Hyperlearning

In Lewis Perelman’s article, “School’s Out” (1993), he proposes that conventional academics be replaced with “hyperlearning”. Perelman describes hyperlearning as any new technologies that are connected and used to promote learning. One point that I am not quite sure about is whether he is suggesting that ALL schooling be changed to hyperlearning, or just higher learning. He makes a point in saying that the socializing factor of schools is not necessarily a positive one. However, oftentimes, the classes that a person learns the most in are not the 50-minute lectures, rather, they are the 50-minute discussion classes. How can you create a “just-in-time” discussion on the effects of a constructivist teaching style being implemented for the first time? I am not sure how some of the interactive learning will take place through hyper-media. As Perelman himself mentioned, there are several different learning styles. How will hyperlearning satisfy the multiple intelligences mapped out by Howard Gardner? It would seem like technology could assist in fostering the naturalist intelligence, but those students really learn best through hand-on experience with their environment, not by sitting in front of a computer regardless of how “real” the experience seems to be (Campbell, 1997).

On the other hand, I do believe that Perelman has a point when he says that people are having to continually go back to school and complete a degree when all they may need is one missing skill set to be qualified for a job. I think the cost of academics is getting out of control and this is making it harder and harder to keep it a level playing field. Even when taking the cost out, grades are fairly arbitrary and merely a single indicator of one’s abilities. If a person is only missing a few skills to be qualified for a job, I agree that they should be able to acquire those skills and then show competence in them without having to go back to school and complete an entire degree.

When it comes to the Clark (1994) and Kozma (1994) debate, I feel like my thoughts towards hyperlearning fall right in the middle. As Kozma contests, hyperlearning, thus media, will definitely change learning and if it is implemented effectively and the results could be tremendous. It would cut back on time sitting in classrooms listening to lecture after lecture and dive right into the actual learning. Furthermore, when it comes to higher learning or continued learning, one can target exactly what they need to know and not waste their time learning information they will never use. On the other hand, I agree with Clark that this is still only one form of a solution. I think it is very naive to think that everything that needs to be learned can be learned through technology. As Perelman himself says, most of what people learn is from experience. That is, actually DOING something, not working your way through a technology tutorial. Moreover, in my experience it is much easier to learn a program like Dreamweaver or PhotoShop from a person rather than from a “wizard” or “cue card” that is built into the program. In short, I do not see how hyperlearning can ever be the only method implemented in education reform.

References:

Campbell, B. (1997). The naturalist intelligence. Retrieved April 18, 2006, from New Horizons for Learning http://www.newhorizons.org/strategies/mi/campbell.htm

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21-29.

Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.

Perelman, L. (1993). School’s out: The hyperlearning revolution will replace public education. Wired Magazine, 1(1), March/April. Retrieved April 17, 2006, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.01/hyperlearning.html.