Learning 2.0 “…an abomination…”

Posted on | October 17, 2009 | 16 Comments

Just a few snippets from one of the most narrow-minded, high-handed and crassly stupid blog posts I have come across in a long time, from one Robert Bacal:

Traditionally educators and trainers have not been leaders in intellectual pursuits….

….it is clear that many people who are becoming “experts” in education and training have little background in learning theory, or hard core research, and their behavior, intellectually, tends to be suspect….

….they may not be the intellectual bright spots, but they sure can “invent” silly term….

So we get abominations like Learning 2.0, or my favorite, “informal learning. The term informal learning, in particular, is laughable….

So, here’s a message for those out there who are creating new educational fads. Go learn about learning. At least well enough to understand how nonsensical these new terms mean to recognized, long term experts on learning. And stop conning people with terms like elearning 2.0, informal learning or whatever is coming tomorrow.

And from some of his comments following the post:

Many of the people using these “new” terms, and who are gaining some influence in education and corporations believe sincerely in their “inventions” of new words and have a very strong agenda which is ideological, and has nothing to do with better learning.

That’s the problem. The agenda is anti-establishment, anti-research, anti-intellectual, anti-university, and tends to demean organized and DISCIPLINED inquiry.

These emperors wear no clothes and I do not want them near children, schools, school systems or companies in any guise, because what they are going to achieve is the sucking of short supplied resources out of legitimate learning endeavors.

I’ve already had my say. Perhaps one or two others might like to contribute to this poor man’s education?

Thank you to Janet Clarey for the original link.

Technorati Tags: robert bacal, janet clarey, learning 2.0, informal learning

Category: Web 2.0, education, knowledge, learning, research, schooling

Comments

16 Responses to “Learning 2.0 “…an abomination…””

David Colquhoun
October 17th, 2009 @ 7:40 pm

I can’t comment on the original post, but the quotations remind me somewhat of a conversation with a newly-appointed professor of higher education. My first question to him was ‘are you interested in data?’. The answer was ‘not at all’. Later it emerged that he had post modernist tendencies (yes, there are a few of them left).

Until educational theorists learn the necessity of doing randomised experiments, their speculations will remain on a par with those of homeopaths.

That should get the discussion going.
John Connell
October 17th, 2009 @ 8:06 pm

Whether we like it or not, David, education is one of the humanities, fundamentally, although there are, undoubtedly, aspects of it that are amenable to genuine and rigorous scientific research. As such, education will always be a hotbed of speculation, philosophizing, dogma, ideology and perception. The results of much of the ‘educational research’ that happens are accepted or not depending on the point of view of the policy-maker or educator. Bacal’s problem (or one of Bacal’s many problems) is his inability, it would seem , to recognise this reality.

There is, of course, a rigorous science of medicine to which homeopaths and like have to (or should be made to) match their feeble notions. There will simply never be a similar ’science of education’ to sit alongside the true sciences.

Little corners of scientific rigour can be applied to little corners of education, and some of those corners might grow over time as we learn more and more about, for instance, how the brain functions. But as one of the humanities, the bulk of educational thinking will always be up for grabs by those who want to bend it to their own world-view.

Personally, I would not have it any other way.
Friday Freebies | Freebies Uncovered
October 17th, 2009 @ 8:29 pm

[...] Learning 2.0 “…an abomination…” : John Connell: The Blog [...]
David Colquhoun
October 17th, 2009 @ 10:37 pm

I should have thought that there are several areas that are quite amenable to proper testing.

Take, for example, the endless arguments about how to teach reading. Has anyone ever taken a large group of kids, divided them at random into two groups and tested the improvement in reading at the end? That’s a genuine question. I just don’t know. But if nobody has done this simple and obvious experiment, why should one waste time listening to their speculations?

The same approach could be taken to settling the endless arguments about how to select university entrants.
Paul Sludden
October 18th, 2009 @ 1:30 am

Had to laugh at the style and content of the “academic” debate on Mr Bacal’s page. Though not only with regards his own ramblings, but some of those in retort.

While I would distance myself from much of what he has to say, there is still a legitimate point he almost raises about being wary of accepting without proper scrutiny and reflection ideas regarding education in general and more specifially the use of technology in education.

ICT provides many great tools for the trade, so to speak; but it is foolhardy to embrace all new technologies without first assessing their benefits (and negative effects) on learning and teaching.
Used well, some new technologies have tremendous benefits; but equally, when used for the sake of using technology (intentionally or not), they can be more of a hinderence.

Slightly off topic, but something we’ve discussed in the past on Twitter, John, it is my true belief that in the same way that educators need to consider the different learning styles amongst a class of young people, so too must be consider the differing teaching styles of classroom educators. Some of the finest teachers I have encountered might struggle to send an email, but their positive impact on learning and teaching in the day-today reality of the classroom cannot be dismissed simply because they have not (yet … never say never!) embraced ICT as an integral tool.

And I feel Mr B has a point (though he never made this particularly clear) about the mis-use of technology. For example, recently I was asked by a colleague to find a use for Twitter in my English class. This could have been done easily, but the benefits of the exercise were lost on me. It seemed most likely the idea to “push” Twitter was arrived at from the viewpoint of using technology for the sake of using it, not for learning and teaching the subject (English), or for teaching young people about ICT. When we enter into this type of mindset (and I do not think this was the intention of my colleague), then we are in danger of losing focus on what is the main goal (learning and teaching), but also of setting back the case for using ICT more fully in Education: at “shop floor” level, teachers who are pesimistic about its use are less likely to be persuaded of the benefits if we are not careful and clear in our reasons for embracing it within Education and if the benefits are not there to be seen.
Paul Sludden
October 18th, 2009 @ 1:33 am

Oops, forgot to finish with … as usual, a very interesting blog, John, and one which again has done the job I think you set out to do: got us thinking about these things.

Looking forward as ever to the next post.

Best wishes,
Paul
uberVU - social comments
October 19th, 2009 @ 2:31 pm

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by JConnell: Learning 2.0 ‘is an abomination’, and ‘educators are not leaders in intellectual pursuits’ http://bit.ly/2GGHNN Really?…
Joe Nutt
October 19th, 2009 @ 4:09 pm

John and Paul, you both might enjoy a piece in the Telegraph by Andrew Keen on this whole question of the risk and value of web 2.0 etc to children.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/social-media/6324960/Is-social-networking-bad-for-our-children.html

And I have to say Paul’s post simply reeks of professionalism and experience. Quite the opposite of the odour coming off most online writing about this topic!
John Connell
October 19th, 2009 @ 5:30 pm

Joe, I don’t usually welcome invitations that include the words ‘Andrew Keen’ and ‘enjoy’ in the same sentence, but the Tele piece was actually rather a mellow one from Keen. Of course, I still question his stance, but he does seem, on this evidence, to be relaxing his rhetoric a little. Just a pity he had to refer to the good Baroness, of course.
David Miller
October 20th, 2009 @ 5:00 pm

Someone mentioned scientific research, it is a shame that science is typically seen as the final answer. The basis of the scientific method is that we do not know all the answers and are to be open minded.

True science is indeed more art than anything else. isn’t anything we humans do simply an interpretation of our paradigms? True objectivity does not exist. Don’t agree? Well why are Nobel laureate physicists searching for the meaning of God?

Being open minded does not mean you agree with everything but are at least tolerant to listen and maybe learn a little.

As to the use of new terms, I say let’s revive latin. Who needs language to evolve and express what life is all about? I think we should stop trying to express reality as best we can.

I need to see why I have not profited in my use of the term Web2.0?

This is simply my opinion (as is anything anyone holds to be true).
David Colquhoun
October 23rd, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

I wonder whether David Miller is a scientist himself?

His last sentence strikes mere as pure relativism. It’s more worthy of a homeopath than a serious discussion. But it is the sort of attitude that often pervades discussions by educational theorists. I suppose that is why educational theorists get such a bad press from those who teac.
David Miller
October 23rd, 2009 @ 2:29 pm

Why not ask David Miller? It sounds as though “the sort of attitude” must be wrong! Wording such as that, as well as “serious discussion” are intended to belittle my opinion. Which I would venture to say is as valid as yours.

It is a shame that it seems I must choose in being one or the other and not have the ability to be open to both. If my attitude is wrong, then forgive me for thinking I had a right to exoplore free thinking, or even express myself.

Well, you tell me if I count as a real teacher and scientist. Masters in Geology from the University of Texas. Three years secondary science teaching, seven years college teaching of geology and environmental science at the largest college in the US, 11 years as a geochronologist, and 5 years as a eLearning developer.

In addition, I have been teaching at conferences, workshops, and online forums and have video tutorials online. That seems like a certain degree of real teaching to me.

I certainly am not in a competition with your accolades and would hold that as far as education theorists go, you could qualify far higher than I.

As to dishonest science (and scientist), what about that Einstein guy? As with Newtonian physics, we see that Einstein was flawed as well. But what the heck would I know about real science and real education? =D

And the tag line of this blog “The point is not to interpret the world but to change it” is quite good and the same holds with judging others, I suppose.
David Colquhoun
October 23rd, 2009 @ 4:39 pm

@David Miller

I was asking you and thanks for your response.
Nobody would quarrel with “The basis of the scientific method is that we do not know all the answers and are to be open minded.” That’s obvious. But your last line is not a consequence of it.

You say “This is simply my opinion (as is anything anyone holds to be true)”.

To take the obvious, trite example, do you really think that the opinion that the earth is flat is worth as much as the opinion that it is an oblate spheroid?

If you don’t acknowledge that some things are objectively true then there would be no point in doing science and we could all become homeopaths or chiropractors who feel free to make stuff up.
David Miller
October 23rd, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

That is a great example and I am open to the idea that Earth may indeed be flat. I don’t believe that, but knowing that gravity bends light and space, I can not say the the Earth is not flat. Seeing is not believing in this case (for me anyway). My eyes simply register wavelengths in a very narrow spectrum and light is bent, in theory, so that things appear round, et cetera. Clovers are blue to bees but white to me. I have never seen wind but believe that it exists. I can only see the effects of wind.

Objectively true? Well, we have a house of cards for much of science. We base so much on the Atomic Theory. We are not able to even prove this fundamental block that chemistry, physics, and so on, are built upon.

All this to say that I am open (to a degree) and recognize that I have paradigms to which I am shackled. I do indeed have my beliefs, especially the ones I have invested much energy into.

The opinion that Earth is flat, or was the centre of the universe, was once worth more than our current opinion.

Opinion being a key word. Maybe quantum particles ultimately exist only because we expect them to and dreamtime is absolutely correct.

I simply express the humility in that I know very, very little of the universe or the human mind.

We live in a wonderful place where you and I who are separated by miles can carry on a discourse such as this.

This is the true magic of science and then technology. Who would have conceived of being able to communicate like this?

You are spot on with your last statement of people making things up. Somehow, wholesale fabrication of stuff goes on unchecked in science, politics, and more.

Tools like the internet help, perhaps a naive belief, in creating a greater transparency on false issues.

But I know I am naive in that as long as many of us believe that what happened on American Idol is more important than what goes on in many places in the world.

I wish you the very best (I enjoy your blog and think you have shed much needed light on many things pseudo-scientific).
David Colquhoun
October 23rd, 2009 @ 9:25 pm

David Miller
Thanks very much for your last sentence, at least. The interesting thing about it is that it does acknwledge the existence of pseudo-science.

But since you also say “I am open to the idea that Earth may indeed be flat”, I’m still puzzled by how you distinguish real from pseudo.

Perhaps it is an illistration of DC’s rule number two: never trust anyone who uses the word ‘paradigm’ (rule number one is never trust anyone who uses the ’stakeholder’).
David Miller
October 23rd, 2009 @ 9:50 pm

lol, why should you be thankful of anything I say? (I suddenly feel important, but still slighted with the “at least” jab). Science is anything but an absolute. Look at the latest discovery in anthropology. Is there a line somewhere dividing science from other apsects of life?

For me to have such firm absolutes would be contrary to what I think being open minded means.

DM’s rules include taking rules such as this with a grain of salt and the word paradigm is lovely. Certainly applies nicely to the shift from flat Earth to round Earth.

It takes 68 pages to prove that one plus one is two. So proving more complex concepts seems to beg for an open mind.

DM’s other rule: anything is possible. Man has flown to the moon. Phenomenal indeed and completely born purely from thought and fantasy.

Lol, I also believe we are all related to everything in the universe because I do believe in something like the Big Bang. Although it too is just a well developed theory.

I also believe that Elizabeth is my Queen since I am Canadian and that life is too short to not pursue your passions. Such as you do with every fibre of your being.

Continue questioning, if more people did, we would likely have fewer challenges in life.

Namas te.