learn2
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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