tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18676377.post-66719513800180414062008-05-11T19:29:00.000-07:002008-05-11T19:29:00.000-07:002008-05-11T19:29:00.000-07:00Let's take a lesson from software versioning, which implies incremental improvement. If, by "Learning 2.0", we mean "an improved version of Learning 1.0", I'm inclined to agree with that idea. The traditional learning model (teachers teaching courses)can certainly be enhanced by providing wider accessibility, enabling group projects, encouraging student-student and student-teacher interactions, etc. <BR/><BR/>If we mean something completely different from Learning 1.0, however, I think we're in danger of jumping the tracks. But then, I've never misunderstood Learning 1.0 to be one in which "teachers pour information into students' heads" (as some now characterize it) anyway, for the simple reason that no such thing is possible, nor has it ever been possible. Would that it were! But just try it and you'll be a miserable failure as a teacher.<BR/><BR/>Some may have read "Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions" by the behavioral economist at MIT, Dan Ariely. It's an interesting exercise to read the fascinating insights he provides and then to rethink your assessment of Learning 2.0.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com