Education has always been a mirror of its time and culture, reflecting the dominant philosophical and technological paradigms that shape our human understanding and knowledge. Each epoch redefines the teacher’s role, the learner’s agency, and the nature of knowledge itself. In Evolution of Teaching Models (1.0–5.0), Wilbert Salgado outlines this historical and epistemological transformation through five pedagogical eras. Each phase embodies a unique negotiation between humans (being in this case teachers and learners) and technology, between the quest for efficiency and the preservation of meaning. The framework is not merely descriptive; it offers an ethical and philosophical lens to understand how education evolves in response to its age (current ways of thinking and technological development). By tracing this arc, we can perceive how the act of teaching continually oscillates between mechanism and meaning, control and creativity, hierarchy and co-learning.

The first stage, Teaching 1.0, based on Wilbert Salgado’s analysis, captures the essence of the Industrial Paradigm, deeply rooted in positivism and essentialism (Comenius, 1657/1907; Herbart, 1902). Knowledge was viewed as objective, universal, and externally verifiable. The teacher stood as the authority, transmitter, and moral guide, while students were expected to absorb information passively through imitation and repetition. This educational model mirrored the needs of industrial society: order, discipline, and productivity. While such instruction fostered uniformity and moral stability, it often neglected individual growth and critical reflection. The teacher’s voice dominated the classroom, and education became a process of reproduction rather than transformation. In retrospect, this model illustrates how early education systems sought to replicate social order through obedience rather than to nurture intellectual independence.

The emergence of Teaching 2.0 during the mid-twentieth century marked a profound epistemological shift. Inspired by the cognitive revolution and constructivist theories, this era reconceived learning as an active process of meaning-making (Dewey, 1938; Piaget, 1952; Vygotsky, 1978). The teacher’s authority gave way to facilitation; the classroom became a space of inquiry, experimentation, and reflection. Students learned not by absorbing facts but by connecting experiences. Dewey’s pragmatism redefined education as life itself, a continuous process of growth through experience, while Piaget and Vygotsky underscored the role of interaction and social context in knowledge construction. Personally, Wilbert and I find in this model the pedagogical DNA of contemporary learning: the dialogic process, the emphasis on curiosity, and the recognition that knowledge is not received but built. Teaching 2.0 invited educators to prioritize thinking over memorization, inquiry over conformity, and the learner’s experience over the teacher’s monotone monologues.

The transition to Teaching 3.0, the Digital and Networked Era, further disrupted traditional pedagogies by introducing technology as both medium and metaphor. Learning became decentralized and networked, embodying the principles of connectivism (Siemens, 2005; Downes, 2012). In this newer paradigm, knowledge exists not solely in the human mind but across nodes of a digital network, within communities, devices, and shared platforms. The teacher evolved from facilitator to designer of learning experiences, curating content and crafting digital spaces for collaboration. The classroom expanded beyond physical boundaries into a global and asynchronous environment. With the arrival of multimedia and early learning management systems, students became explorers of interconnected knowledge rather than sole recipients of information. Yet, this abundance of access brought new pedagogical challenges: discerning truth, managing information overload, and maintaining human depth in virtual spaces. As educators Wilbert and I have witnessed how Teaching 3.0 demands a dual literacy, technological and critical, to balance participation with discernment.

Based on Wilbert’s analysis, Teaching 4.0 emerged in tandem with Industry 4.0, the age of automation, data, and artificial intelligence. This model positions education as a platform for creativity, adaptability, and lifelong learning (Anderson, 2010; Redecker, 2017). Teachers function as mentors and learning designers who cultivate competencies that transcend disciplines (critical thinking, collaboration, problem-solving, and ethical reasoning). Learning is personalized through adaptive systems and gamified environments, and assessment emphasizes performance and innovation rather than rote mastery. However, as automation grows more sophisticated, this stage exposes an existential tension: the risk of reducing human intelligence to data points. The question arises, are we preparing adaptable workers or conscious citizens? To us, Teaching 4.0 exemplifies both promise and paradox: it democratizes access to knowledge but risks commodifying learning itself. To sustain its humanistic integrity, educators must intentionally pair technological fluency with emotional and ethical literacy.

The culmination of this trajectory, Teaching 5.0, represents what Wilbert Salgado defines as the Human-Centric Era, a reintegration of ethics, empathy, and sustainability into education. Rooted in the philosophies of posthumanism and ethical constructivism (Haraway, 2016; Braidotti, 2019), this model envisions human–AI collaboration not as competition but as co-evolution. Teachers are no longer mere transmitters or designers; they become co-learners and ethical guides who nurture reflection, empathy, and global awareness. Students, in turn, become responsible digital denizens capable of blending creativity with conscience and ethics. This model invites a holistic pedagogy, one that incorporates social-emotional learning (SEL), transdisciplinary inquiry, and sustainability education (UNESCO, 2021). We personally see Teaching 5.0 as a moral and spiritual reawakening within the technological age. It recognizes that the ultimate purpose of education is not efficiency but humanity, to ensure that technology amplifies compassion rather than alienates it.

The intellectual beauty of this pedagogical evolution lies not in its linearity but in its recursive nature. Each stage corrects and complements the excesses of the previous one: 1.0’s rigidity gives rise to 2.0’s creativity; 3.0’s connectivity anticipates 4.0’s adaptability; and 5.0’s ethical dimension restores the human equilibrium lost to automation. This interplay reveals a profound truth: “Education is always an ethical enterprise.” As teachers, we do not merely adopt new technologies; we embody new philosophies of being and knowing. Each lesson, whether mediated by chalk or algorithm, carries with it an implicit worldview, one that either humanizes or mechanizes learning.

For both of us, Wilbert Salgado and Jonathan Acuña, this framework is more than an academic taxonomy; it is a pedagogical compass. It challenges educators to situate themselves within this evolutionary continuum and ask, From which paradigm do I teach, and toward which paradigm am I teaching? In our shared reflections, we have come to see that while technological revolutions reshape educational practice, it is reflection that reshapes its meaning. Teaching, in every iteration, remains a profoundly human act, rooted in empathy, curiosity, and ethical imagination.

Ultimately, the Evolution of Teaching Models (1.0–5.0) reminds us that progress in education is not measured by how efficiently we transfer information, but by how deeply we cultivate understanding. As we navigate the age of intelligent machines and immersive realities, the challenge is not to keep pace with technology but to ensure that learning keeps faith with humanity. Every new teaching model is a mirror, but also a choice, a chance to reimagine what it means to teach and to be taught in an age where both human and artificial intelligences coexist.

 

📚 References

Anderson, C. (2010). The new industrial revolution: Makers, innovation, and the reinvention of the world. Crown Business.

Braidotti, R. (2019). Posthuman knowledge. Polity Press.

Comenius, J. A. (1907). The great didactic of John Amos Comenius (M. W. Keatinge, Trans.). Adam & Charles Black. (Original work published 1657)

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.

Downes, S. (2012). Connectivism and connective knowledge: Essays on meaning and learning networks. National Research Council of Canada.

Haraway, D. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press.

Herbart, J. F. (1902). Outlines of educational doctrine (A. Lange, Trans.). Macmillan.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). International Universities Press.

Redecker, C. (2017). European framework for the digital competence of educators: DigCompEdu. Publications Office of the European Union.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), 3–10.

UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO Publishing.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Evolution of Teaching Models by Prof. Wilbert Salgado