The was originally posted on the Emerge Project site.
There is a growing trend towards personalisation – having things how and when I want them, doing things when I where I want to and interacting with others on my terms. While 60% of 16-19 year olds say that their main ambition in life is to be happy, serious emotional problems rose from 10% in 1986 to 17% in 1999 and are continuing to worsen. Economist Richard Layard argued in the 2007 Ashby Lecture that this is due to the rise in individualism and a corresponding fall in trust in others, which has occurred in the US and the UK but not in the mainland Europe. He marks this rise in individualism as starting at 1981 and terms individualism as making the most of oneself – to be as successful as possible compared to others. He argues that if this is everyone’s goal, then there is no way that our society can become happier and that successful societies are not those with the highest GDP per capita but those with the greatest happiness and the least misery. What we need, according to Layard, is ‘a more positive sum game in which we care positively about the well-being of others.’ The transcript of the lecture explains how he thinks this can be achieved.
So, what has this got to do with the personalisation of learning? Maybe nothing, as others may well tell me, but there could be if the increasing focus on the personalisation of learning is at the expense of a Layard’s more positive sum game in which we care positively about the well-being of others. As an example I think back to a recent Emerge online event, which in general I though was really useful and many people got a great deal from. However, I did notice a few issues with some of the elluminate sessions. During a number of sessions there was a lot of activity in the side chat, which many found useful but others found distracting. OK, just minimise or turn the chat off. Yet, as many people noted, the side chat for some became the main focus and the presentation the side activity. In some sessions the earlier side chat drove the discussion at the end of the presentation. This was particularly difficult when participants requested that questions earlier in the side chat be answered in the discussion at then end but insisted that as the question had been asked earlier there was no need to repeat it. This meant that either the presenter had to go back and try and find which question the participant meant or that the moderator had to intervene. Either way this held up the flow of the discussion. Fine for those for whom this fitted their personal way of learning but not for everyone else. A case of it’s fine for my way of learning, suits me and enables me to make the best of myself but doesn’t show much ‘care about the well-being of others’.
So if, as Layard argues, the best societies are not those with the highest GDP per capita (or the most JISC funded projects) but those with the greatest happiness and the least misery, how do we balance the need for empowering individuals with need for caring about the well being of others within a learning context?
Or maybe I’m just talking rubbish?
