e-learning 2.0

The good thing about “Learning 387.0” is the range of choice of how and when to learn and the empowerment of the learner in deciding what he/she will learn. This may have come to the fore in many people’s minds (including Shaune’s ,above) due to the innovation and rapid technological changes that have occurred in what he calls “e-learning”.

However, I think this may not be as new as it seems. I’ll come back to that in a minute (following the principle of learning in the 2.0 style, apparently). First I want to briefly look at column 3 in the grid above.

This “e-learning 2.0” (still a very early version number compared to learning generally) has at its centre the bottom-up, learner-centric/learner-driven, small chunks vision of learning. Might seem new and challenging … but it by no means makes e-learning 1.3 and e-learning 1.0 redundant or any less effective. For example according to this chart the newly released version (2.0) has content of 1 minute. Now I would be prepared to stake my reputation on not all content being possible to convey and learn in a minute. I wonder if Shaune will be able to learn a Spanish tense, structure or even a phrase in a minute? I think he may need some 15 minute work to conqueror the language of the Conquistadors. In fact, he’ll need some 60 minute learning … maybe even some day long learning.

I can remember a teaching/learning revolution in EFL (English as a Foreign Language – a field I have some years of experience in) which revolved around the teacher becoming a facilitator / resource. The extremes of this approach led to the students deciding what to learn, when, how and so on. The course syllabus became Learner Driven – no formal path was set out .Self-Access Centres became all the rage in language schools with books, audio cassettes, videos and later on computers being used to enable students’ learning. Books were written on Independent Learning, Learner Centred Learning, Autonomous Learning, Self-Directed Learning and so on. The teacher teaching anything became a no-no.

My long term recollection of this phase of EFL was a lot of very confused students wandering around. They might have felt empowered (choosing what tape to listen to, what grammar exercise to tackle), but were often very frustrated as things were frequently difficult to understand or not easy to connect and reconcile with their existing knowledge. This “modern way” of learning, using all the latest technological gadgets of the age, didn’t meet their expectations and seemed unstructured and haphazard. Of course, they often didn’t know, what they didn’t know (in a Donald Rumsfeld manner) so they were invariably unsure of what to study next.

Some 20 years later language schools have teachers who do some actual teaching in the classroom. Often the teacher will decide what is taught (and hopefully learnt), sometimes the course-book pre-determines this and sometimes it’s open to negotiation with the students. The teacher also acts as a guide/resource when the students do self-study work and often they will together compile an individualised learning pathway based on the student’s needs.

So back to the “e-learning 2.0” debate. It’s just another string to an ever increasing bow, surely? Yes it should be looked at, used and welcomed … but is it really all that different from what went before? And what we definitely must avoid is the suggestion that this is a better way of learning or that it will replace other previous ways of learning. Poppycock!

Personally I’m waiting with anticipation for “Learning 387.4”.

Now that will be different!