Education 2.0 Vs Education 3.0


2 thoughts on “Education 2.0 Vs Education 3.0

  1. —–Original Message—–
    From: Ewing, M Keith
    Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 10:32 AM
    To: Miltenoff, Plamen
    Subject: RE: [InforMedia Services (IMS)] Comment: “Education 2.0 Vs Education 3.0″

    The table was originally posted (without the color) by John Moravec on his Education Futures blog back in 2008. The citation link is

    Unfortunately, the table is posted without elaboration beyond the comments of users and Moravec’s responses. The absence of a contextual narrative and explanation of the table–at least the author’s perspective in making his “predictions” is disconcerting. Anyone’s prediction of the future is shaky, and without some explanation, little better than using tarot cards. A typical response to the comments is “Education 3.0 needs to move away from focusing on information, which can be construed as “objects” by some definitions. Education 3.0 moves more toward the contextual development of information into personal knowledge –which has both tacit and explicit components, making it an intangible that cannot be objectified. Attending to knowledge as abstract intangibles is the key challenging for both the development of the Semantic Web and Education 3.0. So, yes, the two concepts are closely related and the development of both will be closely intertwined.” (response posted on 15 Feb 2008)

    At various points in this “contextual development of information into personal knowledge” it seems to me that there needs to be some fundamental information building blocks presented in order to create a foundation as the contextual environment develops in parallel with an individual’s cognitive development and awareness. Often the semantic links and contextual web is intensely personal and dependent upon the individual’s prior knowledge, environmental context, and creativity. It is the latter which often prompts change and opportunity for growth.

    Another graphic, that presents similar ideas, came out last year–see

    One aspect of these ideas that I find both provocative and troubling is the “radical personalization [of knowledge? Of learning? Both?] will become the norm.” This will not occur without some costs–either in the development of resources/tools that personalize to the user or in social alienation or tribalization based on “like-mindedness.” In such an environment, it will be difficult for “society” to agree upon “standards” — as we see happening with divergent considerations (or complete avoidance) of evolution, science, history, literature, and even literacy. At the same time, I fear that a limited few will determine “societal” “standards” — which by another point of view becomes “propaganda” or “brainwashing.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>