John Travers

Just finished reading the report produced for VET titled Social Software for Learning and published April this year. It is very positive about the benefits of using social software and the writers clearly see it as an almost inevitable trend. The report is based in large part on the views of 70 respondents to a survey. At first glance this seems a weakness of the report because the number in the survey is quite small, and because they are a relatively sympathetic group who already use web 2.0 tools to some extent. Half are within VET and half from elsewhere. But of course people who are not familiar with web 2.0 are hardly qualified to comment on its potential and functionality. And 70 is enough to give a good feel for the topic.

This points to a major problem with seeing the future of social software in education. First, it is very very new, and second, its growth is explosive. So the planner is faced with limited evidence and no time to waste!

“Four key conclusions have emerged:

1. Social software is valuable in enhancing and enriching knowledge sharing, capability development and the teaching and learning experience and should be seen as ‘another tool’ in the organisation’s and VET practitioner’s toolkit.
2. The successful use of social software relies on a spirit of openness and a willingness to share and collaborate as well as an enabling culture, both within the organisation and the classroom environment.
3. The ‘Net Gen’ is a significant client group of the future. It is critical that VET is able to provide them with enriching learning experiences and this will require the use of social software in some form. Other drivers, including economic drivers, may lead to a broader application of social software across the VET demographic.
4. Like email, social software may well become ‘ubiquitous’!”

No 1 conclusion is the most important: that it is a powerful tool for learning because it fosters our human need to learn in collabration with others. No 2 points to the big implementation problem. Most teachers do not have a strong experience in working in an open manner, and fewer are ideologically commited to this approach. The hope is that many will see the new tools to change their approach. But it will take a lot of selling and clear perceptions of early success. No 3 and 4 suggest that there is a groundswell of success for the new tools that will feed through into education. But many of the old guard teacher have seen the promised land of constructivist education promised over and over again since the ’70s.

The onus of those of us who believe in the power of the new tools and the need for a different focus for learning, is get some examples to show it works. And who better to be the recipient of some collaborative learning processes than the teachers themsleves?