From Learning 1.0 to Learning 2.0

Key Concepts and Enablers

Sami M. Leppänen

and Nestori Syynimaa

1,2,3

Sovelto Plc, Helsinki, Finland

Founder, Gerenios Ltd, Tampere, Finland

School of Information Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland

Keywords: e-Learning, Learning 2.0, Andragogy, Adult Learning, 70/20/10.

Abstract: During the last few decades the learning sector have faced three fundamental changes; society is moving from

the industrial age to the information age, understanding of adult teaching has evolved from pedagogy to

andragogy, and technology is constantly providing new ways to support and enable learning. In this

conceptual paper, these changes are introduced and discussed as key enablers of Learning 2.0. The important

role of adult learning as key driver for Learning 2.0 is also argued and emphasised. Based on the analysis of

the key enablers a two-dimensional classification is introduced. The classification is based on four archetypes

of learning methods, formed according to how they utilise technology and apply learning theories. The

archetypes are traditional learning, e-Learning, participatory learning, and facilitated learning communities.

Analysis of these archetypes shows that together they are providing all learning types of the 70/20/10 model.

The classification also demonstrates that e-Learning does not equal to Learning 2.0, but is one of the first

steps in a journey from Learning 1.0 to Learning 2.0.

1 INTRODUCTION

During the last few decades learning sector have

faced three fundamental changes. First, as a society,

we are in the process of moving from the industrial

age to the information age (Castells, 2011). Second,

our understanding of teaching adults has evolved

from pedagogy to andragogy (Knowles, 1970). Third,

technology is constantly evolving in giant leaps

providing new ways to support and enable learning.

The growth of e-Learning during the last few years is

reflecting the speed of the aforementioned changes.

For instance in community colleges in the USA,

technology enabled distance learning has increased

over 32 percent from 2008 to 2013 (Lokken and

Mullins, 2014).

In this paper, we will demonstrate that e-Learning

is not equal nor synonym to Learning 2.0. Instead, we

will show that it is one of the firsts steps in a journey

from Learning 1.0 to Learning 2.0. We start by

introducing the key concepts and enablers of

Learning 2.0, followed by introduction of a two-

dimensional framework to classify different learning

and teaching methods. We will also argue and

emphasise the important role of adult learning as a

key driver for Learning 2.0.

2 LEARNING 2.0 ENABLERS

2.1 Changes in Society

As we are moving from the industrial age to the

information age, our needs for learning are also

changing. In the industrial age it was possible to work

in the same occupation with the same employer for

the whole adult life. The career started typically by

applying for a school, followed by studying the pre-

defined curricula and resulting to graduation for a

vocation. The curricula was mainly same for all

studying for the particular vocation regardless of

individual interests.

In the information age the roles of employees are

different from those in the industrial age. Roles are

more individual and task specific than in the

industrial age. This leads, naturally, to different

learning and training needs. Indeed, we have

witnessed shifting from teacher-centered to learner-

307

M. Leppänen S. and Syynimaa N..

From Learning 1.0 to Learning 2.0 - Key Concepts and Enablers.

DOI: 10.5220/0005476903070312

In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2015), pages 307-312

ISBN: 978-989-758-108-3

 2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

centered learning (Reigeluth, 2012) which takes into

account individual learning needs.

Working in the information age requires constant

learning of new skills and knowledge. This is called

lifelong learning. The lifelong learning introduces

new kind of challenges (Pantzar, 2004) to learning

sector. Students are older as the percentage of adults

is higher. Learning also takes place outside the

classroom, typically in workplaces or at home. Using

the previous case of communicty colleges as an

example of growing number of adult students, 47

percent of distance education students were older than

26 years (Lokken and Mullins, 2014). Adult learners

are different from traditional college students in many

ways. For instance they are typically highly

motivated to learn and strongly goal oriented

(Cercone, 2008).

As the workforce is aging, one great challenge to

solve is how to transfer the tacit organisation

knowledge from senior staff to juniors. This

challenge is discussed in the next sub-section.

2.2 Changes in Learning

Learning can be defined as a transfer of learner’s state

of mind to the state of mind with different cognitive

beliefs (Koponen, 2009). Cognitive beliefs refers to

learner’s knowledge, values, and skills. Learning can

occur by acting in reality (ibid., Mayer, 2011) or by

learner’s own thinking (Koponen, 2009). Acts in the

reality leads to individual perceptions, experiences,

and information about the reality, which affects

learner’s cognitive beliefs (ibid). This affection

requires processing of the perceived information.

Processing may, for instance, involve simply

memorisation, or inductive or deductive reasoning

(Felder and Silverman, 1988). As a result of the

processing, the intended learning may or may not

occur. Typically, in a teaching setting, learning does

not occur totally as intended but result in a partial

achievement of learning objectives.

As noted, learning is about change, and so is adult

learning (Cercone, 2008). The science of teaching

adults is called andragogy, which differs from the

traditional teaching called pedagogy. Andragogy

assumes that there are significant differences in

learning characteristics between adults and children

(Knowles, 1970). Adults have previous knowledge

and experience on which they can build new

knowledge, by relating the new information to it

(Cercone, 2008).

People as individuals have also different learning

(and teaching) styles. Inductive learning style

involves inductive reasoning; observations,

measurements, etc. are processed to generalities and

rules (Felder and Silverman, 1988). For example, one

could notice that when the door handle is turned and

pulled, door opens. As a result of noticing that

multiple doors do open in similar way, one could

generalise that doors open by turning and pulling

handle. Opposite to this, deductive learning style

involves deductive reasoning; rules and generalities

are deduced to consquences (ibid). Using the same

example above, the teacher tells the general rule

directly (i.e. doors open by turning and pulling the

handle). One can learn that as long as it is a door, it

opens as the rule describes. Induction is a natural

human learning style whereas the latter one is a

natural teaching style (ibid, 1988).

The famous 70/20/10 model of learning have

received a lot of attention in organisations during the

past few years. It originates from a survey by

Lombardo and Eichinger (1996), where they

researched organisations’ top-management’s learning

habits. According to the study, effective managers

learned 70 percent from though jobs, 20 percent from

other people (usually from their bosses), and 10

percent from the courses and reading. Currently the

percentages of the model are referring to learning in

workplace, social learning (including coaching and

mentoring), and traditional class-room learning,

respectively. However, to authors’ knowledge, the

model has not been scientifically proven.

Traditional learning refers to learning resulting

from the usage of the traditional teaching methods.

These methods have remained almost unchanged

since the time of Plato’s Academy. Co-operative (or

social) learning refers to the instructional strategies

where learners work together in groups to help each

other to learn (Slavin, 2011). Learning in the

workplace, or by working, refers to the learning by

acting in a Community of Practice (CoP). CoP can be

defined as a group of people sharing a concern for

something they do, but also as a learning to do it better

by regular interaction (Wenger, 2011).

The process model of learning at work by Järvinen

and Poikela (2001) illustrated in Figure 1explains the

dynamic learning processes of CoPs. The model

states that individual learning occurs through

concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract

conceptualisation, and active experimentation. As it

can be noted, these are following the definition of

learning introduced earlier. On the group level,

learning occurs for instance by learning by doing,

which is linked to the active experimentation of the

individual level. Learning in organisation level occurs

for instance by institutionalising the knowledge

resulting from the group level learning by doing. This

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

308

Figure 1: The process model of learning at work (Järvinen

and Poikela, 2001).

means that organisation level learning is linked to

group level learning same way than group level

learning is linked to individual level learning. This

observation implies that organisations can only learn

(indirecty) through individuals. On the other hand the

learning is bidirectional, implying that individuals

may also learn from organisations.

The key to expanding organisation’s knowledge is

the joint creation of knowledge by individuals and

organisations (Nonaka, 1994). To unleash the tacit

organisation knowledge, learning must be managed

accordingly. For instance the methods like

apprenticeship, direct interaction, networking, and

action learning including face-to-face social

interaction, are supporting transferring of the tacit

knowledge (Haldin-Herrgard, 2000).

2.3 Changes in Technology

Technology has evolved rapidly in the last few

decades, enabling new ways for delivering instruction

and for learning. One major effect of the evolvement

of the technology is that it made possible to deliver

content to wider audience. This started with

slideshows, video tapes, diskettes, CD-ROMs, static

internet pages, etc. Later, Learning Management

Systems (LMSs) enabled two totally new computer

based communication channels; asynchronous and

synchronous (Ebner, 2007). E-mail and discussion

forums are examples of the former channel, and on-

line chat an example of the latter one. This type of

instruction delivery using digital devices is called e-

Learning (Clark and Mayer, 2011). In a broad sense,

e-Learning refers to both content and instructional

methods utilising digital channels.

Moving from teacher-centered learning to learner-

centered learning fosters a need for individualised

learning content (Reigeluth, 2012). Indeed,

contributing factor for this paradigm shift for the past

two decades has been technology (Aslan and

Reigeluth, 2013).

Typically, when new technology enters the

educational scene, the interest about its effects to

insctructional practices are high (Reiser, 2001). After

a while, however, the interest towards the new

technology will cease. As an example, the LMS

market has shown marks of consolidation and

maturing during the last few years as the smaller LMS

providers have disappeared from the market (Lokken

and Mullins, 2014).

One of the latest technology innovations has been

Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs), which can

reach a tremendous number of students. For instanse

in 2012 the “Circuits and Electronics” course by edX

had 155 000 students all around the world (Breslow

et al., 2013).

Gamification is a recent phenomenom where

game mechanics are used to make learning and

instruction more fun (Kapp, 2012). It motivates to

succeed but also reduces the sting to failure (ibid).

This is likely promoting adults to learn as adult

learners should be actively involved in the learning

process (Cercone, 2008).

3 FROM LEARNING 1.0 TO

LEARNING 2.0

In this section we will propose a two-dimensional

classification, seen in Figure 2, for categorising

different learning and teaching methods. The

horizontal axle represents the evolution of learning

theories and instructional methods, whereas the

vertical axle represents the evolution of technology.

The lower-left quadrant, Learning 1.0, is named

as Traditional Learning. For the purpose of the study,

we define Learning 1.0 as a traditional learning which

Individual

Group

Organization

CE = Concrete Experience

RO = Reflective Observation

AC = Abstract Conceptualization

AE = Active Experimentation

SE = Sharing of Experience

RC = Reflecting Collectivity

CK = Combining New Knowledge

LD = Learning by Doing

IF = Intuition Formation

II = Intuition Interpretation

IK = Integr. of Interpreted Knowledge

KI = Knowledge Institutionalization

FromLearning1.0toLearning2.0-KeyConceptsandEnablers

309

Figure 2: Classification of Learning and Teaching Methods.

takes place in a traditional setting, such as in a class

room, where instruction is provided by the teacher.

When providing instruction, teacher uses technology

merely to support the learning, for instance to deliver

the content using video projector and PowerPoint

slideshow. The teaching style of the traditional

method is deductive.

The upper-left quadrant is named as E-Learning.

E-learning and Personal Learning Environment

(PLE) are providing new channels for delivering

content, but also a way for students to participate to

learning process. Content is still created by the

teacher, but students can communicate with the

teacher for instance to ask clarification for certain

parts of the content. As such, we regard e-Learning as

a traditional learning method enhanced with

technology.

The lower-right quadrant is named as

Participatory Learning. Participatory learning

advances traditional learning by introducing new

learning methods. The learning content is created by

the teacher, but learning occurs in communities. As

people are actively participating and receiving

feedback from each other, their role in the learning

process are high. Learning as a community allows

students to specialise to subjects that are interesting

to them. Learning style is mostly inductive. However,

the usage of technology is on the same level with the

traditional learning.

The upper-right quadrant, Learning 2.0, is named

as Facilitated Learning Communities. Learning in

facilitated communities combines the evolution of

technology and learning theories. The biggest

differense to other learning methods is the level of

participation and role of students. What makes the

difference is that as users do in the Web 2.0 (O'Reilly,

2005), learners are adding value by producing content

themselfs. As such, the learning style is inductive.

Therefore we can define Learning 2.0 as a technology

enabled learning taking place in the teacher facilitated

community. Learning occurs inductively by

interacting with other members of the community and

by co-creating the content. Typical to Learning 2.0 is

the gamification of the learning. However,

gamification is not just badges, points, and rewards

Kapp, 2012). At best, gamification allows students to

E-learning

 Learning as an individual

 Moderately active participation

to learning proces s

 Teacher centric content creation

 Common content

 Technology enabled

Evolution of Technology

Evolution of Learning Theories and Instructional Methods

Facilitated Learning Communities

Traditional Learning Participatory Learning

 Learning as a community

 Active participation to learning

process

 Collective content creation

 Individualised content

 Technology enabled

 Learning as an individual

 Pas sive participation to learning

process

 Teacher centric content creation

 Common content

 Technology supported

 Learning as a community

 Dynamic participation to

learning process

 Teacher centric content creation

 Individualised content

 Technology supported

Learning

1.0

Learning

2.0

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

310

simulate real-life actions and learn from working

experience.

In regards to 70/20/10 model, it can be argued that

traditional and E-learning provides the 10 percent of

the learning. Participatory learning provides the 20

percent, as learning as a community provides

feedback to its members. The remaining 70 percent is

provided by the facilitated learning communities,

where students co-create content for instance by

sharing their experiences and best practices learned

by working.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Learning 2.0 is a modern learning method utilising

advancements from both technology and learning

theories. In this paper, we introduced and discussed

the three major enablers of Learning 2.0; changes in

society, changes in learning, and changes in

technology. We also introduced a two-dimensional

classification consisting of four archetypes of

learning methods.

Authors are not arguing that any of the introduced

archetypes are superior to other per se. Instead, we

argue that each method are suitable for learning, and

that the method should be selected according to

learning needs. For example, reading and writing are

so abstracts that they can only be learned by

traditional method (Engeström, 2014).

The modern era of information age has changed

the pace how workforce is required to learn in order

to keep up-to-date. They need to learn new skills and

knowledge all the time – often regardles of the place

and time. Workforce consists of adults and thefore it

can be argued that the adult learning is the key driver

for Learning 2.0.

Authors are encouraging researhers and

practitioners to use the classification while studying

the learning and teaching methods. One possible

direction for future research is to assess and compare

the learning outcomes of each archetype of learning

methods.

REFERENCES

Aslan, S. & Reigeluth, C. 2013. Educational Technologists:

Leading Change for a New Paradigm of Education.

TechTrends, 57, 18-24.

Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho,

A. D. & Seaton, D. 2013. Studying learning in the

worldwide classroom: Research into edX’s first

MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 13-25.

Castells, M. 2011. The rise of the network society: The

information age: Economy, society, and culture, John

Wiley & Sons.

Cercone, K. 2008. Characteristics of Adult Learners with

Implications for Online Learning Design. AACE

Journal, 16, 137-159.

Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. 2011. E-learning and the

science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers

and designers of multimedia learning, John Wiley &

Sons.

Ebner, M. E-Learning 2.0 = e-Learning 1.0 + Web 2.0?

Availability, Reliability and Security, 2007. ARES

2007. The Second International Conference on, Apr

-13

2007. 1235-1239.

Engeström, Y. 2014. Learning by expanding: An activity-

theoretical approach to developmental research,

Cambridge University Press.

Felder, R. M. & Silverman, L. K. 1988. Learning and

teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering

education, 78, 674-681.

Haldin-Herrgard 2000. Difficulties in diffusion of tacit

knowledge in organizations. Journal of Intellectual

Capital, 1, 357-365.

Järvinen, A. & Poikela, E. 2001. Modelling reflective and

contextual learning at work. Journal of Workplace

Learning, 13, 282-290.

Kapp, K. M. 2012. The Gamification of Learning and

Instruction: Game-based Methods and Strategies for

Training and Education, John Wiley & Sons.

Knowles, M. S. 1970. The Modern Practice of Adult

Education, New York, New York Association Press.

Koponen, E. 2009. The development, implementation and

use of e-learning: critical realism and design science

perspectives. Acta Electronica Universitatis

Tamperensis: 805. Tampere, Finland: University of

Tampere.

Lokken, F. & Mullins, C. 2014. ITC 2013 Distance

Education Survey Results. Trends in eLearning:

Tracking the Impact of eLearning at Community

Colleges. Washington.

Lombardo, M. M. & Eichinger, R. W. 1996. The Career

Architect Development Planner, Minneapolis,

Lominger.

Mayer, R. E. 2011. Applying the science of learning,

Pearson/Allyn & Bacon Boston.

Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational

knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14-37.

O'Reilly, T. 2005. What Is Web 2.0 (Online). Available:

http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-

web-20.html [Accessed Jan 4

2015].

Pantzar, E. 2004. Challenges of Lifelong Learning in the

Globalised World. In: ELLIS, K. (ed.) Bildungsreise-

Reisebildung. Pädagogik und Wissenchaft 3. Wien: Lit

Verlang.

Reigeluth, C. 2012. Instructional Theory and Technology

for the New Paradigm of Education. RED, Revista de

Educación a Distancia, 1-18.

Reiser, R. A. 2001. A history of instructional design and

technology: Part I: A history of instructional media.

FromLearning1.0toLearning2.0-KeyConceptsandEnablers

311

Educational technology research and development, 49,

53-64.

Slavin, R. 2011. Cooperative Learning. In: AUKRUST, V.

G. (ed.) Learning and Cognition in Education Boston:

Elsevier Academic Press.

Wenger, E. 2011. Communities of practice: A brief

introduction. Available: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.

edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/11736/A%20brief%

20introduction%20to%20CoP.pdf (Accessed Feb 2

2015).

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

312