Webinars
The Learning Case for Difference: How CLOs Can Make Diversity Work for the Company
Jul 23, 2009

Breakfast Club
San Francisco: High-Impact Learning for Lean Times
Sep 03, 2009 07:30 am
Grand Hyatt San Francisco
San Francisco, California

CLO Symposiums
Peak Performance: Pushing Your Enterprise to the Top
Sep 28, 2009 - Sep 30, 2009
The Broadmoor
Colorado Springs, Colorado

See More Events

Columnists

Published May 2006

Semantics

  

  Jay Cross

Several years ago, a manager told a forum that his company's attempt to consolidate dozens of training efforts was bogged down for three months while they struggled for a consensus definition of "e-learning." 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. 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. Some shorthand would be nice. Trouble is, terms such as 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, 60 times as many as three years ago.

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

The term "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 strength to integrating learning into the emerging technology and business landscape than quibble about whether incorporating match-ups and wikis transform regular learning into Learning 2.0.

Before you know it, research houses will be selling magic quadrants for Learning 3.0 providers. Consultants will outsource only to Learning 4.0-qualified suppliers. Another company will counter with on-demand Learning 5.0. There will be Learning 6.0 special events and Learning 7.0 industry reports. And I will still be ranting that the 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 CL2.0.

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.

Registered users are allowed to post comments. Login   Register