there is a great discussion over at the connectivism blog about the terms web 2.0, teaching 2.0, and learning 2.0. in my mind, george siemens is one of the true though leaders in education today. check connectivism out. here is my two cents in the 2.0 discussion.
as a label and a concept web2.0 makes good sense to me. one, it's technology. technology uses a versioning approach. two, it's a huge shift in technology that is happening and not just in the learning arena.
teaching 2.0 makes some sense, but i worry that too many instructors will cling to the old ways and methods til the bitter end. some of those will give mouth service to web2.0 technologies (use a wiki to write your term paper, but make sure it's no more than 20 pages long and double spaced when you turn it in. doh!) to me teaching 2.0 would include the abolition of linear term papers, team learning (including transuniversity even transnational teams) becoming superior to individual knowledge aggregation, plagerism disappearing as a concept (because citations would be in the metadata of the concepts), and student won't gain admission to a school but will be awarded an apprenticeship with a department. then you're talking something equivalent to web2.0.
as for learning 2.0 i just think the term is so limiting in concept to what truly in happening. are "new ways" of learning
being accepted more and more over the past few decades? you bet. but learning styles research, gardiner's work on multiple intelligences, and similar efforts have not created new ways of learning. they've merely liberated those styles of learning from a tyranny of the dominant paradigm. a paradigm whose genesys is often associated with aristotle and the greeks, given credence by aquinas and institutionalized by the industrial revolution.
no wonder this emancipation seems like a shift worthy of the label of 2.0!
one of the things that has appealed to me about web 2.0 is that it
seems we are actually beginning to align the tools we use to organize
our individual and group conceptualizations of the world to the way the
human mind works. the more we learn about what that amazing machine
between our ears does second to second, the more ridiculous our past
conceptualizations about learning sound. concepts which seemed cutting
edge just 20 years ago are, in reality, simple minded and limiting.
maybe the discomfort with the term learning 2.0 comes from the fact
that learning 2.0 happened a very long, long time ago but someone