In this article by Brown & Adler (2008), a case is made for the development of new learning based on the way the internet and society has developed. With the way society and careers have developed, the authors argue, there is a need for more, shorter and more accessible education. There are more people in need of education than ever before and this number is growing but there is also no longer the expectation that we will stay in one job for our whole lives; most people now change careers several times in their working life and therefore, more education is required to keep up. The solution to this is already available; technology enhanced learning. (Brown & Adler 2008 ) Bayne has already warned us about the implications of using this term in her article What’s the matter with’ technology enhanced learning’? (2015)

There is a very essentialist view of technology apparent in the article in that technology can be applied to education to enhance it whilst the technology stays immovable and unchanged. Several examples are used to show how technology can enhance learning by simply applying it to the course in question: Letting students access resources and telescopes, for instance. Or allowing more learners to access the course information; here the idea that mores students can be added to a course without improving the infrastructure or investing in staff is also quite simplistic. (Brown & Adler 2008)

The article is also based on the idea of learners as being self-directing and self-motivating, and uses the term ‘passion based learning’ (Brown & Adler 2008). Something that Biesta has warned us about is making our teaching more learner led which will dilute the role of the teacher to facilitator (Biesta 2012). Passion led learning assumes that the learner knows what it is he wants and needs to learn and although we can maybe expect to see this with adult learners and post graduate education, it is unlikely to be the case with younger learners. The idea of social learning is quite interesting; where a group of students can help each other with learning; ‘we participate, therefore we learn’ (Brown & Adler 2008). This concept seems useful if used in combination with lectures or conversations with a teacher, social learning by itself does not seem a solid enough basis for a complete course. In this scenario, a teacher is imperative to make sure the learning takes place in the way it was intended during the design of the curriculum.

All through the article, there is a sense of optimism about using technology in education as a solution to the difficulties faced by possible shortages of education in the future. The Web 2.0 can be used in so many different ways that there will be a technological solution suitable for everyone and every course will be made available for those who need it. The faith in technology seems absolute and the technology firmly ‘black-boxed’ (Hamilton & Friesen 2013), which leads to a rather blind faith in progress being made as long as technology is used.

Sian Bayne (2015) What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’? Learning, Media and Technology, 40:1, 5-20, DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2014.915851

Biesta, G. (2012). Giving teaching back to education: responding to the disappearance of the teacher. Phenomenology & Practice, 6(2), pp. 35-49.

Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: open education, the long tail, and Learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(1), pp. 16–32.

Hamilton, Edward C., and Norm Friesen in their article from 2013: “Online Education: A Science and Technology Studies Perspective.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 39

Learning 2.0 / Femke Morrison / An introduction to digital environments for learning (2020/2021)[SEM2] by blogadmin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0