The 3 Ps

“Social software tools offer rich possibilities for students to create and share ideas, connect, and participate in broader learning communities that are not confined to the spaces in which formal teaching and learning activities take place. Learners take on active roles such as content creators, peer teachers, mentors, researchers, innovators, and entrepreneurs.” (McLoughlin & Lee, pp 15)

LimeWire. What is LimeWire? Thinking about it we all chuckle a bit because we can remember sitting on our parent's 2006 Dell computer ‘illegal’ downloading the newest Akon song. And although LimeWire afforded me the luxury of free music is social software that connected individuals. Since then the creation of Facebook, Twitter, blogs, zoom, etc. has connected a world where technology is embedded into our daily lives. This technology, however, is not limited to its proper intentions or uses but to how we can make a cheese pizza more with mushrooms, peppers, motza, etc. And, according to McLoughlin & Lee (2008), this burst of technology allows people to become active participants and co-producers rather than passive consumers of content. The way we communicate with others (zoom, email, google meets), share (moodle, g-suite) and create (Prezi, Edpuzzle) has revolutionized and shaped this “Web 2.0” where we can manifest the internet into the user's control. This is the Web 2.0! However, within Web 2.0 their lies the controller which we create and shape these tools. This controller "Pedagogy 2.0."

From an educational standpoint, this has created a shift in student learning. The transferal of student-centered learning environments (open-ended learning, authentic learning, inquiry-based learning) and curriculum open to negotiation with more learner input (McLoughlin & Lee). this "Pedagogy 2.0." and in that a networked society, powered by a range of high-speed technologies, learners have access to ideas, resources, and communities to support their learning, are driven by personal needs and choice (personalization), and are able to develop self-regulatory skills (McLoughlin & Lee). Within this pedagogy, they propose three P's: personalization, participation, and productivity that are a cause and effect of Web 2.0.

From an educational standpoint, this has created a shift in student learning. The transferal of student-centered learning environments (open-ended learning, authentic learning, inquiry-based learning) and curriculum not being fixed but dynamic, open to negotiation and more learner input. McLoughlin & Lee (2008), call this "Pedagogy 2.0." and in that a networked society, powered by a range of high-speed technologies, learners have access to ideas, resources, and communities to support their learning, are driven by personal needs and choice (personalization) and are able to develop self-regulatory skills (McLoughlin & Lee). Within this pedagogy, they propose three P's: personalization, participation, and productivity that are a cause and effect of Web 2.0. Firstly, personalization suggests we improve learner control and responsibility of their own learning. Secondly, productivity suggests more social processes of knowledge creation, for example, “Napsterization” of e-learning through peer-to-peer (P2P) file and media content sharing services. instructor-supplied content has limitations, particularly if it pre-empts learner discovery and research (McLoughlin & Lee). Thirdly, participation puts greater emphasis on teacher-student partnerships in learning, with teachers as co-learners.

For example, during practicum in Grade 2 students used Reading A-Z (Online Library) to choose a book to study as a ‘community helper.’ Although, personalization was limited through their decision to expand beyond Reading A-Z students had the means to navigate their own learning through creation, interactivity, and social connections with their autonomy in how they portrayed their community helper.

---

References

McGloughlin, C & Lee, M. (2008). The Three P’s of Pedagogy for the Networked Society: Personalization, Participation, and Productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2008, Volume 20, Number 1, 10-27 Retrieved January, 2021 from: files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ895221.pdf