A year from now, soothsayers at symposiums will be sharing their wisdom that “as for Learning 2.0, it’s not the 2.0 that matters; it’s the learning.” Why wait? I’ll tell you right now that Learning 2.0 is a useless term. It does not add meaning to the conversation.
Several years ago, a manager told eLearning Forum that his company’s efforts to consolidate dozens of training efforts bogged down for three months while they struggled for a consensus definition of eLearning. Small wonder their stock has since lost 50% of its value. Let’s not make the same mistake with Learning 2.0.
Don’t get me wrong. Web 2.0, web services, openness, and interoperability lay a foundation for learning that is a hundred times more effective than the learning we are accustomed to. The dream of workers, workflow, and workspaces all humming along in harmony as nodes in a global network is delightful beyond imagination.
Better we devote our energy to integrating learning into the emerging technology and business landscape than to quibbling about whether incorporating mash-ups and wikis can transform regular learning into Learning 2.0.
Geez, before you know it Gartner would be selling magic quadrants for Learning 3.0 providers. Accenture would outsource only to Learning 4.0-qualified suppliers. IBM would counter with on-demand Learning 5.0 (Now, with services!). Elliott would host special events on Learning 6.0. Josh would sell reports on Learning 7.0 (You can blend 5.0, 6.0, & 7.0!). And I would still be ranting that this emperor has no clothes.
KIBIM is an ancient acronym from the days before SMS had been invented. It’s my final word on Learning 2.0. KIBIM is short for “Kill it before it multiplies.”
The opening Learning 2.0 graphic above? It is from a Swedish conference held five years ago.
The other images were created by Michael Erickson who released them to the public domain with the express purpose of enabling anyone to add visual modeling in their work.
Pingback: DJ Alchemi
As Christine Lavin noted, “there’s a mighty fine line / between a groove and a rut / a fine line between ‘eccentrics’ / and people who are just plain nuts.”
When your mental energy goes into the “2.0″ part, or trying to get people to adopt the terminology rather than the accomplishment, you risk crossing that mighty fine line.
One computer services firm I’m familiar with made a big splash about changing its name to show it too was “an internet company.” Part of the wondrous paradigm shift: the new name had the word “exchange” in it, and they capitalized the X.
Now, of course, you leave out letters (Flickr) or add numbers (Web 2.0) to show you’re not following a trend.
You hit the nail on the head, Dave. Of course, sometimes leaving out a letter makes a unique tag to search on, e.g. informL. Don’t mind me; I’m just being defensive.
Jay, I had not thought of the capital L and the missing A, and did not mean to sound rude. I apologize.
I think these things are much more acceptable from individuals than from large organizations, where the bandwagons are much larger, thus both harder to start and harder to stop.
I certainly sympathize with the need for a unique tag. The name of my personal blog for the unworkshop is Agam Fhéin.
Looks great, huh? It’s Scots Gaelic for “mine.”
Sometimes you just have to leave out letters because speculators have purchased every available word combination.