Framing Learn 2.0: Prospects, Challenges and Tasks

Colin Lankshear & Michele Knobel

McGill U/JCU & Montclair State University

http://www.coatepec.net

Learn 1.0? Learn 2.0?

The Ambiguity of 2.0

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

The “two-ness” of 2.0

• Collaborative, distributed & participatory

• Peer-to-peer, interactive• User-generated content and

ratings/rankings. Wisdom of crowds; expertise reconceived

• Performed rather than purchased• Leverage a key operating principle

Upside to Learn 2.0

• 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

Downside to Learn 2.0

• Contravenes the operating logic of the consumer society (Illich 1970)

• Contravenes many deep values that serve powerful interests well. It: atomizes

control/manages

individualizes

privatizes

discriminates and differentiates (to feed the “meritocratic” ideology

labels

shapes expectations and matches them to “what is socially available”

adjusts people to industrial time

emphasizes exchange values

reifies expertise and legitimates elites

imprints authority relations

equates competence with “official credentials”

Our approach to Learn 2.0 and researching the practice

• Researching practice for a book chapter

• Study design, methods and data set

• Data collected and archived organically, using Web

2.0 resources within the practice of Learn 2.0

• Built in quality features – audit trails for

communicative validity, participant input and

feedback, etc.

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

Concessions we enjoy

• 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

Examples

• Newbie theorising – Novice group meets Goffman

• Newbie critique – Evaluation of published peer-reviewed articles

• Newbie discovery of “lucidly functional language”

• Newbie analysis using social semiotics• Newbie problematising of targeted

advertising on Facebook (critical literacy?)

Learn 2.0 principles and our “teaching”: criteria to guide data analysis

• 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)

“Lucidly functional language” (Gee 2007)

Collaborative writing (in person)

Collaborative writing (docs.google.com & skype.com)

Troubleshooting

Resourcing with a website

Collaborative resourcing with an “email posting” blog

Web archiving

Give it a go… and mucking around

Spaces