Maslow v Internet

I’ve just returned from a short break in Spain and for five of the six days that I was away from home I was without Internet access. Many of you might think that that was a relaxing situation to be in, but I can assure you that for me, it wasn’t.

It’s surprising how much you (I) can miss the Internet.

Earlier this year, Sharon and I bought a 10% share in a one bedroom apartment on the Costa Del Sol – it didn’t cost too much and we get to visit almost as much as we like, which probably won’t be more than once a year. We wanted something (somewhere) that would almost certainly be warmer than it is here at any given time. I realised that the need for warmth is a basic need and can be found supporting all of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs.

That started me thinking …

Without me realising, the Internet has become something that fulfills my Belongingness and Love (social) needs, as well as my Esteem needs; both of which Maslow recognises as higher requirements en route to self-actualisation. Only whilst eating our lunch in a pub in Gibraltar – where WiFi was available, were we able to check emails, Twitter and Facebook. In our apartment complex and in all of the cafe’s and restaurants we visited in Spain, we were not!

How then were we able to:
a) check when and who Spain were playing in the European cup (and thus avoid the crowds in certain bars)?
check emails (after all I’m still self-employed and need to reply as quickly and as often as required to correspondences)?
c) check Twitter and Facebook to keep up with family and friends?
provide the answer to simple arguments (where DO you find out the name of such and such an actor)?

I do all of that without thinking at home on my iPhone, my iPad, my laptop etc. when I’m out and about I have WiFi ‘cloud’ access, 3’s MiFi access and a variety of other logins that permit me to access the Internet freely and easily – so when it’s not available, it comes as a shock.

Not having access to the Internet ‘on tap’ really did come as a surprise.

Now we’re home, I managed to catch up a little on Sunday but then on Monday BT seemed to be having a problem in our area, as we have had no Internet and no landline for two days! I’ve no idea why or what’s happening so it’s lucky that I still have some data left on my MiFi this month but with guests staying with us – all of whom are Internet-savvy, who knows how long that will last!


The apartment complex committee’s chairman has agreed that we can boost our signal in the apartment (!) with the installation of a box that sounds like it will give limited ethernet access to laptops – but which will still not give WiFi access to the variety of other devices we have become used to using. They only have a 3gig connection for around 200 apartments!

Previous notes on Maslow


I’m quite interested in the way we might revisit Maslow, with an eye on the social and economic changes that are happening around us. I think there’s a real need now to recognise how the (especially) lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy are changing. Young learners now have technological needs that the original paper preceded. As Dan Bevarly (@dbevarly) says: “You can’t engage if you can’t connect”. I am working on this, but as with everything else (and work etc), it’s a slow process.

From my 2009 post:

Response to Kathy Schrock

I was recently introduced to Kathy Schrock’s blog by Barrie Roberts on Twitter

Kathy’s 30th March post presents her ideas for applying Google tools to Blooms Taxonomy and showed us this picture The image is a wonderful piece of work and joins a creditable canon of other attempts to capture educational theory within a social media context.

I’m prompted to respond because for once, the image seems to recognise the fact that different levels of Blooms technology can be addressed by almost ANY technology – as it is not necessarily the technology that counts, but the way in which the technology is employed.

In many of my workshops I provide a quick and dirty reminder of Bloom’s and the Revised Taxonomies. I do this to show the participants (usually teachers of one kind or another) that even mobile phones used for texting can address different levels of the taxonomy. I then ask them to recognise the ways in which various Web 2.0 sites can be used and require the participants to place (velcro’d) Web 2.0 logos (onto model pyramids I have made for the task*) according to how they (the participants) feel the site could be used.

Invariably, tools like YouTube are seen as lower order thinking skills (remembering, understanding and applying – LOTS) and some blogging tools are seen as HOTS (higher order thinking skills).

I firmly believe that each tool we use could/can be applied at the higher levels of Bloom’s.

It is the skills of the teacher/tutor/lecturer – whoever, to ensure that the learner’s task requires THEM – the learner, to work at that higher level. Hence (and you will see this on Kathy’s blog picture) YouTube can be used at the top – Creation level. It can also be used at the Remembering level – hence my own filleting fish video, used by learners to simply remember/understand how to do the task before ‘applying’ it.

Thank you Kathy.

*The pyramids have three faces and I use each face for a different task. They are made of a pressed polystyrene and can be assembled out of my suitcase (I am a peripatetic trainer).

Some previous Theory posts


Experiential Learning

“Rather than treat pedagogy as the transfer of knowledge from teachers who are experts to students who are receptacles, educators should consider more hands-on and informal types of learning.”

John Seeley Brown [Dec. 2006] reported by Martin LaMonica [Staff Writer, CNET News]. Accessed at:,-think-Web-2.0/2100-1032_3-6140175.html on 21/02/10

I’ve been interested for a very long time now in the exploration of pedagogical uses for modern (‘m’) tools and technologies. I hazard to say techniques at this stage, because it is in fact the techniques which need to be pedagogically planned. I’m also interested in the social implications of ‘m’ and how these might be brought to bear on the way we enable learning to take place.

An earlier blog post []  discusses my use of Bloom’s Taxonomy as an introduction to the development of ‘m’ techniques. I use this taxonomy in the preparation of (and as part of) my workshops. Hitherto, Blooms’ has been the bedrock of my exploration and development.

However, there are other theories that lend themselves to being re-visited with one eye on the tools and technologies of 2010 and beyond. Others have begun this and the foremost seems to be:


I’m quite interested in the way we might revisit Maslow, with an eye on the social and economic changes that are happening around us. I think there’s a real need now to recognise how the (especially) lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy are changing. Young learners now have technological needs that the original paper preceded. As Dan Bevarly (@dbevarly) says: “You can’t engage if you can’t connect”. I am working on this, but as with everything else (and work etc), it’s a slow process.

Some others I have also explored are:


  1. Sizing up the situation at hand through objective observation.
  2. Drawing forth knowledge about such situations by recalling similar past experiences (both your own and those of the people around you).
  3. Judging how to proceed, based on this knowledge (Makes a start on Web 2.0 with Dewey at the root.)




I liked:

“He who learns but does not think is lost. He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger.”
(Lunyu 2.15) from: [accessed: 19/02/10]

and to this Confucian quote I would add:

“he who teaches but does not learn – is a fool”

Yet none have addressed, as far as my brief desk-search can see, the tools and technologies of 2010. These must surely change the way we accommodate all of the well-grounded theories and although I’m certain that there are scholars out there who are re-visiting them, these are not yet easily found.


I will however revisit Kolb as I can, like Bloom’s Taxonomy, put his theories to good use straight away.

  1. Concrete Experience – (a new experience of situation is encountered, or a reinterpretation of existing experience)
  2. Reflective Observation (of the new experience. Of particular importance are any inconsistencies between experience and understanding)
  3. Abstract Conceptualisation (Reflection gives rise to a new idea, or a modification of an existing abstract concept)
  4. Active Experimentation (the learner applies them to the world around them to see what results)

I will post my reflections over time by taking each stage of the above and suggesting ways of employing ‘m’ tools, technologies and techniques to the cycle.

I’d love to hear of any existing examples.

Theories of learning, need and motivation

Maslows hierarchy of needs

Maslows hierarchy of needs

I’m currently working on the development of a week-long course to be delivered in June, to about 16 European ‘partner’ delegates. The course will take place in Leeds (so not far for me to go then!) and investigate theories that underpin adult learning. It will also  introduce participants to the potential of Web 2.0 for enhancing the learning process.

I thought I’d make a few notes here; not just for my benefit – but for the benefit of anyone who’s interested (after all my notes need not be secret).

Much of what I will personally deliver is scattered around my various laptops and memory media, but what I’m noting here is what my co-presetner will lead on. I’m making sure that all my revision notes are in one place!

I’m not working alone, it’s not my project, but I’ve been asked along to help – partly for my T & L knowledge but mainly for my ‘e’ knowledge.

Day 2 is an interesting day with lots of input and activities around various theoretical approaches to adult learning:

Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs (above) is just one. We will also be investigating:

The idea will be to introduce the theories and to set active-learning tasks for the participants to develop a deeper understanding of  how the various theories interlock.

For example ARCS v Gagne

Attention Matches Gagne’s 1) Gain attention

Relevance Could match 2) Inform learners of objectives + 3) Stimulate recall of prior learning and 4) Present the content – all of which could be designed to ensure relevance.

Confidence Could come from 5) the provision of “learning guidance”, 6) the actual performance of practice which enhances the ‘encoding and verification of learning. 7) Feedback – if given positively also helps confidence

Satisfaction Might be gained from the satisfactory 8) assessment of performance. 9) Retrieval and generalisation of the new skill can then be applied to a new situation.

Anyway – must get on …