We recently made a commitment internally to mobile learning at Praxis Language. I guess I’ll be talking a lot about it in the future. Here are some thoughts for today.

One type of context

In the past, schools provided the physical context for most learning - the setting (or shell) that surrounded the learner (classrooms, teachers, textbooks.) Mobile learning, by contrast, lacks a unifying physical context. It can occur uninterrupted across times, locations, and settings: from office, to car, to meeting, to airport, for example.

An effective mobile learning system must, therefore, seek to create portable ‘islands’ of context for the learner. One way to do that is by embedding context in discrete, reusable, learning objects. You can see here some examples of situated, stand-alone lessons with an audio (circa 12 mins) text, and reinforcement. The content is embedded in the target language and augmented through sound effects, and other elements to give it a sense of concreteness.

The modularity of the learning objects means they can be selected at will, according to individual preference from a very sizable online database - over 1,000 lesson in the case of ChinesePod. I think it is notable that the user can group individual learning objects into sets (of whatever lengths she chooses) on the basis of vocabulary, topics, or other things. In this sense, the learner can create the broader context (travel, business, culture, grammar, etc) for herself, based on her true reasons for study.

A second type of context 

There is a second type of context in mobile learning. This lies, not in the physical surroundings, but in the intangible ones: the relationships, and social ties that emerge through learner interaction. Unlike the learning objects, this type of context cannot be pre-planned. Instead, it follows from discussion within the community of practice. Again, the learner should be free to choose where and when to engage in discussion within the community.

Choice 

Choice is the lifeblood of a mobile learning system. The learning needs to happen wherever and whenever the learner has the time and inclination. Those islands of context, the learning objects, need to be designed for choice, but also for the environment in which they are consumed. A broad selection of short lessons is, therefore, almost certainly more manageable and appealing than, say, a pre-programmed, linear course of 65 hours. (Why would anyone do a course by mobile means, when there are more convenient ways?) Because of the desultory nature of physical movement, the mobile learner needs choice and flexibility.

The most successful learning happens when the learner is on control of her own learning projects. Mobile learning success isn’t just a matter of just choosing the lessons. It invovles the learner creating the broader context of her own learning and moulding the system around her own needs. This is the idea behind the PLS and this is what infroms our notions of mobile learning going forward.

 Ken Carroll
 

I’m thinking about mobile learning - how it will work, and why it is significant. Gary Woodill’s recent paper provides a simple, and helpful description:

True mobile learning is personalized learning that unites the learner’s context with cloud computing, using a mobile device.

Clearly, electronic devices that allow access (at least intermittently) to the information-cloud are essential to mobile learning. Fine. Right now, by using an RSS feed and an iPod you are pretty much in the mobile learning club. ‘Mobile’, to me, is not an end in itsellf. It should merely seek to integrate, or blend, the broader learning experience.

Clearly, however, all of this is going to get more sophisticated. I also agree that personalization is of real significance in mobile learning. Personalization is an unstoppable trend - the iPhone 3G is basically a personal, ubiquitous, hand-held computer. (Personalization to me, is analagous to learning on your terms.) That’s fine too. However, these are characeristics of the technology, rather than the learning and we know from previous experience that just building out the tech is not enough. There needs to be something else in the equation.

The most obvious characteristic of mobile learning is the freedom - no walls, no schedules, no time or location confines. But in order to take advantage of all the freedom the mobile learner must be empowered to meet certain learning criteria: to access, to manage, to participate in the right information, and the right conversations, at the right time. (Of course, only the individual can know what the ‘right’ means here.) Again, this is something that goes beyond the technology. In my view, it might come down to communities of pactice as a source of those things.

There is a pull here, between the personal and the social: It doesn’t matter how smart or personal your phone is, learning remains social, a ‘conversation’, in Mike Sharples words, rather than a solitary activity. Let’s not make the mistake of thinking of the device is the source of the learning. It isn’t. But it can become one (integrated) conduit of that learning as conversation.

I see other things emerging from my direct experience with producing mobile lessons. Here are a few quick observations that will be relevant, I think, going forward:

One: Learning content has to be engaging. Regardless of how sexy the iPhione is, it’s not the plumbing that counts, it’s what you do with it.

Two: The medium is the message. You can’t just pile extraneous content onto the mobile medium and expect it to work. The best learning content will be designed for the medium.

Three: Learning objects, ideally need to be manageable, searchable, sharable, and ‘device agnostic’ - again, designed for the medium.

Four: The user’s history of collaboration, and other learning interaction must be accessible over the devices

Five: Not every type of learning will work on the mobile medium.

As I say, I think Praxis Language are already operating in the realms of mobile learning through ChinesePod and the rest. Now it’s time to explore it in more depth. (I think we will be hearing more from Hank Horkoff in this regard.)
Ken Carroll

Harold Jarche writes about how the traditional ‘business model’ of the universities is under pressure. Universities evolved in in another era and remain stacked with inefficiencies (cost, structural, learning inefficiencies). Harold posits language learning as an area where innovators are working around these inefficiencies.

Yes. There is indeed a good deal of innovation coming from private operators, using the web to build out distribution, reduce costs, and explore the possibilities of the new media. Some of the most interesting work and discussions on pedagogy is also being done on the web and this is providing tremendous energy and insight for innovators. (I’m not sure there is anything that dynamic in ESL research at the moment.) It’s a unique situation and it’s all happening really fast.

I’m not sure how the universities are supposed to keep up, though it’s clear that they could certainly benefit from these innovations. I think a PLS, for example, would provide a lot more value to a university student than the old, static language labs that still dominate campuses. Nor is there any reason why students now have to be tethered to the location/scheduling and other needs of the institution in order to consume, practice, and learn from the teachers and community.

But the question of how far the institutions will open up remains. My guess is that institutional change will be slow, perhaps even really slow. That leaves people like us to continue to develop innovative solutions, create as much value as we can for learners, and perhaps to point to the future.

So, whatever about the institutions, the future for the life long learner looks more more like a Personal Learning Environment and less like a quadrangle. Surely learning in the future will have to conform more and more to the needs of the individual.

In that vein, we launched ItalianPod today. The ItalianPod team are the youngest of the 4 teams with tons of smart ideas and creative energy. They have brought new levels of drama and culture to the lessons that I think are remarkable. (I urge you to see for yourself.) I also know that, from every perspective these guys are out to innovate and improve. I can only imagine what they will be doing a year from now.

Ken Carroll

This is not how I see it. The real purpose of education, I believe, centers around  the pursuit of truth. The teacher’s role is to help learners find truth, not to instill a particular political view of the world, and still less to set them on a course of active subversion that the teacher chooses.  

There is no single truth in politics or morality. No paradigm explains either, and no teacher can ‘know’ political truths -  he can only hold opinions.  The learner has to be free to seek truth and form his own conclusions. To my mind, imparting political  ’truth’ is a form of coercion, something you find amongst ideologues or authoritarian systems. I believe teachers have a moral obligation not to push their own political agenda in the classroom.

As citizens in a democracy we have obligations (not just rights) towards it.  Subversion for its own sake is not one of them.  There is a difference between fairly debating the good and the bad in our society, and encouraging students to undermine it.  If teaching is subversive it is unlikely to present both sides of the issues. So, imbuing students with hostility towards their own democratic tradition (even where we vehemently disagree with a particualr government) is an anti-democratic thing to do. Consider the company you keep in that category.

It  may be true that, as an individual, you are either working to support political status quo, or working against it. But again, this is an issue for outside the classroom. Students are not our pawns - they also have rights. We are not hired to subvert, just  ask your employers, the parents, the learners themselves.

Ideology (again)

 The edupunk debate was a watershed. What for me was a discussion about a really bad software company was for others an issue of ideology. Can of worms: the people who drew anti-corporate political messages about Blackboard need to consider this: 

 If “edupunk” is anti-establishment and anti-corporation, does that mean a true Edupunk does not use any tools provided by large-scale companies? So does that mean no Google? no Flickr? no QuickTime? Alas - these are all tools provided by corporations. (Link.)

Neither this case, nor society at large, can be defined in terms of class warfare or one group oppressing another on the basis of ideology. That is way too reductionistic a view of society. (It’s also unnecessarily confrontational.) Besides, it is fully possible to take Blackboard to task without resorting to ideology. Politicization makes proper discussion untenable, particulalrly where it is reduced to Marxist analysis. 

Of course it is true that a free society has its own ideology. Many, many layers of meaning and ideology underlie free societies, but these include the ideology of democracy itself, of free speech, and of economic freedom, etc. It may even be true, as Gramsci pointed out, that one of the ideological foundations of democracy is that democracy does not have ideology, when of course it does. Either way, no single paradigm captures the complexity of an economic or social system. All it will do is distract from the real issue of learning.

Note, too that we have formed our own hierarchy in the edublogosphere. At the head of it sits Stephen. Like the rest of you I read Stephen assiduously, because I learn from him every time. He simply is a leading light in this field. But whether he likes it or not, Stephen has become an authority. Shouldn’t we be subverting authority figures? Is he oppressing us with his ideology? (No, he is not.) How about a cultural revolution? An attack for the sake of it? How much sense would that make? Not much.

I don’t plan on writing about politics again, so let me just say that subversion for its own sake is wanting. My vote is to keep ideology out of this debate. Can we just stick to the learning?  

 Ken Carroll

Am I the only one to find this Edupunk meme ridiculous? The adolescent ethos, music, etc, are matched only by the adolescent narcissism,  anger, wilful non-conformity,  sanctimony, and tirades against authority. Fine, except this is all coming from teachers!  

No seven ages of man here. These guys look intellectually and emotionally indistinguishable from their students. In keeping with that ethos comes their abhorrence for  The Man, the capitalist who is at the root of all Edupunk problems, and the guy who oppresses society, and the downtrodden. Normally, only teenagers take the time and energy to seek out with such vehemence these archetypal injustices. Are these father-figure issues? (You have to wonder at times, what must go on in their classrooms.)

But that rage contrasts with a dopamine credulity towards those who claim that ‘ industrial capitalism is a ridiculous game’ or the depravity of things like the DIY culture.  It was a destitute Marxist trope that animated this meme last week, via a science-fiction novel, written, btw, by a guy who flirted with Naziism.  It is from that novel that they lifted the ugly communist/fascist metaphors - vultures of capital, and captialism’s will to power, etc, to attack, er, Blackboard.  (As if that target were otherwise likely to go unnoticed.) The rebellion as  temper tantrum, had begun.

Now, Edupunks  are starting a movement  to expropriate power from the capitalists (and with cool music supplied by all the major labels!) Apart from that, there is nothing new from them.

 Except that Edupunks are seeking to politicize (and I would argue, infantilize) discussion in this space. Already this has begun. If there is one thing worse than what Blackboard is doing it is the attempt to reduce this discussion to ideology. I don’t know about you, but I do not see counter-culture and conspiracy as serious educational domains. 

 It is also dismaying to see the lack of edublogger critiques. Everybody loves Edupunks, it would seem. (I thought this was all about multiple perspectives, not an echo-chamber.) So here is my take: Allowing Edupunks to define themselves as agents of humanitarian uplift is absurd. Forty year old tenured men in hoodies, talking about revolution is no more than perpetual adolescence and self-indulgence.  By appointing themselves as the Defenders the Oppressed they are pre-empting the right to lecture on the subject. Personally I reserve that right for someone with a grown-up argument and a relatively serious attitude.

Of course they have the right to say whatever they wish and that is fine. Ultimately, however, I would not recommend that we politicize learning 2.0 and certainly not by reducing it to the level of  of DIY culture. Have they raised a real issue after all?

 Ken Carroll

We’ve called the new platform the Personalized Learning System, or PLS. The PLS has one obsessive objective: to allow the user in every way possible to fit the learning around her own needs (rather than forcing her to conform to some outside requirements). In this sense, the PLS is consistent with Personal Learning Environments, and of course, with our own philosophy of learning on your terms. The lifelong learner simply has to have ownership/control of the learning. Perhaps the PLS would fit as a language learning toolkit within a PLE to enable that control.

The autonomous learner

The old teacher/student hierarchies implode on the web. Good. Those were social structures, not learning structures anyway. Nonetheless, learning does involve (at least partly) a social exchange, so we need new social structures to give form to the new learning while preserving the all-important freedom to choose. I think the distributed community of practice that is now forming around FrenchPod is one example.

But drawing the line between autonomy and guidance is tricky. Doing too much for the learner robs him of ownership and control, while doing too little has obvious implications. In our experience, real life learners almost certainly want efficiency and convenience. They also expect a learning service to reduce the learning curve for them and provide guidance - learning how to learn is valuable. These basic requirements form the substance of what we call the PLS. (I would note that I mean users, not in a theoretical, abstract sense, but paying customers and almost 3 years of feedback.)

Focus on one subject

The PLS starts with a single discipline and solves a single problem - in this case, learning French. This singular focus means we have a shared social object, a necessary requirement for a social/collaborative CoP. It also means that we can integrate the elements and that users can dive in, immerse themselves in the resources, and develop a live culture of learning the language.

How did it start?

From the get-go (2005) our strategy was to apply web 2.0 tools to do new things for language learning (with the two-way medium, RSS syndication, etc). It was designed for the individual (rather than the institution) with a focus on accessibility. The value creation came through fitting the learning into the learner’s lifestyle (rather than the other way around) and allowing him to hit the ground running with a functioning system. Hank Horkoff’s first ChinesePod blog post explained this pretty well in September 2005.

The Elements

The fundamental concepts have not changed since 2005, but the platform has developed quite dramatically. Here are the key elements of the PLS as it now exists:

• The Learning Media - a large database of learning objects, plus a new release every day to stimulate interest and community focus. The lessons offer a trusted source of materials in a manageable format - short lessons with many consumption options, tagged according to topics, vocab, structures, etc. (ChinesePod now has almost 1,000 lessons to choose from.)
• The Open Community - a social/collaborative learning environment that functions as a community of practice. This offers the learner immediate access to others on the network with whom they can interact, converse, and learn from.
• The Personalization features - tools and content options for the individual, including mobile features and ways to free the learner from the computer.

Pedagogy

The philosophy behind the PLS is social constructivist with elements of connectivism, cognitivism (in particular, Krashen’s input theory) humanism, the social/situational model, and communities of practice.

Level of autonomy

Learning on your terms means having as much choice in the learning decisions as possible.  As I wrote in a year ago:

The act of formulating your own goals, choosing your own inputs, etc, helps you focus and commit to your course of study. It allows you to align your behaviors with your objectives. In my experience, this motivates more effectively than someone telling you what to do, or making the decisions for you. (Methinks we all had enough of that in school.)

 We hope the result is a ubiquitous, immersive, learning environment over which the learner has a great deal of control. 

Both ChinesePod and SpanishPod have also been upgraded to PLS status.

Ken Carroll

Most traditonal language teaching focused on grammar, tests, and structures - the forms, in other words - often to the exclusion of the way that people actually spoke the target language.  This practice remains very much the focus of language teaching in China.

The structural approach contrasts with communicative language teaching (CLT). CLT goes beyond structures to look at how language functions:  as a tool for communication in real-world situations. CLT is therefore empirical and concerned with function as well as form.

Knowing the structures alone will not afford you a natural communicative ability in a new language. You have to know how people actually speak. There are endless grammatical ways you could express even the simplest thing in English, but just because a sentence is grammatically correct, it doesn’t mean it is something that native speakers would ever say. In fact, using grammar to generate odd sentences can create odd effects.  Native speakers of English tend to draw from  set phrases and lexical chunks throughout communication. Word choice depends on your social purpose, and subtle changes in word choice can make a big difference the social meaning you convey. The subtlety works because these phrases have acquired cultural connotations that native speakers can read.

[Poor, or inappropriate word choice is actually a greater barrier to communication than grammar, and the best communicators are not necessarily those who construct the best sentences. I’ve seen this time after time at my language schools here in Shanghai.]

Another apect of the problem is using over-formalized English i.e. the type of English that is taught in schools in China.  This tends to create a social distance, even where both parties are seeking to bond. The process is unconscious, but failure to adopt the conventions of a given social group can suggest an unwillingness to enter into it. I’ve observed this in the way that Chinese speakers of English sometimes use the language, particularly at the early stages of fluency. Having studied only the structures of English (and often through a process of memorization) many of them adopt the overly formal idiom of the textbook (written by Chinese professors who may never have spoken the language). I’ve even seen people memorize phrases to use at informal social events. This strategy tends to send all sorts of formality signals and creates an atmosphere that is a block to closer contact. This phenomenon is more acute amongst men and I beleive  is the reason why bonding between Chinese and western men tends to end at the workplace. (Most of the wesntern men I know here do not to socialize much with Chinese men outside the work context.)

Ken Carroll

 Note: This post is one of several in this month’s Work/Learning Blog Carnival over at Manish Mohan’s blog. 

Mixing sociology with education was not something language teachers did in the past. Nor was it something that hard-headed managers did in the work environment. Recently, however, we have all been forced to look at learning in social networks and online communities. The web is creating new social structures that pertain to learning, but we understand very little about their dynamics. Sociology is providing some insights.

In this vein, I am reading the excellent,’ Communities of Practice,  Creating Learning Environments for Educators’.  The book edited by two British academics, Chris Kimble and Paul Hildreth.  Professor Kimble describes his work as  ’socio-technical in the sense that I am interested in how best to ‘manage’ the fit between technology and the social world’ and he has written on the subject of learning networks in the past.

The (2 volume) book is highly informative and thought provoking. The first volume deals with colocated (offline) CoPs, while volume 2 looks at distributed or virtual environments.

For a newcomer (like myself) there is sometimes the feeling that sociological observation tends towards stating the obvious. (This is an issue I also had with Clay Shirky’s recent book until I got into the mindset). The very concept of a CoP has left several of my management and academic colleagues non-plussed. (’If they have always existed then what’s the big deal?’) There is something slightly elusive about these concepts on  first blush.

Finding the value, however, comes down to what you’re looking for. This book hammers home the fact that social/group formats radically influence the way we learn. In a virtual environment, this is precisely what I have been looking for, so the insights are particularly welcome. Interestingly, however, many of  the observations apply equally well to colocated groups and especially for teacher training. I’m not sure why we language tachers have so studiously ignored this line of thinking for decades, but generally speaking, we have.  

 Applying it in the workplace

But there are other applications, and the work environment is one. Let me give you an example of a simple concept that I was able to cull from the book and apply in a concrete way in my own work. Volume 1 has a chapter called The Reflective Mentor Model, by Robbin Nicole Chapman. The author takes Papert’s (1980) notion of Constructionism to show that ‘people learn best when actively engaged in designing and building construcing artifacts to share with and critique by others’.

As it happens, I recently found the perfect context in which to apply this constructionist approach and it has worked very well. At the moment, we’re in the process of inducting (training?) some new hosts for the podcast lessons - we’ll be launching FrenchPod and ItalianPod. Instead of simply telling them how to do that we’ve focused them on producing ‘artifacts’, that is samples of the lessons they eventually aspire to. We encourage participatns to produce a much as possible - a lesson per day, for example. After that, we get together with them as well as practitioners of differing levels/experience, to reflect, discuss, and offer feedback.

The focus on doing has been literally very productive. Discussion are focused and concrete, the process of learning, visible. We blog as we go along, and we link to samples of the artifacts as we do so. We’ve also started recording the feedback sessions themselves and linking to those, too.  

This approach has been very beneficial on many levels. For one thing, we are now developing an archived history of the learning that can be used in the future, including learner comments and all the rest. Most of all, the new hosts are learning the skills in an efficient and productive way. They are learing by doing, in collaboration with people who have a level of expertize in the field.  

This particular initiative is no more than a few weeks old, but I can see how some of the concepts that underlie group dynamics  could be very powerful in teacher training - powerful enough to unsettle how the whole thing has been done for so long. I hope too, that I’ve shown how one simple idea was applied to a real work situation effectively.

I’ve taken many new insights from this book, but I’ve only had time to go into one of them. One thing is sure, though, there’s mileage in this socoiology stuff after all.

Ken Carroll

Her argument is somewhat muddled. The sub-heading doesn’t follow meaningfully from the title. It reads

Ten reasons podcasts don’t work for education…

So first, podcasts are inferior to text, and then they just don’t work for education. If the second statement did follow from the first, would it then mean that, apart from text, no other medium had any value in education? (You could probably argue that every medium is inferior to text, in that sense.) Should e-learning then stick to text only at that rate? Hmmm.

Given these types of logical implications, it seems an odd direction for her to take. But a comparison between text and podcast is moot anyway, because no-one has ever suggested that podcasts were superior to text, that they should be isolated from it, or that they should replace it, etc. As one ChinesePod learner, Dave, commented

I don’t like the idea of placing text in the ring versus podcasts because both offer different benefits. It seems analogous to comparing the virtues of vitamin D with vitamin C–they’re both good for you so creating a scenario where they ought to battle it out is absurd.

The real issue

The real question, to my mind concerns whether podcasting can enhance text, or go beyond it. My answer is yes it can, and for most subjects. With language learning this is obvious - podcasts provide up-to-date audio samples of the target language, often upon user request or in response to a problem. (Imagine learning languages from, ahem, text only.)

Secondly, when properly designed, audio can very effectively intergrate other elements. At SpanishPod, we use the podcasts, not just for samples of the language, but also for commentary: hosts talk about the content (grammar, vocabulary, culture) in a spontaneous, two-way, exchange that adds the human element that textbooks cannot. Lessons become events that bond practitioners with learners, personalize the experience, and aid memory. Human conversation brings an emotional dimension to the content and triggers cognitive faculties that text alone cannot. (More engagement, more learning.) It allows practitioners demonstrate and offer insights into managing context as well as cultural insights, socio-cultural competence, discourse competence, language awareness, register, pragmatics, and a number of things that textbooks traditionally do not.

And all of this is actually hyper-efficient: natural human conversation is way, way more efficient than formal, written exposition for many purposes. Podcasts also allow for sound effects, stories, guesswork, cognitive depth, humor, and more.

It is true that you cannot search a podcast as you would a text. But there are endless ways to deal with that problem: We separate the core dialog from the rest, for example, so that listeners can simply click on the part they wish. Meanwhile breaking down the podcast on a structured basis also helps. With SpanishPod, for example, you have the

• Intro
• Dialog
• Translation
• Commentary
• Dialog repetition
• Cultural Observations
• Ending

A standardized approach to the audio design means that users know the times where they find each of these elements after 2 or 3 listens. I’ve never actually heard a user complain of getting lost in the audio because lesson are short and there are clues all over the place.

I actually believe that audio and visuals are the great new frontier that, when integrated with text, will open all sorts of new learning possibilities. I won’t be abandoning these inferior media, but continuing to spend thousands of hours delving deeper into them. Clearly, however, we are all at an early stage of understanding the new media.

I’ve tried to contact Lisa. I may ask to see if she’ll give me a space on E Learning Magazine to explain why I love podcasting. It’s time to let the world know about this!

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