Ken Carroll

 There are lots of blogs on the subject of learning 2.0. They tend to focus on what is theoretically or pedagogically desirable in the New Learning, as well as the new understandings that emerge from our experience of learning on the network. This discussion remains theoretical because mainstream business and education  have been slow to embrace the New Learning. Examples of these theories in an integrated format, in practice  are not common.

Except, I would argue, with a couple of exceptions. I believe  ChinesePod and SpanishPod are actually rather good case studies of putting these concepts to work.

 An integrated learning 2.0 scenario

There is a general agreement about the need for learning environments, learnscapes, or learning eco-systems, that enable participation, collaboration, and user-input, etc. The central organizing principle should, of course, be the network, with all the attendant network qualities and the right social software. The key thing about a network is that everything is connected to everything else. Connecting the people and all the bits enables the sharing, the discussion, the dissemination of good learning practices, as well as the self-expression, the debate, and all the other things that make human learning possible. 

In this scenario, the learners are necessarily in control because networks  break down hierarchies. The role of the instructor (or practitioner) is that of modelling and demonstrating, rather than as arbiters or controllers.  

Learners are then free to select content on a self-service basis, and at the times that they, themselves choose, preferably from an input-rich environment, with a variety of ways to consume it. (Learning is multi-dimensional.) It also needs to be self-directed and happen through direct experience and personal decisions, rather than through instruction and vicarious decisions.

Within this adaptive, de-centralized, recursive, and exploratory learning environment, content needs to be cognitive, and engaging. An inductive approach that allows learners to participate, to discover meaning, to reflect, and identify patterns, takes precedence over lectures because learning is individualistic, and subjective. All the while, members of the community can communicate on various issues, and threads to pursue their own goals with practitioners and other learners.

 Sounds familiar

In fact, the scenario I’ve just described is pretty much how ChinesePod and SpanishPod actually work. Almost every feature I mentioned exists there. The approach we took has certainly been organic. Lesson topics and other resources (and therefore the curriculum) are generally informed by learner request and not complete without their comments. The environment is dynamic, evolving in collaboration with the needs and behaviors of the learners. Ultimately it functions as an online community of practice.

 Other features include the use of modular learning objects (check) that can be tagged (check) and delivered as an RSS flow (check) when needed (check). This means that the learning is just in time (check) rather than just in case. Meanwhile, the future apparently will be learner-centered (check) immersive (check) mobile (check) democratic (check)  designed for the medium (check) and the environment in which it will be consumed (check). All these elements exist on ChinesePod.

I guess I’ve made my point.

 Was all of this planned in advance? No, it was not. It emerged as we went along  - which is consistent with what network learning theories, such as connectivism, might suggest. 

 ChinesePod and social networks

I believe ChinesePod points to a distinctive type of social network, and one that will become more prevalent once it becomes more widely recognized for what it is. I would distinguish (for the sake of argument) three types of social network. First, you have Facebook, Linked In, etc, where the social object is to connect with people and serve some social purpose (finding a job, making new friends, etc).  

The second type of social network is what we might call the content communities. The social object here involves sharing information, photos, music, or something else - examples, Delicious, Flckr,  Youtube, etc. As with the first type of social network, you register, get your own page, and get on with it.

I believe we may define a third category -  the social network as an online Community of Practice that exploits the learning-friendly qualities of the network. (This can extend beyond the internet itself, for example, into the mobile context.)  The social object is learning a language, a process that requires very high levels of participation.  

The Big Bang of 2005  yielded Facebook, Youtube, Flickr, and so on. In terms of learning, the results were more patchy.  The ’small pieces loosely joined’ approach has led to new ideas about personal learning environments in the manner that Stephen Downes has described. That has more to do with managing for the individual. I would argue, however, that we are the clearest example of an integrated approach to what the participative web has to offer in learning in specific subject area. I beleive the community of practice is a powerful way to do that.

Our goal now is to set the standards for the online language learning industry. This is just the beginning, but I hope we’ve taken the first steps.  

 Ken Carroll

 All advances in human communication tend to create larger effects. When, for example, our early ancestors developed the whites in their eyes, it greatly enhanced non-verbal communication. This resulted in new and more complex types of social collaboration and drove human development forward. We have never looked back, as it were.

 These days, advances in communication come from technology, rather than biological  progress. Technology, however, develops thousands of times faster than biology, so its effects can be both widespread and very dramatic. 

We see this with the phenomenal rise of social networks. We’ve suddenly realized that we can now combine unlimited access to information with unlimited access to people. A billion of us are free to connect, create, share, or re-mix content, at little cost, across a two-way global network, according to our interests. It has become incredibly easy to from online groups - way, way easier than offline - groups that can easily function as tiny cells or as enormous groups. The participative web is here.

Communities of Practice

This ease of participation and group formation is defining how we will learn online.  Look, for example, at how Wikipedia, Linux, and the open source movement all tend to function as communities of practice.

As a matter of fact, CoPs are everywhere. One reason is because the CoP offers the people plus content combination again. A second reason is that the CoP suits the medium. Learning in a CoP is not a matter of tranference from an active teacher to a passive consumer. (A traditional student/teacher relationship would work neither socially nor pedagogically on the web.) Instead, the relationships in a CoP are egalitarian and require social capital rather than authority. It simply has to be this way with loosely affiliated groups who collaborate, not on the basis of some institutional regulations, but on the basis of a shared learning objective. 

I guess I know this from first-hand experience. ChinesePod is very much a CoP. Jenny, John, and I see ourselves more as resources and less as as the instigators or controllers of the learning. Learning there is not the result of teaching, but rather  as the result of the individual’s engagement with the resources. Our role as practitioners is therefore to demonstrate the models and propagate good learning practices -  it’s not the content alone that makes the learning happen but the society that froms around it. All of this is true to the CoP spirit. Here’s an example of how learners react (see the first paragraph).

Edublogger Steve Hargadon is rightly excited about these possibilities. In this excellent summary from last week, he identifies ten web 2.0 developments that will drive learning forward. He takes, as a starting point, the recent work of John Seely Brown (from whom I’ve also borrowed freely!) and he certainly does not underestimate the importance of collaboration.  It’s a must read. My own conclusion from it all (just to be consistent) is that it is not the knowledge or the learning per se that will bring about change, so much as the collaboration that inevitably follows. 

There will be collaboration and it will change everything.

Ken Carroll

 Although they come in an infinite variety, all networks are ultimately about nodes and connections with things (like data, for example) passing through them. (The flow can be two-way, such as on the internet, or a cell-phone network, or one-way, as with broadcast radio.)

Apart from information flow, networks exhibit other learning-friendly properties. We see these clearly on the internet. From random access data retrieval, to an endless array of presentation formats, the network allows us to learn in unique ways.

Networks have emergent qualities
Sometimes these properties are more than the sum of their parts, and emerge in ways you cannot predict. A thousand networked computers are not the same thing as a thousand computers without the connections. The connections mean that data can be shared and the learning can begin, which is good because human beings are pre-disposed to do just that if the environment supports it. I find it remarkable to see how people instinctively look for ways to collaborate (a powerful way to accelerate learning) in these contexts, so the trick is, obviously, to design for the possibility.

This chicken/egg relationship between the technology and the pedagogy (nature/nurture) has been a revelation to me. There is an element of simply starting out with an effective network and working from there. (The origional design must, obviously, know what its purpose is.) The academic team at ChinesePod know that the learning properties are sometimes invisible, but inherent to the network, so often it is a matter of uncovering them. What emerges, then, is not just the knowledge itself, but the knowledge also of how to go about learning it, and of the knowledge of how networks lead to learning in context. The learning is a product of the interaction, rather than something pre-packaged . 

Learning groups versus networks
Learners necessarily behave differently on a network than they would in a learning group. Stephen Downes recently pointed out how groups tend towards unity, coherence, segregation, and ‘focus of voice’. They require hierarchical organization, a central authority, and a pre-determined sequence of activities. They act in a synchronized way, as with a school, for example, because the knowledge to be imparted exists in advance (it is the teacher’s possession). The upshot is that a particular viewpoint is magnified by the perspective of the teacher, or external agency such as a textbook. 

By contrast, the ChinesePod or SpanishPod users are not  really  groups at all. Those networks are about diversity, autonomy, openness, and individual pursuit. Although there is constant and endless interaction in the communities, no two of the users follow exactly the same path. In this sense, the learning is not managed by some external agency, but by the individual, based on his own needs. This, to me, is important. I beleive the element of choice, personalization, and autonomy will inform  the standards of the next phase of online learning.

Ken Carroll