The E learning 2.0 report was authored by some big names in the industry, including Tony Karrer, Michele Martin, Jane Hart, Steve Wexler and Brent Schlenker; and is based on almost 3,000 replies from e learning professionals who are members of the guild. Overall, the whole membership is completely sold on the idea that e learning 2.0 works, with almost unanimous feeling that it had delivered substantial benefits to their organisation. Europe, Middle East and Africa are significantly further down the web 2.0 line than the rest of the world, with 57% reporting some use of e learning 2.0 compared with 39% in the US and 40% overall. (I have to say it would ahve been much more useful if europe had been separated from the middle east and africa to get a more nuanced view of adoption)
One key set of conclusions that seems to be buried at the back of the report if the ranking of web 2.0 tools in use by sector, which is topped by business e learning training providers followed by universities. However, if you look at this data a bit more carefully, you see that in the key areas of growth in web 2.0, blogs, wikis and, universities are way ahead and leading the pack by a substantial margin, with Europe and Asia/rest of world leading  the way by a significant margin over the USA.  Corporate e learning providers make massive use of electronic performance systems, learning games  and simulations, which greatly increases their overall score.

So this got me thinking, who is driving the adoption of e learning 2.0? To me it seems that universities and higher education, especially in outside of the USA, are playing a key role as the transitional zone between the workforce and companies, and are effectively giving the students who are coming from schools with a good grasp of the social networking tools that are out there but as the BECTA report noted, no real critical awareness of what these tools can do to enhance understanding and knowledge, and without the ability to evaluate and assess them effectively. Businesses, according to the guilds report, see the pressure from new younger staff to adopt web 2.0 as a major driver of the need for e learning 2.0, with 66% of respondents citing this as a major factor for them. 57% felt that Using web would allow their organisation to attract more and better talent. However, half felt that their staff didn’t have either the skills or the infrastructure to enable web 2.0 activities, and half felt that there want any real demand from staff to adopt them anyway. so there is a misfit between schools an industry, a misfit that higher education perhaps needs to bridge.

In terms of what guild members saw as the engines of adoption, 52% felt that their own personal use of tools was the most important factor, with only a third claiming that Learners or staff are requesting it, and just 25% that it was management driven.

Where it gets very interesting is in examining what members felt were the most effective strategies to drive forward the implementation of successful projects, with half citing engaging content as being the most important, and just less than half seeing management backing and tutoring as vital. Things like reward systems, helpdesk and internal advertising showed a poorer response, with less than 20% seeing them as significant. However, when the figures are broken down by length of e learning experience, a different picture emerges, with 44% of older, more senior specialists maintaining that effective change management was the most important thing.
One very interesting and slightly counter intuitive point is that the more experience a member has the more likely he or she is to embrace new approaches to education, with older members of the guild showing a higher propensity to use things like blogs, wikis, social networking and communities of practice.
So trying to make sense of this it seems to me that the real driving force behind e learning 2.0 is the e leaning community, especially its’ older, more established members, people like the team that put together the guild’s report, people with the significant important blogs, people like my fellow participants in the work literacy workshop, people who are in high enough positions within their organisations to effect change but not so high that they don’t have the time to experiment with web 2.0, to try it themselves and as Jane Hart maintains, lead by example. Within this, higher education is playing a key role in helping workers navigate the transition from using facebook and myspace as predominantly for entertainment, to using them for learning, understanding, knowledge production and analysis.

This certainly fits with my experiences of trying to move my institution forward, most of the growth has been grassroots, driven by individuals at course director level who are in their late 30’s to 50’s, and who have always used technology in their lives. They are now in positions where they can influence eat least the courses around them and drive forward the adoption of new ways of thinking, teaching and learning; management tend to be the generation above who haven’t the time nor the incentive to grapple with the tools, but are more than happy and supportive for us to do so. Slowly we are shifting though out of the e learning pocket into an e culture, where the tools that seem so new today will merge into our lives as seamlessly and ubiquitously as the internal combustion engine, the book, cell phones and the internet itself.

Web 2.0 is widely used by children, with over 74% having at least one social networking site account and the use of email and instant messaging is almost ubiquitous. However, most of this activity takes place OUTSIDE the school – 49% blogged outside of school with only 9% blogging inside school, whilst 69% had a social networking profile, but only 8% used it  within the  school. The only real area where school use was widespread was in the use of wikipedia, where over 73% used it in school. Only 8% of learners do not use Web 2.0 tools at all, and only 24% do not use social networking sites. But the really interesting part are the analysis of what these activities mean. The report finds that despite this high level of activity, there is “little evidence of groundbreaking activities and only a few embryonic signs of criticality, self-management and metacognitive reflection”
However, the report does acknowledge that web 2.0 can be useful in several key areas in shifting the pedagogy and methodology towards a new learning paradigm. Specifically, it finds that web 2.0 stimulates new modes of enquiry, in particular engaging in collaborative learning activities and engaging with new literacies. The report makes some fascinating comparisons between traditional school based learning and the new paradigm, making the following paired comparisons:

Private learning versus collaborative learning
Creative editing versus cutting and pasting (highlighting the danger sof the quick fix of cut and paste from the internet)
Serial processing versus parallel processing (and the growth of tagging and ‘folksonomy’)
Successive attention versus simultaneous attention (multitasking)
Authorised knowledge versus distributed knowledge (the need for some form of directed guidance to the web)

It also sounds a warning note as to why the adoption of web 2.0 may have to be a slow and steady progression, rather than an overnight sensation.  The report found that

‘Most teachers interviewed saw social networking as ‘play’, and as a medium to be discouraged in school. Most young people surveyed, however, saw social networking as usefully transient and private, occupying a space safely distant from the gaze of their teachers and parents.’

emphasising the division between school life and personal life.  But it also cites the new demands web 2.0 makes on learners to adopt new modes of learning, and the products of this learning then need to be accommodated into the school curriculum – how do we assess group collaborative work for example.

The report found that Web 2.0 approaches worked best when there were flexible models of learning, with Web 2.0 approaches embedded in the curriculum, both within and across subjects, coupled with support for student learning at home. This needed to be backed up with sufficient computer infrastructure, bandwidth, and technical support, and needed support and encouragement from senior management, with sufficient resources dedicated to training and development, especially for innovators. All this had to be backed up by a clear and reasonable e-safety policy that allowed maximum access possible whilst still providing adequate levels of protection for students.

The reports conclusion notes that
‘Perhaps one key implication for practice, therefore, is for evangelists, innovators and visionaries (and policy-makers) to take careful account of just how much is being asked of teachers in encouraging the wider implementation of Web 2.0, and to recognise that relatively slow and cautious progress is inevitable. That progress may require inspiration sustained with resources that meet both the infrastructure and pedagogic challenges. But it may also require deeper consideration of the wider fabric of curricula, assessment, and established practices for designing sites of teaching and learning.’
So the  need is  to take things slowly, build out from outposts of innovation and prove the need for web 2.0, and then see the transformations emerge organically from experience. What does this mean for higher education and businesses? Well at present it seems that children are going to emerge from school with a lot of experience of web 2.0 in their personal lives, but not much concept of how to apply that to other spheres. So the responsibility of educators at that level is going to be, at least for a generation or so, to provide the guidance and mentoring to allow learners to combine their familiarity with web 2.0 with a critical sensibility of how to use it to enhance their understanding of the world. We need to help them analyse and critique their world, and do that in a collaborative way through dialogue.

A recent presentation by Chris Lehmann sums it up really well, (thanks to kevin’s blog engaged learning for this, the slideshare is at ignite philly)  he calls for us  to ‘make technology like oxygen, ubiquitous, necessary and invisible’, and then use it to help students

Research:Collaborate:Create:Present:Network

A great clarion call for all levels of education!