Is there, as the head of Eton College feels, a gap between standards of teaching at secondary and Further / Higher Education? Sure, the environment is different, expectations are different and perhaps, in the traditional system at least, the "higher" we go in education the more emphasis there is on what the learner does, than on the educator themselves. Perhaps.
We're not convinced about all that. Aside from the fact that education should see the learner in the driving seat all the way through, it is easy to see why there might be a notable difference in the standards and the approach of teaching when you move from secondary to FE or HE. This is not to demonize the hard working professionals who do everything they can to enrich the experience of further education, or the institutions themselves, but let's at least dive into why we might have an issue. We will come back to what we might need to do to address it, but we would love to hear your thoughts as well, so please do reach out.
Teacher training varies so much around the world but one thing remains relatively constant, which is that teachers of K12 education must generally do a standardized and government recognized course to prepare, and teachers at FE and HE have a wide variety of options, from institutional learning programs to self-development, and even just strolling into the classroom with a whiteboard pen and saying "let's do this".
In K12 education, the formal pathways are generally rigorous, extensive, and prepare teachers to do well within the education system that exists around them. They learn about safeguarding, methodology, inclusion, Special Educational Needs and a host of other important things that help them to get the best out of a traditional classroom environment. This training is the beginning, and not the end of their journey, and many go on to regular Professional Development in formal and informal settings.
In Further and higher Education, however, as one UK recruiter put it "Many FE employers are willing to overlook the absence of a teaching qualification provided you have considerable expertise in your chosen field". This industry expertise is not simply left at the door when taking up a teaching job, and a great many professionals continue to do both at the same time. Why? To remain current, in touch and, let's face it, solvent. Education is often quite the pay cut for those coming in from the corporate or private sector, but the desire to teach is one we should always listen to, and practical experience is extremely valuable in academia.
So now we have professional experts in the lecture theaters and in tutorials who, as the OECD tells us "face barriers to participating in training due to lack of support or incentives and conflicts with their work schedule". Yet we mostly agree that we need these self-same practical experts in education, so that we are not divorced from what happens in the "real" world. Not an easy fix.
We also have the culture of research in HE, which attracts a lot of PhD students who really want to be part of this world. Yet, often as a condition of that PhD, they are asked to teach some classes, and this often happens with only rudimentary support, such as an introductory course in teaching. Some doctoral candidates love the opportunity to teach, but there are many who just want to be getting on with their research, and to whom teaching is an added stress they don't need. If you are anxious about public speaking, for example, teaching is even more of a challenge; especially with 50 lab hours on top every week.
In some European countries such as the UK and in (most) parts of Germany, institutions will hire a teacher if they are willing to "work towards" a teaching qualification, but that can be open ended and often does not apply to those who only do a small number of class hours. Professional development in education and teaching might be "encouraged" but it is not always required. In other countries, there are many institutions who have no official policy on this at all and hire according to shifting internal criteria.
Yes, there are many great HE or FE teaching programs out there, and institutions which oblige or at least support their teaching staff to undertake training, but in may parts of the world, especially in private institutions, this is not the norm. Does this matter? And why should learners, institutions and educators start to think about addressing this? What are the obstacles in our way?
We didn't say qualification, and we won't. Some of the most amazing and inspiring teachers we have ever seen have not gone through formal teacher training. They were, however, experienced in mentoring, encouraging, reformulating, and knowing when to support and when to step back. This is really what we are talking about here, and whether this skill is formally or informally gained is not the point. There are teachers out there like Claudia Tridapalli who experiment, reflect, learn and iterate every single class, in pursuit of the best learning experience for their students, but there are also some who are teaching as they themselves were taught, and not going further.
We need to tackle the basics. The idea that a passive or even semi-active lecture is actually "education" is frankly outdated in a world where simple information transfer is now a wholly digital affair. Reading PowerPoints to Generation Z and then giving them a quiz belongs to the 1970s and is just asking for trouble. Look how angry this one student is in a scathing review of her (nameless) institution (and read the full discussion in the comments; it's really quite entertaining).
The understanding of how to create positive conditions for learning, how to help learners exercise more control over how they construct their knowledge, and knowing how understanding is built, tested and internalized. This is all critical stuff, and yet so many learners are still being talked at for two hours, taking furious notes and doing the actual "learning" at home as they make sense of their scribblings and start to actually construct the knowledge on their own terms.
Is anyone happy in that situation? Is it reasonable to assume that educators and learners want to finish a session feeling positive, and knowing that they grew and developed? We think so. Yet, we also know so many teachers in FE and HE who are really struggling to engage their students, and who are losing sleep at night over how to do better. But this is not an easy thing to address, and this is not the only story out there.
The first obstacle we encounter in this journey is the self perception of university and college teachers. Many lean into the idea of being an educator or a professor, and they even get a cardigan with elbow patches and a cluttered desk in a dimly lit office. That is a stereotype, but it did the trick. You see, here we are talking instead about the teacher who breezes in from a day in the office to deliver a lecture in Financial Accounting, or a tutorial in Drone Engineering.
If you ask them what their profession is, they'll answer "accountant" or "engineer" but not "teacher". They are here to impart their professional knowledge and experience, but encourage them to undertake some professional development in education and you get a very perplexed response. "Why?".
Aside from not even perceiving ourselves as teachers or educators, the conflation of professional spheres gives rise to another obstacle, and that is the idea of just what teaching is. Many professional coming to teach in HE and FE are skilled communicators, but communication is multifaceted. Polished presentation skills might be finely tuned to an outcome such as persuasion or impact, but the skills to help listeners engage with and internalize new knowledge can be really quite different. And even then, is a presentation really the best we can offer in an age where neuroscience and psychology tell us so much more about optimal learning environments?
The issue of communication is equally acute for the research side of academic institutions. A PhD candidate in cellular biology who, despite having been alone in her laboratory for several years with sheets of data and little need to communicate anything until that data reveals something, suddenly finds herself in front of a lecture theatre with 200 young minds. They look at her from uncomfortable seats, mobile phones in hand, wondering what she has to tell them that is more important than doom scrolling .
And the institution. Who runs it? In the business school, is it more business or more school? You will almost always find that institutions measure teaching quality; usually in the form of student questionnaires, but there are not always mechanisms in place to support the teacher who is struggling. You present a teacher with their 5/10 score and scathing commentary, but the real question is- where do we go from here?
How do we meet this challenge? Well, we need your ideas here, and we also need to dive into a few geNEOusChats to gather some insight from our amazing community of extraordinary experts, passionate professionals and boundary-pushing...erm...buddies. Let's pause, reflect and come back to this in part two to see what solutions might be out there.
We have said this before, but one more time for those in the back row: being an expert in a subject does not mean we know how to communicate it to others. Loving what we do does not mean we know how to inspire others. Learners are growing up in an age where they can micro-credential their way through a variety of episodic learning as and and when they need it, crowdsource solutions, bypass the need for formal qualifications and so much more. If we do not place more value on the craft of education and on a learning environment that is more human than humdrum, we will lose them.
.png)
The OECD Director for Education and Skills has stated that Creativity is a "key skill" for "complex, globalised and increasingly digitalised economies and societies". Sir Ken Robinson racked up 72 million views (and counting) with his talk on how education is, in fact "killing" this critical skill through over structured, rigid-assessment driven environments. So if both are to be believed, and we'll say right here that we do, then we have a problem.
There's little disagreement that creativity is a good thing. Has anyone ever used the word "creative" negatively? Very few, such as when someone is accused of "creative accounting" or being "creative with the truth", but even then, some grudging admission of respect is likely in there. We all think it's a good thing, we all know it's useful in solving problems, and we all know that the world ahead is full of "wicked problems" which will take fresh perspectives to address.
We hear a lot of debate and nuance around what creativity is, how it shows up, and how it can be developed, but Anna Abraham, author of The Neuroscience of Creativity, says that there is, however, a "surprising level of unanimity" of what creativity means at the basic level. This means that while so much of the detail is up for debate, most people do agree that creativity involves (a) something novel, different or unusual and (b) generating ideas appropriate to the context, i.e. of some substance in the way the idea can be applied.
Ok, so we agree on that at least, but what about the rest? How do we start to figure out a way forward, so that we can reconcile this gap between what we see as a critically important skills, and what we see happening in so many learning environments.
.png)
Creativity is not finite. According to the Boffins behind the Global Creativity Index, it is "an infinitely renewable resource that can be continually replenished and deepened". Creativity is not necessarily inherited as a trait, but the propensity to be creative in certain ways can be passed down. For example, there are genes related to musical creativity, which involve cognition and listening patterns. However, just because Mozart was not your father, that doesn't mean you can't play the concert violin. The neurobiology of playing music can indeed be developed through our wondrously malleable brains. That's good news.
Creativity is not right or left brain. In fact, we really wish the research on Neuromyths was compulsory reading for all educators, and we could finally stop talking about learning styles, and how we only use 10% of our brains. Such beliefs are harmful. Creativity and growth, wonder and play, these are birth rights to all of us, and we do not belong in a box, regardless of how others might try to put us there. The most tragic aspect of that is when we believe them. You're not a left or right-brained person, but you are uniquely you, and that's more than enough to be creative.
Creativity is not only art and poetry and eccentric clothing, and is not defined by having a total absence of guidelines or structures. We had a great #NEOchats with Katie Carr of Step Up Create in 2021 on this very same debate.
Children are not inherently more creative than adults, and seeing creativity as child-like (or even childish) is extremely problematic. Creativity does not just appear out of nowhere in a Eureka moment, and you don't need to be under pressure or brainstorming in a group to feel or use it.
We recall some years ago seeing a new textbook by a publisher (who shall remain nameless) which dedicated 2 pages of the book to "teaching" creativity, with exercises such as "walk around the classroom, and try to notice things you haven't noticed before". That didn't work, it doesn't work, and we're getting a little cynical by this point, so let's switch it up.
We were in danger of digressing into a rant there, and we've already explored the fact that creativity shows up in numerous ways in every single person. Yes, and that includes you. So let's take a look at the different ways educators are trying to support and stimulate creativity in the learning environment.
Creativity is about "creating" something; it's in the name. That means we need the space and resources to do so, and that the result should be allowed to differ from what might have been expected by those setting up or guiding in the process. That might cause problems in the world of traditional assessment, where we have standardized expectations of what task achievement looks like, but we are talking about a skill here, not a product. This is the process, and there are certain things we as educators can do to help that happen.
.png)
We keep coming back to the same conclusions. All of the things we want to support in education, from creativity to critical thinking, come from a shift towards learner directed, or at least learner centered environments. The challenge is always in letting go, crossing the fear gap and allowing learning to become more fluid, less lockstep, less predictable and more inclusive. As we do so, the stumbling block is often this- if we do make this shift, how will we measure things like creativity and critical thinking. There are ways, there are means, but that is for us to explore another time.
For now, we say to the institutions and educators who are supporting learners to see that they always had creativity within them, we salute you. We value what you do, and we would welcome the opportunity to chat about how we can support you.
Freud? Who doesn't know him? But how about Edward Bernays? He's the nephew of Sigmund Freud, and is one of the most influential people that few outside of marketing have heard of. He is often credited with the thinking behind the modern consumerist culture we know so well. He brought in the psychology to advertising and marketing, courtesy of the influence from his rather better known uncle, and changed things forever. What was previously a marketing world purely of features and benefits, appealing squarely to the rational mind, Bernays brought emotion, identity and desire to the fore.
Much we learn about marketing to this day can be traced back to this early shift. The classic 4Ps (product, price, place and promotion) were skillfully wielded by Bernays and his disciples to, as some said, manipulate the American mind. Cigarettes were rebranded "torches of freedom" and linked to the powerful surge of feminism and a challenge to male authority in the late 1920s. The consumption of products became about far more than what was needed to perform a specific function, such as a machine to wash clothes or a bowl to hold our soup. Consumption became more about identity, emotion, aspiration and so much more.
This revolutionized the way we bought things and what we wanted to say to the world about ourselves. As soon as function was relegated to the lower stages of decision-making, there were no limits to what we might desire to buy. The economist Victor Lebow said in the 1950s that
"Our economy demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfactions, our ego satisfactions, in consumption. The measure of social status, of social acceptance, of prestige, is now to be found in our consumptive patterns […] We need things consumed, burned up, worn out, replaced, and discarded at an ever-increasing pace. We need to have people eat, drink, dress, ride, live, with ever more complicated and, therefore, constantly more expensive consumption."
Marketing comes from this; the linear economic model of make-take-dispose. The ideas of collaboration, regeneration, communicating experiences that do not need to lead to sales: these belong to the new circular economy. Is it time for what we learn in marketing to reflect this new, sustainable society? What broader needs could marketing in a digital world really serve, and who needs these skills?
.png)
What do you think? It is hard to step back from post-Bernays trajectory, forget the descriptions we learned in schools and colleges, and evaluate what marketing is at its heart. Empathic communication, storytelling, finding something in you that connects with something in the other, and crafting your message to myeline that bond. When you strip back marketing to that esoteric function, we can see the potential for a broader appeal.
And broader it can indeed be. Born digital start-ups, digital native learners and new entrepreneurs, Web3 denizens, influencers and those with a message. Everyone has something to say, and not all of it fits the old model. Imagine, then, that digital marketing could begin to think about how to serve this increasingly pluralistic community.
The world can no longer support a linear economic model. Endless consumption is a ticket to disaster. Stepping on each other to get the edge is just fighting for the scraps of a dying culture. So what might marketing look like in a new paradigm? If marketing is both a reflection of and an influence on our society, what might we change about the way we learn it?
In the new economy, where we must reduce consumption, reuse products and repair them, a new type of marketing is needed. In this new world where we cultivate and collaborate on our services and expertise, our mindset also has to shift. Fortunately, marketing at its heart is about creativity.
In a Web3 world, we are no longer stalking users via their cookie crumb trails. Decentralization of the web means that the user will control their own data. Marketing guru Bernard May tells us that this will mean a more user-centric system, where the focus will be on cultivating direct relationships. Alessandro Bogliari of the Influencer Marketing Factory also thinks that this means marketers focusing far more on storytelling and authentic messaging as a way to connect with users. The scattergun approach of the past is disappearing, and we really are stripping things back to raw, human communication.
Cause marketing, green marketing, social marketing; all relatively established in the marketers' lexicon, but taking on increasing importance in a world where cause and consumption, sustainability, service and social impact are largely intertwined.
Access to users any time in any place might seem a dream to brands looking to connect, but already we have seen a total rejection of the clamoring solicitations for our attention. Generation Alpha is already somewhat immune to on-screen advertising, and once they disappear into the Metaverse, you won't reach them at all. Over and over we see and hear the same thing - people are looking for authenticity, relationships, connection, meaningful substance, collaboration, regeneration and a total reinvention of our concepts of oversight, ownership, what we are willing to pay for and how we are willing to pay for it.
.png)
Is education really ready for this? The seeds of Web3 and a circular economy were sewn some time ago, but it seems only a short time ago we saw the first shoots of growth. The executive world still very much demands a course in marketing built on data analytics, social media platforms and solid strategy. There are courses out there like the hugely popular Digital Marketing Certificate Course at the University of South Florida, which have captured and serviced this segment with great success.
As the world evolves rapidly, however, and a new generation of learners arrive with new needs for a new world ahead, what might belong in a revamped digital marketing program for the future? Off the top of our heads, we would say, for starters:
The climate scientist who wants to get her message out. The social leader who wants to regenerate the way their community lives and works together. The entrepreneur who wants to step out of their world of coding and NFT expertise to build bridges and reach other professionals to see where collaboration might take them. The networker and connector who wants to know how relationships can be built in a new technological paradigm.
So many new needs that institutions might serve if their digital marketing offer broadens beyond the Bernaysian. We are at a point where technology changes so fast that we may as well focus much more on the things that never changed- communication, connection and community. It's time to go back and move forward at the same time.
.png)
Sustainability is when current generations can meet their needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Simple, right? The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals have nice clear delineations, and lovely icons that set clear targets with a nice aesthetic. So all we have to do, is walk a bit more, and eat less plastic, or something like that. Oh, and sell one of our less vital organs to afford that electric car. Job done
You might have detected a bit of sarcasm there, and you'd be right. Sustainability is complex, and not just because we are talking about meeting goals that deal with interconnected systems of nature and society, economics and politics, but also because on a personal level, this requires a fundamental shift in the way we think and behave. We often hear people talking about sustainability as something that "saves" the planet, but the planet will adapt to the harm we have done it. Humans, on the other hand, are in real trouble if we do not start to deal with this at a much deeper level. When we look to education to help us meet the challenge, what do we find?
Education for Sustainable Development, or ESD, is a field which is now firmly on the radar for every forward-thinking school, college and university, but what comes to mind when you hear this? Just take a second to reflect.
What often comes to mind in many institutions, we have, is just adding bits on sustainability to certain subjects that learning designers might feel are most relevant. An example might be for someone studying fashion at college to get a few workshops or even an elective on the damage fast fashion does to our environment, and the workers who feed that demand. A high school might do a project on the water cycle or greenhouse gases, and a primary school might lead a campaign to ban plastic straws from local cafés.
The thing is, that though these well-intentioned actions might provide learners with new knowledge, which leads to a raised awareness of important issues, they are unlikely to support the fundamental behavioural change we need to see in the mainstream of our communities and societies. Sustainability in education is not a workshop, an elective or a project, but is about transforming the way we think about our place in this world, how we impact it and are impacted by it.
Ajita Nayar, former head of education at the World Wildlife Fund, expressed the objective of ESD as supporting every single learner to “acquire the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values necessary to shape a sustainable future.”
An MDPI report in 2021 concludes that this is the very reason why sustainability should not just be “taught” directly in one class or workshop, but be embedded as part of a holistic approach. The pluralism of sustainability means it must be encountered by learners in a variety of settings, forms and approaches in order to internalize its importance and scale. In short, sustainability is not an add-on, but must be mainstreamed throughout every curriculum, and embraced by institutions as the core of their strategy.
.png)
Picture this. A learner in primary school is exposed to nature based learning, where, in nature or in a biophilic learning environment, they make their way through these formative years in touch with nature and the learning it offers. They begin their education from an ecocentric perspective, where the living world, and not humans, lies at the centre of everything. The learner understands natural cycles, and the learning opportunities that they present, from maths to art, contextualized by the forests, the oceans and the rain.
Tree huggers? Absolutely. The more we are divorced from our natural environment, the more we are distanced from its central importance. We grow up thinking that we can consume and consume as the population grows and grows, and that science will eventually save us from ourselves. These discourses of delay help us rationalize inaction and pushing for systemic change. Someone else will do something, surely?
The learner who grows to feel connected with the living world is more likely to advocate for it. The example we gave earlier of a campaign to ban plastic straws from local businesses, was actually carried out by Ullapool Primary School in the Highlands of Scotland. Far from a one off, a quick look at their social media activity will tell you that this school holistically embraces environmental issues. What is more, the young learners have already seen the power they can wield through activism. From beach cleans to campaigns to protect local red squirrels, these learners reflect on the values of sustainability as a core element of learning, and then they take it to the streets. That's what we need.
Knowledge alone does not change behavior and attitudes and does not create a sense of agency and empowerment in which a learner feels they can achieve change. For this, we must look to so-called “non-traditional” pedagogies, which are largely learner centered or learner-directed.
There is a challenge for institutions still dependent on teacher centered deficit models of learning. Filling heads with knowledge is not supporting learners to engage with sustainability, think critically, take action, as well as to lead, inspire or support positive change. Much of this is done in the knowledge that the challenges brought about by climate change and biodiversity loss will not be linear or easy to predict, and so learners need to feel empowered to act, and be positive about the impact they can make.
Transformative pedagogies are approaches which help the learner feel, connect and engage. Where the learning is project-based, challenge-based, problem-based, experiential or nature-based (to name but a few), there is scope to develop agency and metacognitive awareness as the learning shifts perceptions and reframes the world around us.
The sticky bit is that so many institutions are not yet supporting their teachers and tutors to really see how these approaches can work in the learning environment, and it doesn't happen overnight. Training support is an absolute must.
.png)
Sustainability can be added as a core component in the curriculum, but it is best reinforced wherever possible throughout the learning process. For example, a construction course at college may have a module in “sustainable construction”, but throughout all of the other modules, sustainability can be reinforced through:
As examples of this, learners studying animal care at Wiltshire College must conduct an environmental audit of the animal care centre, and students of Fine Art at Bedford College produced pieces around sustainability and littering to be displayed by local businesses.
Embedding sustainability in the curriculum needs a level of institutional commitment and is best tied to an overall sustainability and decarbonization strategy, so that it not only threads its way through the learning but through the values, mission and actions of the institution. Organizations such as the Carbon Trust in the UK are working with institutions on fundamentals of awareness raising, and those such as The Skills Network are leading the way by working in more depth with the process of main streaming sustainability in teaching and learning. This can take time, but isn't it worth it in the end?
We could talk about net-zero goals, targets, initiatives and all the rest. We could tell you about the increasing clamor for education to step up and get substantively involved in all this, and not just greenwashing while their pension provider invests in Arctic drilling and fracking. We could tell you about how all jobs are green jobs with eco-literacy the new functional skills of our time, and there is a massive need for new generations who understand this stuff and can support company's sustainability targets.
In the end, however, this is kind of missing the point. The external motivation in taking action for reward is not going to see us out of this mess. The true shift is when people do the right thing when nobody is looking, simply because it is the right thing. When people understand the difference between a carbon footprint and a climate shadow. When they know the power of their purchase and the strength that comes from true leadership in their communities. With that level of change, we might just have a chance.
So where are we on that in the field of education? Lots of good things are happening, but overall, it's best not to dwell on how much is simply not happening at all. Instead, how about we think on where we could be, and start to get this right.
.png)
Don't panic! We know that we just got used to the mute button on Zoom, and that using Google Classroom or the institutional LMS can be a bit of a learning curve for many of us, but here comes another bunch of acronyms we might just want to be aware of.
We never used the word "fungible" until now in our lives, and suddenly people look at you as if you're expected to know what it means, but many of us in education perhaps thought that all these new things were only relevant to cryptocurrencies, the metaverse, and didn't see any connection to education, well actually there is something we need to talk about.
New terminology is just appearing from all angles right now, and we should start by defining Blockchain, NTTs and NFTs. In the interest of keeping everyone relaxed, we’ll come back to DAOs, DeFi, Tokenomics and the Metaverse in part 2 of this article. Let's get started.
Everything you hear about in this new suite of technology has one thing at its heart: blockchain. From Web 3 to cryptocurrency, blockchain technology is the foundation. The origins of the tech are a little hazy, with most sources crediting a Japanese developer Satoshi Nakamoto (the rumoured inventor of Bitcoin, and quite possibly a pseudonym for one or more developers) with the invention, because blockchain is the underlying system that makes it work.
Blockchain is essentially a system that creates a shared database to record and store information in a way that is impossible to cheat. The digital ledger of all transactions gets shared across all the network of computer systems on the blockchain. The big thing is its verifiability. Blockchains can be public or private, so financial institutions can use blockchain to improve compliance standards, for example.
Deloitte pitch it like this:
"Imagine a shared computer accessible to anyone, a single source of truth within which to store events, ownership and activities, and to execute workflow involving multiple parties without the use of separate systems and databases - and with no reconciliation required."
.png)
Ok, are we all feeling fungible? Then let's get started. Fungible means something has units to count its quantity, and it can be exchanged like for other fungible assets. The simplest example of this is money, because we can swap a 20-euro bill for another 20-euro bill like for like and the value is the same.
NFT stands for Non-Fungible Tokens, and so this represents assets that are irreplaceable. NFTs are something unique, like a photo, a video or a piece of artwork, and because it is verifiable it cannot be swapped like-for-like with something else.
How can a photo be unique? Good question. Imagine a photographer takes a photograph, which becomes famous and is shared on platforms all around the world, well even though there are millions of copies, there is still one original. The photographer can go to one of the many NFT marketplace sites, such as OpenSea and "mint" the original photograph. This means we use digital blockchain technology to authenticate our ownership of the original version of this photograph, and nobody can ever create the same thing twice. There are many copies, but only one Mona Lisa.
Now that your NFT is minted, you can sell it at auction, just like any original. This can be any digital file, essentially, evidenced by Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey's sale of the very first tweet for $2.9 million.
If you have something that you want to store on the blockchain but do not want it sold or transferred to anyone else, then you are looking for an NTT or Non Transferable token. The usage license for a product you invented, for example, is good to have in NTT form.
So we have this blockchain technology, which is great at ensuring integrity, making something impossible to falsify, and managing massive amounts of data securely. Now think about the world of education, where learners increasingly go out into the world with an array of credentials, micro-credentials, qualifications, portfolios of work, thesis projects etc.
An NFT can be sold, but an NTT can't. Therefore, imagine putting your next degree or grade in a time capsule called an NTT. You can safely keep it on the blockchain, but it can't be sold to a third party for monetization. Now, let's push this further, and imagine ditching the traditional CV by putting together your collection of NTT credentials in your secure digital wallet, which would be accepted as 100% authentic by any institution or employer.
As learners start their careers, they start attending conferences and events which will deliver them POAPs (Proof Of Attendance Protocol). These are NFT badges received by the participants of the event, which testify they actually went to the event. Not only do these create a new sense of community, as they can relate to the exclusive people who went to the same experience and can collect it. Surprisingly, these are NFTs and not NTT, though the creators of POAPs never intended them to be sold. Current usage trends suggest that they have become more of a personal collectible item which is very likely to build up on the new-looking digital portfolio or CV.
All of these elements are tied to a secure vault: your digital wallet. The most popular being Metamask, this is set to become the new way of accessing the web. Forget logins, passwords, or accessing with Facebook or Google. Your wallet holds your centralized assets in the decentralized web.
Further on the NFT line, let's look at another angle. Art students will be learning about minting and selling their work as NFTs, with interesting opportunities that could never be possible in the offline world, such as being able to maintain royalties over resales. Yep, that's right! Every time your work is sold on to someone else, you could get a percentage of each sale in perpetuity.
Students learning about gaming will have to know about companies like Sony, who are already creating in-game opportunities to build virtual objects and mint them as NFTs, and of course music producers need never worry about proof of origin and ownership when their beats become NFTs.
.png)
Glad you asked. The crypto space has no official regulation, because who would actually do this anyway? In which jurisdiction would you pay tax on a digital asset purchased in cyberspace? Governments are way behind on this, though there is a lot of talk on regulation at some point down the line, but they will probably look at cryptocurrency first. China started to send state-issued warnings about NFTs in 2021, but the popular AliBaba website in China simply started calling NFTs "digital collectibles" and that seems to be the end of it for now.
As this exciting new field evolves, geNEOus (formerly NEO Academy) will keep an eye on how it might affect us in education and education marketing, so stay tuned on our blog and geNEOuschats podcast for developments. We believe in staying up to date because we serve and support progressive institutions around the world. Let's keep learning together, and please do reach out to be a part of our #geNEOuschats, to show us your first NFT, or even just to say a good old-fashioned hello.
.png)
"When will we ever escape the rut of outdated pedagogy?" asked an article in the Times Higher Education last week, as the UK Minister for education demanded that HEI's stick to the face-to-face lecture as the dominant model of teaching and learning.
All over the world, there is such energy and drive to innovate and reform education, but some things just take time, and what we have now is a fragmented approach where individuals and institutions seem to be at different stages of the journey, some stagnant, some exhausted, some convinced that they've already changed enough to serve a new generation of learners, and we have to wonder where it's all headed.
What are we talking about? Well broadly speaking, you can look at education reform as a journey from a point where the teacher, instructor or lecturer is at the centre of the experience, and progressing to a point where the learner is at the centre, and firmly in control. Where did it all start, and if we are heading towards a more personal learning experience, then what might that look like?
Whether primary, secondary, further or higher education, we are using these words deliberately and consciously. The whole groups-of-learners-facing-a-teacher thing is pretty much how many people think of a learning environment.
The word "teacher" in English comes from the Old English word tæcan (to show or demonstrate), and that's pretty much the size of it. The teacher shows the learner what they think we need to know, filling our heads with knowledge as "empty vessels".
We have no choice in the subject matter, no voice in how it is taught, and though we can ask questions of the teacher and of others, this is pretty much the only act of agency we possess. No pause, no rewind, just response to stimuli, memorization and repetition. Transferring knowledge to someone can be done pretty well by a text, web page, video or book, and it is a tragic waste of a learning opportunity to have an esteemed scholar reading their PowerPoint to you instead of really lighting a fire of enquiry in you. That's why the back row are snoring.
Though most in K12 have left the teacher-centered approach to at least some degree behind them, many universities still hang on to it. There may be attempts to make it more active, with quizzes, warm up activities, or post-lecture discussions, but it is still essentially the same as it has been for centuries.
As one colleague once said to us in response, "perhaps they haven't changed it because it is working!". Unfortunately, we know from a mountain of evidence that this is neither the best way to learn, nor is it helping learners develop their own passions, critical voices and agency as a lifelong learner.
.png)
We've consciously dropped the word "classroom" at this point, because learning environments at this stage can be a bit broader, and we really should be dropping these industrial-era words as we start to reimagine what a learning space can actually be.
This is a major shift, and it is the stage at which you are likely to find the majority of mainstream K12 schools and more progressive colleges and universities.
At this point, we as educators do not start by thinking about what we want to teach, and how to support them to learn, but rather how to create opportunities for our learners to figure out what they might like to know and how they might like to learn it.
In the medieval universities of Europe, there was a bit of a blurred line between churches and education institutions, and both looked pretty much the same with a man (beard optional, but recommended) standing behind the lectern and delivering a sermon or a lecture in pretty much the same way.
During the Protestant reformation in Europe, the new churches of Luther and Calvin saw the ministers move to the side of the stage, acting vicariously between God and the congregation (which is where the word "vicar" comes from) as an intermediary. The idea was that they facilitated but did not control your interaction with the divine, whereas in Catholicism, the priest stood front and centre as the authority and the word; a gatekeeper of sorts.
Student centered education is like this too, though it took another 450 years for educators to move to the side. The educator worked on reducing the focus on themselves, and looked instead at how to create more student-led activities and learning opportunities, where they might support and guide rather than dictate how you progressed in your learning.
It is here you find much more collaborative work, problem-solving, enquiry, experiential learning and a lot of other good stuff, even if the overall structure of the learning journey itself is still pretty rigid, there is at least some flexibility in how learners get there.
It's getting tricky. We are out on the edges here, but we happen to like the view.
This environment is more fluid, and that can be quite intimidating to educators who often have to learn new skills and approaches, but it's exciting too.
Imagine a setting where the learner is free to pursue their curiosity and passions, and the educator helps to scaffold the learning around that in a proactive way. The learner is free to iterate, reflect, ask for help, co-create ways to extract learning from each part of the process, and do so on their own terms. Online, offline, in the formal learning environment or out in the world, and most often a combination of all these things.
Learners at K12 up to university would be expected to work at their own pace, under their own direction; customizing their own learning experiences to fit passions and interests that motivate them.
The educator here is supporting the whole climate, culture and context of learning, but the direction comes from the learner themselves. Believe it or not, this is compatible with most state-imposed curricula, albeit with time to make the transition. It does not happen overnight, but it is worth the effort.
.png)
Some institutions like the Steiner Waldorf schools have been doing this for a long time, though as their educators stay with the same cohort of learners until they are 14 or 15, there is a lot of time to build understanding of what each learner might need to flourish. Other learning environments, such as the Green School in Bali, are already demonstrating solid results and expertise in personal learning approaches.
This is the final step towards personal learning, where the learner is always engaged in what is relevant and meaningful to them, and the learning is built and scaffolded around them. A lot of noise is made about technology as the essential element to support such a complex approach, but people do get a bit caught up in AI and flexible LMS, and forget one essential thing: you can't remove the person from personal learning.
Technology is a tool, and it will be essential for institutions that move to a personal learning environment, but it is not the sum of all things. Teachers at this stage become mentors and guides, and their skill and experience is a critical success factor.
In our geNEOusChats with Birgit Lao, Ambassador to Estonia's Ministry of Education, she told us that her bold vision was to move towards a personal learning approach for all Estonian K12 institutions by the end of the decade.
Universities, again, are more reluctant to make this shift because of the weight of formal accreditation and the cost efficiency of having cohorts move in lockstep through the same content. Some, however, are introducing personal learning programs for some specific areas, such as Essex County College in New Jersey, which has transformed high fail rates in mathematics by reimagining the entire thing as a personal learning program.
Where is your institution on the journey, and where are you? Every week on our geNEOusChats Podcast and Video, we'll be talking to the people pushing education forward, so there's always a bit of inspiration to send you into the weekend. Sign up on Spotify or follow-on LinkedIn to receive notifications, and join us as we explore the journey of education innovation and reform together.
