Teaching at a Crossroads by John Connell
I call it evangelism because it's not really based on a foundation of firm contemporary or historical analysis
I agree with this response by ebcnzer (Mark): Cards on the table
I left this comment on ebcnzer's blog:
I liked your swimming against the tide comment. I agree with you that John's post lacked a firm foundation about the nature of learning.
My thoughts are that we need to look at this (web2.0 or learning2.0) historically as well, both the short history of computers and the longer history of modernity.
computers: There has already been a "computers in education revolution", namely, logo and Papert's constructionism, which has been and (almost) gone. I have a mental picture here of a time line from the 70s with glitter here and there along the path but with web2.0 advocates only being aware of the glitter in the present, seeming having almost zero awareness of recent history.
modernity: Enlightenment ideas have been with us for at least 300 years (and much longer if we include the Greeks) and in a sense they form the basis to the current curriculum. This is a longer discussion but needs to be had as well. How do we evaluate what ought to be taught in schools? I would suggest that the non universals is a good place to start.