From Learning 1.0 to Learning 2.0
Key Concepts and Enablers
Sami M. Leppänen
and Nestori Syynimaa
Sovelto Plc, Helsinki, Finland
Founder, Gerenios Ltd, Tampere, Finland
School of Information Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
Keywords: e-Learning, Learning 2.0, Andragogy, Adult Learning, 70/20/10.
Abstract: During the last few decades the learning sector have faced three fundamental changes; society is moving from
the industrial age to the information age, understanding of adult teaching has evolved from pedagogy to
andragogy, and technology is constantly providing new ways to support and enable learning. In this
conceptual paper, these changes are introduced and discussed as key enablers of Learning 2.0. The important
role of adult learning as key driver for Learning 2.0 is also argued and emphasised. Based on the analysis of
the key enablers a two-dimensional classification is introduced. The classification is based on four archetypes
of learning methods, formed according to how they utilise technology and apply learning theories. The
archetypes are traditional learning, e-Learning, participatory learning, and facilitated learning communities.
Analysis of these archetypes shows that together they are providing all learning types of the 70/20/10 model.
The classification also demonstrates that e-Learning does not equal to Learning 2.0, but is one of the first
steps in a journey from Learning 1.0 to Learning 2.0.
During the last few decades learning sector have
faced three fundamental changes. First, as a society,
we are in the process of moving from the industrial
age to the information age (Castells, 2011). Second,
our understanding of teaching adults has evolved
from pedagogy to andragogy (Knowles, 1970). Third,
technology is constantly evolving in giant leaps
providing new ways to support and enable learning.
The growth of e-Learning during the last few years is
reflecting the speed of the aforementioned changes.
For instance in community colleges in the USA,
technology enabled distance learning has increased
over 32 percent from 2008 to 2013 (Lokken and
Mullins, 2014).
In this paper, we will demonstrate that e-Learning
is not equal nor synonym to Learning 2.0. Instead, we
will show that it is one of the firsts steps in a journey
from Learning 1.0 to Learning 2.0. We start by
introducing the key concepts and enablers of
Learning 2.0, followed by introduction of a two-
dimensional framework to classify different learning
and teaching methods. We will also argue and
emphasise the important role of adult learning as a
key driver for Learning 2.0.
2.1 Changes in Society
As we are moving from the industrial age to the
information age, our needs for learning are also
changing. In the industrial age it was possible to work
in the same occupation with the same employer for
the whole adult life. The career started typically by
applying for a school, followed by studying the pre-
defined curricula and resulting to graduation for a
vocation. The curricula was mainly same for all
studying for the particular vocation regardless of
individual interests.
In the information age the roles of employees are
different from those in the industrial age. Roles are
more individual and task specific than in the
industrial age. This leads, naturally, to different
learning and training needs. Indeed, we have
witnessed shifting from teacher-centered to learner-
M. Leppänen S. and Syynimaa N..
From Learning 1.0 to Learning 2.0 - Key Concepts and Enablers.
DOI: 10.5220/0005476903070312
In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2015), pages 307-312
ISBN: 978-989-758-108-3
2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
centered learning (Reigeluth, 2012) which takes into
account individual learning needs.
Working in the information age requires constant
learning of new skills and knowledge. This is called
lifelong learning. The lifelong learning introduces
new kind of challenges (Pantzar, 2004) to learning
sector. Students are older as the percentage of adults
is higher. Learning also takes place outside the
classroom, typically in workplaces or at home. Using
the previous case of communicty colleges as an
example of growing number of adult students, 47
percent of distance education students were older than
26 years (Lokken and Mullins, 2014). Adult learners
are different from traditional college students in many
ways. For instance they are typically highly
motivated to learn and strongly goal oriented
(Cercone, 2008).
As the workforce is aging, one great challenge to
solve is how to transfer the tacit organisation
knowledge from senior staff to juniors. This
challenge is discussed in the next sub-section.
2.2 Changes in Learning
Learning can be defined as a transfer of learner’s state
of mind to the state of mind with different cognitive
beliefs (Koponen, 2009). Cognitive beliefs refers to
learner’s knowledge, values, and skills. Learning can
occur by acting in reality (ibid., Mayer, 2011) or by
learner’s own thinking (Koponen, 2009). Acts in the
reality leads to individual perceptions, experiences,
and information about the reality, which affects
learner’s cognitive beliefs (ibid). This affection
requires processing of the perceived information.
Processing may, for instance, involve simply
memorisation, or inductive or deductive reasoning
(Felder and Silverman, 1988). As a result of the
processing, the intended learning may or may not
occur. Typically, in a teaching setting, learning does
not occur totally as intended but result in a partial
achievement of learning objectives.
As noted, learning is about change, and so is adult
learning (Cercone, 2008). The science of teaching
adults is called andragogy, which differs from the
traditional teaching called pedagogy. Andragogy
assumes that there are significant differences in
learning characteristics between adults and children
(Knowles, 1970). Adults have previous knowledge
and experience on which they can build new
knowledge, by relating the new information to it
(Cercone, 2008).
People as individuals have also different learning
(and teaching) styles. Inductive learning style
involves inductive reasoning; observations,
measurements, etc. are processed to generalities and
rules (Felder and Silverman, 1988). For example, one
could notice that when the door handle is turned and
pulled, door opens. As a result of noticing that
multiple doors do open in similar way, one could
generalise that doors open by turning and pulling
handle. Opposite to this, deductive learning style
involves deductive reasoning; rules and generalities
are deduced to consquences (ibid). Using the same
example above, the teacher tells the general rule
directly (i.e. doors open by turning and pulling the
handle). One can learn that as long as it is a door, it
opens as the rule describes. Induction is a natural
human learning style whereas the latter one is a
natural teaching style (ibid, 1988).
The famous 70/20/10 model of learning have
received a lot of attention in organisations during the
past few years. It originates from a survey by
Lombardo and Eichinger (1996), where they
researched organisations’ top-management’s learning
habits. According to the study, effective managers
learned 70 percent from though jobs, 20 percent from
other people (usually from their bosses), and 10
percent from the courses and reading. Currently the
percentages of the model are referring to learning in
workplace, social learning (including coaching and
mentoring), and traditional class-room learning,
respectively. However, to authors’ knowledge, the
model has not been scientifically proven.
Traditional learning refers to learning resulting
from the usage of the traditional teaching methods.
These methods have remained almost unchanged
since the time of Plato’s Academy. Co-operative (or
social) learning refers to the instructional strategies
where learners work together in groups to help each
other to learn (Slavin, 2011). Learning in the
workplace, or by working, refers to the learning by
acting in a Community of Practice (CoP). CoP can be
defined as a group of people sharing a concern for
something they do, but also as a learning to do it better
by regular interaction (Wenger, 2011).
The process model of learning at work by Järvinen
and Poikela (2001) illustrated in Figure 1explains the
dynamic learning processes of CoPs. The model
states that individual learning occurs through
concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract
conceptualisation, and active experimentation. As it
can be noted, these are following the definition of
learning introduced earlier. On the group level,
learning occurs for instance by learning by doing,
which is linked to the active experimentation of the
individual level. Learning in organisation level occurs
for instance by institutionalising the knowledge
resulting from the group level learning by doing. This
Figure 1: The process model of learning at work (Järvinen
and Poikela, 2001).
means that organisation level learning is linked to
group level learning same way than group level
learning is linked to individual level learning. This
observation implies that organisations can only learn
(indirecty) through individuals. On the other hand the
learning is bidirectional, implying that individuals
may also learn from organisations.
The key to expanding organisation’s knowledge is
the joint creation of knowledge by individuals and
organisations (Nonaka, 1994). To unleash the tacit
organisation knowledge, learning must be managed
accordingly. For instance the methods like
apprenticeship, direct interaction, networking, and
action learning including face-to-face social
interaction, are supporting transferring of the tacit
knowledge (Haldin-Herrgard, 2000).
2.3 Changes in Technology
Technology has evolved rapidly in the last few
decades, enabling new ways for delivering instruction
and for learning. One major effect of the evolvement
of the technology is that it made possible to deliver
content to wider audience. This started with
slideshows, video tapes, diskettes, CD-ROMs, static
internet pages, etc. Later, Learning Management
Systems (LMSs) enabled two totally new computer
based communication channels; asynchronous and
synchronous (Ebner, 2007). E-mail and discussion
forums are examples of the former channel, and on-
line chat an example of the latter one. This type of
instruction delivery using digital devices is called e-
Learning (Clark and Mayer, 2011). In a broad sense,
e-Learning refers to both content and instructional
methods utilising digital channels.
Moving from teacher-centered learning to learner-
centered learning fosters a need for individualised
learning content (Reigeluth, 2012). Indeed,
contributing factor for this paradigm shift for the past
two decades has been technology (Aslan and
Reigeluth, 2013).
Typically, when new technology enters the
educational scene, the interest about its effects to
insctructional practices are high (Reiser, 2001). After
a while, however, the interest towards the new
technology will cease. As an example, the LMS
market has shown marks of consolidation and
maturing during the last few years as the smaller LMS
providers have disappeared from the market (Lokken
and Mullins, 2014).
One of the latest technology innovations has been
Massive Online Open Courses (MOOCs), which can
reach a tremendous number of students. For instanse
in 2012 the “Circuits and Electronics” course by edX
had 155 000 students all around the world (Breslow
et al., 2013).
Gamification is a recent phenomenom where
game mechanics are used to make learning and
instruction more fun (Kapp, 2012). It motivates to
succeed but also reduces the sting to failure (ibid).
This is likely promoting adults to learn as adult
learners should be actively involved in the learning
process (Cercone, 2008).
In this section we will propose a two-dimensional
classification, seen in Figure 2, for categorising
different learning and teaching methods. The
horizontal axle represents the evolution of learning
theories and instructional methods, whereas the
vertical axle represents the evolution of technology.
The lower-left quadrant, Learning 1.0, is named
as Traditional Learning. For the purpose of the study,
we define Learning 1.0 as a traditional learning which
CE = Concrete Experience
RO = Reflective Observation
AC = Abstract Conceptualization
AE = Active Experimentation
SE = Sharing of Experience
RC = Reflecting Collectivity
CK = Combining New Knowledge
LD = Learning by Doing
IF = Intuition Formation
II = Intuition Interpretation
IK = Integr. of Interpreted Knowledge
KI = Knowledge Institutionalization
Figure 2: Classification of Learning and Teaching Methods.
takes place in a traditional setting, such as in a class
room, where instruction is provided by the teacher.
When providing instruction, teacher uses technology
merely to support the learning, for instance to deliver
the content using video projector and PowerPoint
slideshow. The teaching style of the traditional
method is deductive.
The upper-left quadrant is named as E-Learning.
E-learning and Personal Learning Environment
(PLE) are providing new channels for delivering
content, but also a way for students to participate to
learning process. Content is still created by the
teacher, but students can communicate with the
teacher for instance to ask clarification for certain
parts of the content. As such, we regard e-Learning as
a traditional learning method enhanced with
The lower-right quadrant is named as
Participatory Learning. Participatory learning
advances traditional learning by introducing new
learning methods. The learning content is created by
the teacher, but learning occurs in communities. As
people are actively participating and receiving
feedback from each other, their role in the learning
process are high. Learning as a community allows
students to specialise to subjects that are interesting
to them. Learning style is mostly inductive. However,
the usage of technology is on the same level with the
traditional learning.
The upper-right quadrant, Learning 2.0, is named
as Facilitated Learning Communities. Learning in
facilitated communities combines the evolution of
technology and learning theories. The biggest
differense to other learning methods is the level of
participation and role of students. What makes the
difference is that as users do in the Web 2.0 (O'Reilly,
2005), learners are adding value by producing content
themselfs. As such, the learning style is inductive.
Therefore we can define Learning 2.0 as a technology
enabled learning taking place in the teacher facilitated
community. Learning occurs inductively by
interacting with other members of the community and
by co-creating the content. Typical to Learning 2.0 is
the gamification of the learning. However,
gamification is not just badges, points, and rewards
Kapp, 2012). At best, gamification allows students to
 Learning as an individual
 Moderately active participation
to learning proces s
 Teacher centric content creation
 Common content
 Technology enabled
Evolution of Technology
Evolution of Learning Theories and Instructional Methods
Facilitated Learning Communities
Traditional Learning Participatory Learning
 Learning as a community
 Active participation to learning
 Collective content creation
 Individualised content
 Technology enabled
 Learning as an individual
 Pas sive participation to learning
 Teacher centric content creation
 Common content
 Technology supported
 Learning as a community
 Dynamic participation to
learning process
 Teacher centric content creation
 Individualised content
 Technology supported
simulate real-life actions and learn from working
In regards to 70/20/10 model, it can be argued that
traditional and E-learning provides the 10 percent of
the learning. Participatory learning provides the 20
percent, as learning as a community provides
feedback to its members. The remaining 70 percent is
provided by the facilitated learning communities,
where students co-create content for instance by
sharing their experiences and best practices learned
by working.
Learning 2.0 is a modern learning method utilising
advancements from both technology and learning
theories. In this paper, we introduced and discussed
the three major enablers of Learning 2.0; changes in
society, changes in learning, and changes in
technology. We also introduced a two-dimensional
classification consisting of four archetypes of
learning methods.
Authors are not arguing that any of the introduced
archetypes are superior to other per se. Instead, we
argue that each method are suitable for learning, and
that the method should be selected according to
learning needs. For example, reading and writing are
so abstracts that they can only be learned by
traditional method (Engeström, 2014).
The modern era of information age has changed
the pace how workforce is required to learn in order
to keep up-to-date. They need to learn new skills and
knowledge all the time – often regardles of the place
and time. Workforce consists of adults and thefore it
can be argued that the adult learning is the key driver
for Learning 2.0.
Authors are encouraging researhers and
practitioners to use the classification while studying
the learning and teaching methods. One possible
direction for future research is to assess and compare
the learning outcomes of each archetype of learning
Aslan, S. & Reigeluth, C. 2013. Educational Technologists:
Leading Change for a New Paradigm of Education.
TechTrends, 57, 18-24.
Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho,
A. D. & Seaton, D. 2013. Studying learning in the
worldwide classroom: Research into edX’s first
MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 13-25.
Castells, M. 2011. The rise of the network society: The
information age: Economy, society, and culture, John
Wiley & Sons.
Cercone, K. 2008. Characteristics of Adult Learners with
Implications for Online Learning Design. AACE
Journal, 16, 137-159.
Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. 2011. E-learning and the
science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers
and designers of multimedia learning, John Wiley &
Ebner, M. E-Learning 2.0 = e-Learning 1.0 + Web 2.0?
Availability, Reliability and Security, 2007. ARES
2007. The Second International Conference on, Apr
2007. 1235-1239.
Engeström, Y. 2014. Learning by expanding: An activity-
theoretical approach to developmental research,
Cambridge University Press.
Felder, R. M. & Silverman, L. K. 1988. Learning and
teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering
education, 78, 674-681.
Haldin-Herrgard 2000. Difficulties in diffusion of tacit
knowledge in organizations. Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 1, 357-365.
Järvinen, A. & Poikela, E. 2001. Modelling reflective and
contextual learning at work. Journal of Workplace
Learning, 13, 282-290.
Kapp, K. M. 2012. The Gamification of Learning and
Instruction: Game-based Methods and Strategies for
Training and Education, John Wiley & Sons.
Knowles, M. S. 1970. The Modern Practice of Adult
Education, New York, New York Association Press.
Koponen, E. 2009. The development, implementation and
use of e-learning: critical realism and design science
perspectives. Acta Electronica Universitatis
Tamperensis: 805. Tampere, Finland: University of
Lokken, F. & Mullins, C. 2014. ITC 2013 Distance
Education Survey Results. Trends in eLearning:
Tracking the Impact of eLearning at Community
Colleges. Washington.
Lombardo, M. M. & Eichinger, R. W. 1996. The Career
Architect Development Planner, Minneapolis,
Mayer, R. E. 2011. Applying the science of learning,
Pearson/Allyn & Bacon Boston.
Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational
knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14-37.
O'Reilly, T. 2005. What Is Web 2.0 (Online). Available:
web-20.html [Accessed Jan 4
Pantzar, E. 2004. Challenges of Lifelong Learning in the
Globalised World. In: ELLIS, K. (ed.) Bildungsreise-
Reisebildung. Pädagogik und Wissenchaft 3. Wien: Lit
Reigeluth, C. 2012. Instructional Theory and Technology
for the New Paradigm of Education. RED, Revista de
Educación a Distancia, 1-18.
Reiser, R. A. 2001. A history of instructional design and
technology: Part I: A history of instructional media.
Educational technology research and development, 49,
Slavin, R. 2011. Cooperative Learning. In: AUKRUST, V.
G. (ed.) Learning and Cognition in Education Boston:
Elsevier Academic Press.
Wenger, E. 2011. Communities of practice: A brief
introduction. Available: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.
20introduction%20to%20CoP.pdf (Accessed Feb 2