In Web 2.0, learning occurs in communities through a variety of social and digital resources. The lines blur between the roles of educator and learner as both are responsible for adding to the information in a particular circle. This is a far cry from the dreaded ‘group assignments’ we had to do in school and instead depends on the motivation of the learner to search out new material and apply it to their particular situation. It doesn’t just depend on the ‘strongest link’, so to speak, but also the input and questioning of the ‘weaker links’ as well. In, Learning, Working, and Playing in the Digital Age, the author describes a situation in which two groups of learners were taking one of his courses. Both received the exact same instruction from him, but the group that took time to reflect, question, argue, and come to a solution about small portions of his instruction, did notably better than the group that learned passively. This gives evidence to the idea of learning ecologies and their potential successes in today’s classrooms. Instead of students passively learning information from their teacher or a group leader, they are all questioning and contributing in a way that benefits all parties involved.

The role of the facilitator and the role of the learner have changed since Web 2.0. In many instances, the internet has caused fluidity between the two roles as information is exchanged, modified, and debated. One specific example that highlights this fluidity was given in the article Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0. about the website Wikipedia. Anyone can add or edit articles on Wikipedia, however, the final say is given by people who are deemed ‘administrators’ of this material. The article adds that there are often heated arguments and debates about what information is valid and accurate, and what is not. I think that this process is valid considering my philosophy on learning. As an art teacher, communicating differing ideas and backing them up with valid arguments is the keystone of a good critique. While students in younger grades don’t have intensive critique sessions, they still practice this methodology of learning. They can look at the work of their peers and learn from them, both through their successes and mistakes. It is also important that they recognize that different answers don’t mean failures. This idea supports the idea of learning communities, fostering a culture of learning, and learning how to learn (mentioned in the week 1 article).

The article Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0 sums up the implications this type of learning shift would have when it mentioned “I think, therefore I am,” versus “We participate, therefore we are.” Not only can you think of this type of learning as hyper-differentiated, but you can also think of it as a connected entity of learners. This entity can include smaller microcosms such as schools, all the way up to global communities of connected learners. With this idea in mind, it would behoove the instructor to use these learning communities to their advantage. In my own classroom, I could allow students to choose how they learn about a particular topic via the internet. I would provide scaffolding in this type of classroom so that students need not focus on the validity of their resources, as an expert (myself) had already vetted them and deemed them appropriate and valid. They could then teach themselves, and others in their classroom about the type of art they choose and then use that information to produce a work of art, brochure, essay, or another type of final product to showcase their ideas. There is certainly a lot more to take into consideration when incorporating Web 2.0 into the classroom.