Semantic license

Putting together a trade magazine takes longer than you might think. Nearly three months ago I wrote this article for the June issue of CLO which arrived today.

Re-reading the article, I thought to myself, “Something’s missing here.” Below the fold is the article as submitted, with lines through the deletions.

Semantics

By Jay Cross

Several years ago, a manager told eLearning Forum that his company’s efforts to consolidate dozens of training efforts bogged down for three months while they struggled for a consensus definition of eLearning. Let’s not make the same mistake with Web 2.0, Learning 2.0, and informal learning. We need to clarify what these terms mean or abandon them.

It takes guts for a publication named Business 2.0 to announce that the term Web 2.0 is headed for the dustbin, sort of like Wired trying to champion wireless. Business 2.0 doesn’t deny that the web is morphing into something much larger. It suggests we call today’s web by the name Next Net.

I’ll grant that it is tiresome to repeat the web’s feature list: “is deeply collaborative,” “creates a world of endless mix and match,” and “enables small groups to assemble powerful applications.” Of course, it’s also the web as platform and the read/write web, not to forget the web desktop. Some shorthand would be nice. Trouble is, terms like Web 2.0 and Next Net would become obsolete before coming into common parlance.

This is the internet we are talking about. The net is the poster child for change. Ten years ago, there were 16 million internet users; today they number more than a billion. There are 30 million blogs, sixty times as many as three years ago.

In a private conversation, Dave Ferguson aptly pointed out that when your mental energy goes into the 2.0 part, you risk focusing people on the terminology rather than what it can accomplish for them.

My recommendation: continue to call it the web. No one will ask what you’re talking about.

Learning 2.0 is in the air. A year from now, soothsayers at symposiums will be sharing their wisdom that “as for Learning 2.0, it’s not the 2.0 that matters; it’s the learning.” Why wait? I’ll tell you right now. The 2.0 doesn’t matter. Learning 2.0 is a useless term. It does not add meaning to the conversation. It is unnecessary baggage.

Don’t get me wrong. Web services, openness, and interoperability lay a foundation for learning a hundred times more effective than the learning we are accustomed to. The dream of workers, workflow, and workspaces all humming along in harmony as nodes in a global network is delightful beyond imagination.

Better that we devote our syrength to integrating learning into the emerging technology and business landscape than to quibbling about whether incorporating mash-ups [changed to match-ups] and wikis transform regular learning into Learning 2.0.

Geez, before you know it research houses would be selling magic quadrants for Learning 3.0 providers. Consultants would outsource only to Learning 4.0-qualified suppliers. Another company would counter with on-demand Learning 5.0 (Now, with services!). Elliott would host special events on Learning 6.0. Josh would sell reports on Learning 7.0 (You can blend 5.0, 6.0, & 7.0!). And I would still be ranting that this emperor has no clothes.

My recommendation: let learning remain learning. Don’t call it Learning 2.0 or, worse yet, Next Learning. You probably don’t want the title CL2.O.

Informal Learning, giant shrimp, important trivia, genuine fake, dry beer.

Yes, some people consider informal learning an oxymoron. Isn’t learning the antithesis of informality? How can you control something informal?

Maybe they were thinking of informal training. That doesn’t make sense unless you’re applying it to a teacher who wears aloha shirts and flip flops to class.

Training is formally imposed. The word training derives from a medieval term meaning “manipulate in order to bring to a desired form.” Attending a training program does not mean learning takes place. You can lead a boy to college but you can’t make him think.

You can coerce today’s knowledge workers into going through the motions but you can’t control what goes on in their heads. You can set up conditions that foster learning. You can remove obstacles to learning, help people make connections, and encourage people to learn by experimenting.

Training came packaged in training programs. What went into a program and how it would be delivered was a formal decision. Setting up a learning ecology, what I sometimes call a learnscape, gives free-range learners a place to discover what they want to know. If they learn through trial-and-error or by looking over the shoulder of a colleague or through reflection while driving to work, that’s informal learning.

Recommendation: let’s keep informal learning until it’s common knowledge that informal learning is primary way people make sense of the world.

I checked to see if I’d submitted more than the 750 words I’m supposed to submit. No, it seems I’d turned in 749.