tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post3958497690171187276..comments2024-03-16T02:39:39.781-07:00Comments on eLearning Technology: Defending 2.0Tony Karrerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15408035995182843336noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-57273632096524545682009-10-30T05:58:32.533-07:002009-10-30T05:58:32.533-07:00Gary - I agree with you in terms of not really car...Gary - I agree with you in terms of not really caring what we call it. But ...<br /><br />To Scott's point - I think the lack of awareness of what's out there and where it applies is why things like labels are important. Someone who is sitting there comfortable that they know about eLearning, but who isn't aware of web 2.0 and its application to learning, may not get it. And Scott, I've had similar experiences, although its becoming less common.Tony Karrerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15408035995182843336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-33749531808489371972009-10-30T01:58:42.705-07:002009-10-30T01:58:42.705-07:00Interesting comments by Gary. As an industry we ne...Interesting comments by Gary. As an industry we need to innovative, create, deliver and inspire learners. However I'm still coming across people who don't understand or even know about e-learning or learning technology let alone web or learning 2.0. <br /><br />I delivered a session on 40 apps for learning to an audience of learning professionals and many of them hadn't even realised the range of tools out there...and they work in the industry!Scott Hewitthttp://www.realprojects.co.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-88674107292551103972009-10-21T22:34:23.710-07:002009-10-21T22:34:23.710-07:00I hadn't heard of Learning 2.0 before but I re...I hadn't heard of Learning 2.0 before but I really like your definition. If we are indeed moving to a stage where teachers and online educators are merely facilitators, we need a huge change to the systems and principles of the status quo.<br /><br />Mark<br /><a href="http://www.elearningdesign.com.au/" rel="nofollow">eLearning Design</a>Mark Tayarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04319284737712830712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-31579284124203151202009-10-21T08:16:20.282-07:002009-10-21T08:16:20.282-07:00Good morning, Tony!
I'm moved to respond, deg...Good morning, Tony!<br /><br />I'm moved to respond, degree of torquedness notwithstanding...<br /><br />I wonder sometimes if we become so enamored with what we do/should/could "name" something that we wind up "admiring the problem(s)" instead of moving them forward.<br /><br />This is purely opinion on my part, but I frankly do not care what we call it as long as I can sustain human performance in the workplace with innovated ways to satisfy learning moments of need.<br /><br />If anything has changed, it is the "context of learning" to a more robust learning environment that has evolved beyond the linear pedagogy of our forefathers (or foremothers). That's not to say that Training 1.0 is dead...it's just bigger than that methodology and those delivery techniques. <br /><br />If we call something X 2.0 then we're going to have to differentiate what is part of X 3.0and that requires another bucket. I'm tired of being in an endless bucket brigade of labels and terminology. It's "learning" and it must change to match the learning moments of need of the knowledge worker in whatever work context they may find themselves in need. <br /><br />If anything it is Learner 2.0, because...to your point the burden cannot be on the learner...it is upon us to meet the learner's needs regardless of whatever X.0 version of thinking we're in.<br /><br />And that would about be my $.02<br /><br />G.Gary Wisehttp://gdogwise.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com