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.