No way! By putting the "e" on the front we haven't somehow cut ourselves off from learning. We are simply alerting people to the fact that we are likely using technology and specifically web technology of some kind to assist in learning (and really performance). I like how Harold summarized the topic area as the:
intersection of learning, work and technology
Okay, I called my blog "eLearning Technology." So I'm more likely to discuss technology right? Yes, I am. My Ph.D. is in Computer Science not Instructional Design. However, at the end of the day - like someone with background in ID, I'm trying to figure out how to ultimately help drive human performance.
So, can we all just learn to get along and learn to love the "e"?
5 comments:
Hey, Tony, I think your "e" is great ;-)
My concern is more that by defining a field as e-learning, a large number of learning facilitators have opted out of the "e" stuff, because they're not into e-learning. Now that digital communications are almost everywhere, we need to get this conservative majority more involved, and perhaps the "e" is keeping them out.
As Papert says, perhaps we need to illustrate the discussion with just one more term, "paper".
As in "Please list all the advantages that pLearning has over our current methods."
Or should it be "p-Learning" or "paper-Learning"?
I'm wondering if maybe this is a skewed sampling with two people who are obviously "e" centric. On the other hand, isn't most all of it technology including paper?
Agree with all. As instructional designers, don't we aim at delivering appropriate content in the most appropriate manner: e, p, or c (classroom)? "E" is a way, but not the way.
Regardless of the delivery system, learners do assume a lot of the responsibility for the actual learning.
Post a Comment