of visual

analytics will be needed for the analysis of enormous, dynamic, and complex information

streams that consist of structured and unstructured text documents, measurements,

images, and video. Significant human-computer interaction research will be required to best

meet the needs of the various stakeholders.’’ (Computing Research Association, 2005, p.

22)

So what will future learning paradigms then look like?

To answer this question, we need to explore what lies beyond constructivism.

Figure 2 summarizes the paradigm shifts we have experienced in the past and proposes a

possible paradigm shift envisaged for the future. A discussion of the paradigm shifts as

shown in Figure 2 is presented in Table I

It is worrying to observe and difficult to accept that we, as teachers and educationists, are

still continuing to work within our ‘‘content-driven’’ paradigms, providing our learners with

preselected and carefully designed and developed content. We are heading for a disaster if

we are not willing to take the leap out of this fatal paradigm.

I argue that navigationism might be the new learning paradigm that lies beyond

constructivism. In a navigationist learning paradigm, learners should be able to find, identify,

manipulate and evaluate information and knowledge, to integrate this knowledge in their

world of work and life, to solve problems and to communicate this knowledge to others.

Figure 1 The rise of the knowledge era (Gartner, 2003)

VOL. 14 NO. 3 2006 jON THE HORIZONj PAGE 113

Figure

2Exploringandanticipatinglearningparadigmsbeyondconstructivism

PAGE 114 jON THE HORIZONj VOL. 14 NO. 3 2006

The relation between navigationism and constructivism

Constructivism has been the learning paradigm during the past few decades. And social

constructivism is in my mind an intermediate or sub-step forward towards a new learning

paradigm.

I am not claiming that constructivism will no longer be relevant or applicable. Navigationism

will not ‘‘replace’’ constructivism or change learning theory completely. A constructivist

learning theory will remain within the heart of our learning science, but the focus of our

learning activities will shift towards navigationism as the new learning paradigm.

In the same way, when the shift from behaviourism to constructivism took place (and is still

taking place), it never implied that behaviourism ceased to exist. Behaviourism is an

essential part of our learning theory, but it is currently not the focus of our teaching and

learning activities. While we are promoting constructivist activities with learners and

facilitating the learning process through being the ‘‘guide on the side’’, it doesn’t imply that

our learners do not have behaviourist outcomes (change in behaviour) as well. In the same

way, constructivist outcomes will remain, but our focus in the knowledge era will shift towards

navigationist outcomes.

Navigating skills required in a navigationist learning paradigm

Technological developments introduced new and alternative views about our interaction with

information and people and about the skills and competencies we require to survive in the

knowledge era. The most basic skills required are problem solving skills, ICT skills, visual

Table I Discussion of the paradigm shifts as shown in Figure 2

Exploring and anticipating learning paradigms beyond constructivismPast Present FutureThe knowledge adoption era: The knowledge production era: The knowledge navigation era:

During this era the emphasis was onknowledge adoption. Learning activitieswere focused on studying and memorizing.Successful learning took place whenlearners mastered the content and rotelearning was the means through which thisoutcome was usually achieved. A change inthe behaviour of the learners was the aim ofthis learning paradigm called behaviourism.

In this paradigm, the role of the teacher wasto teach. Teaching or instruction was theobvious activity of the master subject expert– the teacher – because he/she was thesource of knowledge. The teacher was the‘‘sage on the stage’’ and the primary sourceof the WHAT that was to be taught.Knowledge creation was actually only forthe elite and it was usually accepted that theknowledge was already there and learnersjust had to gain the knowledge – thus thefocus of learning was on ‘‘gaining’’knowledge.

This is the contemporary learningparadigm where the emphasis is now onknowledge production. Learning activitiesare focused on inquiry and research.Successful learning takes place whenlearners are engaged in active learningtasks that guide them to create their ownnew meanings (knowledge). Productiveand experiential learning are the meansthrough which this outcome is usuallyachieved. The construction of newknowledge is the aim of this learningparadigm called constructivism.

In this paradigm, the role of the teacher isto facilitate the learning process. Learningfacilitation is the obvious activity of theteacher because he/she is only one of thesources of knowledge. The teacher is the‘‘guide on the side’’ that allows him to benot only one of the sources of WHATshouldbe learned, but also the source of HOW tolearn. Knowledge production/creation isthe central issue of what teaching andlearning is about – thus the focus oflearning is on ‘‘creating’’/‘‘producing’’knowledge.

In this new learning paradigm that we arealready rapidly moving towards, theemphasis will be on knowledge navigation.Learning activities are focused onexploring, connecting, evaluating,manipulating, integrating and navigating.Successful learning takes place whenlearners solve contextual real life problemsthrough active engagement inproblem-solving activities and extensivenetworking, communication andcollaboration. The aim of these activities isnot to gain or create knowledge, but tosolve problems. Knowledge is, of course,being created in the process, butknowledge creation is not the focus of theactivities per se. Navigating skills arerequired to survive in the knowledge eralearning paradigm called navigationism.

In this paradigm, the role of the teacher isto coach the learners in HOW to navigate –to be their mentor in the skills andcompetencies required in the knowledgeera. The teacher is the ‘‘coach in touch’’with the demands and survival skills of theknowledge era. Knowledge navigation isthe central issue of what teaching andlearning is about – thus the focus oflearning is on ‘‘navigating’’ in the ocean ofavailable knowledge.

VOL. 14 NO. 3 2006 jON THE HORIZONj PAGE 115

media literacy, e-competence to function within the technological and knowledge era, as

well as psychological and emotional competence.

Adding to these basic skills, the following are some examples of the skills and competencies

required in a navigationist paradigm:

B The ability – know-how and know-where – to find relevant and up-to-date information, as

well as the skills required to contribute meaningfully to the knowledge production

process. This includes the mastery of networking skills and skills required to be part of

and contribute meaningfully to communities of practice and communities of learning. This

implies that the basic communication, negotiation and social skills should be in place.

B The ability to identify, analyse, synthesize and evaluate connections and patterns.

B The ability to contextualize and integrate information across different forms of information.

B The ability to reconfigure, re-present and communicate information.

B The ability to manage information (identify, analyse, organize, classify, assess, evaluate,

etc.).

B The ability to distinguish between meaningful and irrelevant information for the specific

task at hand or problem to be solved.

B The ability to distinguish between valid alternate views and fundamentally flawed

information.

B Sense making and chaos management.

Let us explore recent work of a few researchers in the field with a view to identify further

navigating skills.

In his paper called: ‘‘Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age’’, George Siemens

describes connectivism as: ‘‘the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, and

complexity and self-organization theories.’’ (Siemens, 2004, p. 5)

This is a very useful definition to describe the complex learning environment in the

knowledge era. Analyzing the elements and principles of connectivism as described by

Siemens, we are able to identify several important skills that learners require within a

navigationist learning paradigm.

Siemens (2004, p. 5) continues with his description of connectivism by saying that the

learning process: ‘‘ . . . is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the

connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of

knowing.’’ He also states that: ‘‘connectivism is driven by the understanding that decisions

are based on rapidly altering foundations. New information is continually being acquired.

The ability to draw distinctions between important and unimportant information is vital. The

ability to recognize when new information alters the landscape based on decisions made

yesterday is also critical.’’

I fully support this. What Siemens describes here are essential navigating skills for the

knowledge era.

Let us now have a look at the issue of connectedness. Diana and James Oblinger talk about

the Internet Generation as follows: ‘‘As long as they’ve been alive, the world has been a

connected place, andmore than any preceding generation they have seized on the potential

of networked media.’’ While highly mobile, moving from work to classes to recreational

activities, the Net Gen is always connected. (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005, p. 2.5)

Constant connectedness is a given circumstantial reality underpinning learning

environments in a navigationist paradigm. To ‘‘connect’’ and to be/stay connected is part

of the skill to ‘‘navigate’’.

I would therefore prefer to view connectivism as a term to describe a connected learning

environment in which connectivist learning strategies, learning skills and learning activities

are required to learn effectively. Siemens (2004, p. 6) correctly states that: ‘‘Connectivism

PAGE 116 jON THE HORIZONj VOL. 14 NO. 3 2006

provides insight into learning skills and tasks needed for learners to flourish in the digital

era.’’

Connectivist learning skills are required to learn successfully within a navigationist learning

paradigm. Connectivism is part and parcel of navigationism, which is the broader concept

comprising more than connectivism, as illustrated in Figure 3.

The following list is a selection of Siemens’ principles of connectivism (Siemens, 2004). It

provides a summary of the connectivist learning skills and principles required within a

navigationist learning paradigm:

B Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.

B Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known.

B Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.

B Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.

B Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning

activities.

B 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.

David Passig (2001) explores ICT mediated future thinking skills. His work traces the basic

nature of future society and proposes a relevant taxonomy of future cognitive skills with

appropriate tools to succeed in the future. Passig states that in the knowledge era there is a

need for unique cognitive skills in order to process information successfully in real time. He

continues by saying that those who will have the skills of collecting information in real time, as

well as the ability to analyse, classify, and organize it, will be those to achieve a social,

cultural and economical advantage. (Passig, 2001)

It is important to note his statement that most of the intellectual activity will be to ‘‘amplify the

value of available information’’ (Passig, 2001). The knowledge age acknowledges the fact

that the rate of information overflow will be accelerated, and that the main role of people will

be to add value to the exchange of information (Harkins, 1992 and O’Dell, 1998 in Passig,

2001).

Passig (2001) uses Bloom’s taxonomy as a working platform and expands the categories to

reflect the needs of the future. Passig’s work provides very useful suggestions and insight

into the new type of cognitive skills that learners will require in the near future. The following is

a meaningful list of navigating skills that can be drawn from the work of Passig:

B To know where to find useful information and to master search strategies.

B To develop new symbols, codes and conventions.

Figure 3 The relation between navigationism and connectivism

VOL. 14 NO. 3 2006 jON THE HORIZONj PAGE 117

B To expand existing models of thinking and to create inferences and analogies.

B To analyse pieces of information in various ways and to make new connections.

B To distinguish relationships between fragments of information and to create new

relations.

B To evaluate the reliability of information keeping in mind the influence of time, context

and personal interpretation.

B To locate a separate element out of the pieces of information that it was taken from in

order to create a new meaning.

B To choose the suitable combination of information and implement it in problem

solving in different situations.

B To create consonance – an agreement/harmony/accord/personal new logical

connection between two domains that seemed distant from each other.

B To create association – the mental notion of connection or relation between thoughts,

feelings, ideas or sensations.

The list of navigating skills and competencies required within a navigationist paradigm that is

provided in the preceding paragraphs, is far from complete. What is provided here should

be regarded merely as examples. Much research is required to refine the definition and

description of a navigationist learning paradigm. The list of skills and competencies should

be further developed and refined.

Paradigm shifts and role changes

Tables II and III provide a concise summary of the past and envisaged educational

paradigm shifts, as well as the past and envisaged role changes of role players within

teaching and learning environments. Tables II and III also provide a key word summary of the

most important issues in the preceding discussions.

Table III Summary of role changes in education

Role changes in educationPast Present Future

Role player Knowledge adoption era Knowledge production era Knowledge navigation era

Learner knowledge adoption knowledge production knowledge navigationTeacher instruction learning facilitation coaching and mentoringInstructional designer design of instruction

reduction of contentdesign of learning facilitationand learning activitiesre-/configuration of knowledge

design of coaching andnavigating activitiesconfiguration of navigationtools

Information specialist information gathering andprovisionknowledge provision

information configurationknowledge management

information facilitationsense making

Table II Summary of paradigm shifts in education

Paradigm shifts in educationPast Present Future

knowledge adoption knowledge production knowledge navigationbehaviourism objectivism cognitivism constructivism navigationism connectivisminstruction learning facilitation coaching and mentoringinformation gathering information generation information navigationknowledge provision knowledge management sense making

PAGE 118 jON THE HORIZONj VOL. 14 NO. 3 2006

Conclusion

What lies beyond constructivism? Perhaps navigationism?

Are we planning for and anticipating the future? Are we ready to take the leap to the next

learning paradigm? Or will the ever growing and demanding knowledge era catch us all off

guard?

Institutions should move away from providing content per se to learners. We should focus on

coaching learners to find, identify, manipulate and evaluate information and knowledge, to

integrate this knowledge in their world of work and life, to solve problems and to

communicate this knowledge to others. Learners should be connected and networking in

various ways in the digital age.

Teachers and educators should become the source of how to navigate in the ocean of

available information and knowledge. We should become coaches and mentors within the

knowledge era. Instructional designers should start to design coaching and navigating

activities instead of designing learning facilitation and learning activities; to configure

navigation tools instead of the re-/configuration of content.

May this article stimulate further research to define navigationism and to describe the

navigating skills we require to survive in the knowledge era.

References

Bontis, N. (2002), ‘‘The rising star of the Chief Knowledge Officer’’, Ivey Business Journal, March/April,

pp. 20-5.

Brown, J.S. (1999), ‘‘Learning, working & playing in the digital age’’, paper presented at the 1999

Conference on Higher Education of the American Association for Higher Education, March, Washington

DC.

Collis, B. (1999), ‘‘New didactics for university instruction: why and how?’’, Computers & Education,

Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 373-93, available at: www.sciencedirect.com/science

Computing Research Association (2005), ‘‘Cyber infrastructure for education and learning for the future:

a vision and research agenda’’, report available at: www.cra.org/reports/cyberinfrastructure.pdf

Cunningham, D.J. (1991), ‘‘Assessing constructions and constructing assessments’’, Educational

Technology, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 13-17.

Duffy, T.M. and Jonassen, D.H. (1991), ‘‘Constructivism: new implications for instructional technology?’’,

Educational Technology, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 7-12.

Gartner (2003), ‘‘Emerging technology scenario’’, paper delivered by Gartner analyst Nick Jones at the

Gartner Symposium and ITxpo, Cape Town, August 4-6.

Gibbons, M. (1998), ‘‘Higher education relevance in the 21st century’’, paper presented at the Unesco

World Conference, Paris, October 5-9, pp. i-ii & 1-60.

Gruender, C.D. (1996), ‘‘Constructivism and learning: a philosophical appraisal’’, Educational

Technology, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 21-9.

Kershaw, A. and Safford, S. (1998), ‘‘From order to chaos: the impact of educational telecommunications

on post-secondary education’’, Higher Education, Vol. 35, pp. 285-98.

Nyiri, K. (2002), ‘‘Towards a philosophy of m-learning’’, paper presented at the IEEE international

workshop on wireless and mobile technologies in education, August 29-30, Vaxjo University, Sweden.

Oblinger, D.G. and Oblinger, J.L. (Eds) (2005), Educating the Net Generation, an EDUCAUSE eBook

available at: www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen

Oliveira, C. (2003), ‘‘Towards a knowledge society’’, keynote address delivered at the IEEE International

Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT). Athens, July.

Passig, D. (2001), ‘‘A taxonomy of ICT mediated future thinking skills’’, in Taylor, H. and Hogenbirk, P.

(Eds), Information and Communication Technologies in Education: The School of the Future, Kluwer

Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.

VOL. 14 NO. 3 2006 jON THE HORIZONj PAGE 119

Peters, O. (1999), ‘‘The university of the future – pedagogical perspectives’’, paper presented at the

19th World Conference of the International Council for Open and Distance Education, Vienna, June

19-24.

Restak, R.M. (2003), The New Brain: How the Modern Age Is Rewiring Your Mind, Rodale, London.

Savery, J.R. and Duffy, T.M. (1995), ‘‘Problem based learning: an instructional model and its

constructivist framework’’, Educational Technology, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 31-8.

Siemens, G. (2004), ‘‘Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age’’, available from eLearnspace

at: www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Skinner, B.F. (1938), The Behaviour of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis, Longman, New York, NY.

Snowden, D.J. (2005), ‘‘Multi-ontology sense making: a new simplicity in decision making’’,

Management Today, Yearbook 2005, Vol. 20.

Soloway, E. (2003), ‘‘Handheld computing: right time, right place, right idea’’, paper presented at the

IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), Athens, July.

Venezky, R. andOsin, L. (1991), The Intelligent Design of Computer-Assisted Instruction, Longman, New

York, NY.

About the author

Tom H. Brown obtained his PhD in the field of distance learning in 1993 at the University ofPretoria with the topic: ‘‘The operationalisation of metalearning in distance education’’. Hisexpertise is in the following fields: learning, learning facilitation, education innovation,distance learning (ODL), instructional design, educational technology, flexible learning,e-learning and m-learning. He currently holds the position of Deputy Director at theUniversity of Pretoria where he is responsible for, amongst other, educational technology,education innovation and distance education partnerships. Tom is the author of a largenumber of publications and the international recognition for his work has culminated innumerous invited keynote addresses at international conferences as well as many invitedpresentations and guest lectures. He is also a visiting expert and guest lecturer ininternational postgraduate courses in distance education and invited chair of researchworkshops. Tom H. Brown can be contacted at: tom.brown@up.ac.za

PAGE 120 jON THE HORIZONj VOL. 14 NO. 3 2006

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.