View
1.002
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Presentation to accompany talk at Victoria University, Melbourne, on 8 December 2008
Citation preview
Learning 2.0 as an Educational Ideal
Colin Lankshear
James Cook University
http://www.coatepec.net
Hands on collaborative learning space
Novices learn from scratch to
assemble and program a basic
robot
see:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?
v=wxyf659naXo
Push and Pull: Worldview
Push PullTraining Learning
Curriculum Discovery
Courses Performance support
Training program Collaboration platform
Mandated Self service
Just in case Just in time
Cross 2006, from Brown and Hagel 2005
Push and Pull: Style, Approach
Push Pull
Assumes demand predictable
Assumes demand unpredicable
Anticipates Responds
Rigid, static Flexible, dynamic
Conform, core Innovate, edge
Monoliths, parts glued Small pieces loosely joined
Program Learnscape
Cross 2006, from Brown and Hagel 2005
Tammy (and Todd) go to Hollywood
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=7yRabarJWKs
Novices make movie with The Movies
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny_Ek5DpXtI
The Bar Room Brawl
Resourcing with a website
Collaborative resourcing with an “email posting” blog
Web archiving
Collaborative writing (docs.google.com & skype.com)
In person collaborative writing space
Concessions we enjoy in our “unteaching”
• No grades – strictly Pass/Fail • No censorship/blocks/filters (except
sometimes)• No curriculum as such• No timetable per se• No reporting templates or “standards” No
lockstep page following• No remediation – ample in situ support• Large multi-purpose space
Learn 2.0 principles and our “teaching” aims
• Aims at “deep” learning (Gee 2007)• Aims at “systems” learning• Ample “geek” project time• Collegial cross-group support, talk,
collaboration and elicitation• Enactment of distributed intelligence and
expertise• Benefits of situatedness (e.g., lucidly
functional language; Gee 2007)
Performance, Production, Practice
• “Tasks” to be performed – multiple levels
• “Tools” to be performed – technologies,
theory and templates
• “Knowledge” to be performed – past,
present, future, distributed
The “twoness” of 2.0
• Collaborative, distributed & participatory
• Peer-to-peer, interactive
• User-generated content & ratings/rankings;
wisdom of crowds; expertise reconceived
• Performed rather than purchased
• Leverage is a key operating principle
Web 1.0 Web 2.0
GoogleNetscape
Tagging (“folksonomy”)Directories (taxonomy)
WikisContent management systems
ParticipationPublishing
WeblogsPersonal websites
WikipediaBritannica Online
FlickrOfoto
Web 1.0/Web 2.0: For example
Learn 2.0 as an ideal of effective learning.
• Coheres with a range of currently popular social values like inclusion, participation, collaboration, peer-to-peer sharing, etc. that have a strong presence in leisure and non formal settings
• Compatible with “deep learning”
• Coheres with a lot of “smart work” and principles of 'the new work order”
• It is in tune with current concepts and experiences of “time” and “place”
• Maximizes leverage and “value adding” (I.e., “ecological”)
• Coheres well with our “primary learning Discourse” (learning “organically”)
• Can potentially enhance education for all
• Emphasizes interests and affinities
Toward Learning 2.0 as an ideal of educative learning
• “Education” as a term that disinguishes practices (e.g., vs “indoctrination”, “training”, “socialisation”, etc.).
• Related to some kind of ideal of human existence; a human ideal; a “metaphysic” (Snook 1973).
• Learning can be effective without necessarily being educative.
• “Postmodern” multiplicity will require non-”totalising” ideal(s). But we may still think of education as marking out a “level” of life.
• Educative learning as a productive harmony among multiple facets of human being.
Recommended