So, it's virtual classrooms at the beginning of 2010. Same metaphor as an onsite classes, but on the net. And Chinesepod app(s) will probably become more powerful.

Thinking about Chinesepod in 2005 and comparing it with Chinesepod in 2009/2010 might give some indication on how things can change.

So: What have been the major breakthrough changes at Chinesepod in the last few years?

Skritter; improvements in audio quality, voice acting? Formats like guided and executive? The mobile site? Groups?

Were the onsite classes in Shanghai a paradigm shift in reverse: Back to the old school model?

The grammar guide didn't really take off - so that might be something for the nearer future.

Will Chinesepod go wave? More collaborative?

The future of twitter. Vote: http://twtpoll.com/p4hijy

2020? I don't even give Twitter two more years.

Will something like twitter be still around in 2020??

Anyone into the heads first approach?

Will we have rid ourselves from spam messages in 2020? I very much doubt that. It seems to be a co-evolutionary arms race - spam and spam filtering. (For mutual benefits??)

I am a chinese high school students living in Xi'an

I can speak pure  Mandarin.

I am looking for a foreigner to communicate.

We can change our language !

I will go to study in American university this year.

(maybe NORTHWESTERN U)

my email : hengjiaqi@gmail.com

waiting for your response!

To further fuel the discussion of radical trajectories:

http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_index.html

WHAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING?

"What game-changing scientific ideas and developments do you expect to live to see?"

henning: What do you envision as emerging organisational forms? More open source like projects with people participating at will? Guild-like organisations like in the Wired-scenarios 3 & 4?

I have been reading for ages that working with the same employer for life is something of the past. I see it in academia - where it was part of the picture for some time. I see it with consulting firms and in service industry, e.g. cleaning, catering etc.

It hasn't hit the auto industry, steel, major telecoms, aerospace industry as far as I am aware.

Teleworking isn't what I see - we still commute like crazy AND partly work from home.

Joachim, babardwan,

I agree that the fourth scenario is the most futuristic if understood as a serious alternative. But we are talking about the future and it might one day be enabled by emerging organizational forms plus powerful new tools that massivly reduce the costs, efforts, and skill-requirements for professional content production, e.g. in the areas of speech output or sound editing.

I think it is still more realistic mid-term than the BableFish scenario which requires artificial intelligence - which I subsume under one of the fundamental game changers as discussed abvove.

Joachim,

I tend to agree with you on this one.I think the current balance is pretty good;CPod are willing to listen to user feedback and respond where appropriate,but ultimately you need people with talent,skill and knowhow in the area to be calling the shots.You need someone captaining the ship or it could be chaos.

"A completely user-generated approach [...] which is why it is a good idea CPod tries to capture the respective energy early on." (henning)

Does CPod engage in this? IMHO we currently see quite a lot of quality control that is done by users and some proposals on lesson topics and some tweeking here and there. (And of course, waiting for the Grammar Guide.)

I am not sure if "A completely user-generated approach" is the best idea ...

So, what are the main factors that will shape Chinesepod in the future:

• technological changes brought about by increasing speed, decreasing size and broader connectivity?
• different work - life balances or behaviour that make permanent connectivity a basis for social and economical life?
• virtualisation of production and commerce?
• increasing need for international communication?

henning: With a genuine babelfish as imagined by Douglas Adams, your alternatives would probably all go out of the window - although your no. 3 could be used for piecemeal distribution of different languages or registers.

It will be interesting to watch what types of business models will prevail.

1. You got the CPod way, which is characterized by very high production values based on high-end personnel and technical ressources - financed by heavy-reuse (xPods), mass-appeal, and rigid standardization of formats, styles, and processes.

2. Another upcoming alternative to watch out for is to do it in a more focused, almost niche-like way, working with very limited ressources (to preserve agility). This relies on instant reactions to user requirements, on innovation and constant change (not possible in this extend in case 1 because of the efficiency-pressures)

3. Even smaller: Learning components providers like Skritter who need to restrict themselfes to very small fees because they can only cover a small part of the learning needs. I could imagine that this might end in a "learning portal" where you freely combine various low-cost or free components dynamically - bought in an AppStore kind of fashion. The old vision of component software might come to life there - based on Portlet, Mashup, or WebService technology or derivations.

4. A completely user-generated approach, Wiki style. Similar to approach 3 with tool and component components, but with users (teachers, power-users, developers) feeding in content based on defined templates. Find the goulnikys in this world. Also interesting for the reuse of content from ventures that went out of business.

Business-wise the first approach seems to be the most stable to me, although it is not invulnerable - especially if something radical like approach 4 becomes successful - which is why it is a good idea CPod tries to capture the respective energy early on.

well I guess what I had in mind was something a little more profound than youthful memory. I have to think that absolute total recall would be a great boost. 

goulniky: From what I have heard, at first, infants learn by absorbing almost everything (which is probably a bit annoying at the beginning with everything blurred in black & white). At some stage they - or rather: their brain - have to "connect the dots" and organize the memorized stuff, i.e. FORGET some unnecessary knowledge.

rjberki: Improved memory might only mean better retention and recall. You would still have to learn things - making the connections could be faster, but going through those flashcards would still be your job.

henning: I'd guess that some stable traits are a mirage. Of course, we can still empathize with tales from thousands of years ago. Nevertheless, we assume things to be similiar to what we know - it's probably like anthropomorphizing other animals: mama bear, papa bear, baby bear etc. 

What would be the benefits of full immersion? I like to be NOT fully immersed when listening to my daily podcasts - driving wouldn't be possible with full immersion. 

rjberki, kids have a pretty good memory and little inhibition, but it still takes them many years of constant language exposure to become articulate. Granted, they learn the concepts as they go along, but it still a good many years, say 5 at least to get to where you'd want to be, probably more like 10.

If I had a drug that improved memory I would be speaking Chinese in no time. Just think how nice it would be if you only had to learn something once for it to stick. 2020, may just see such a change.

What I find *really* mindboggling is how stable many traits of mankind are - despite the neverending stream of political and technological revolutions. Almost all relevant properties of basic human cognition and social behaviour seem pretty stable to me - which is one of the reasons that many centuries old books are still relevant today.

And learning is the epitome of cognition and human behaviour.

So is CPod a revolution? If you ask me, the revolution is the distribution. The rest is darn good teaching. But I would have bought the CPod audio-cassetts 12 years ago.

So what disruptive developments might really change the essence of learning? Technologies that have an impact on those seemingly stable characteristics - that BTW define our species.

Examples:

• Full immersion / VR or at least close approximations to it. That is going to come one day and yes, it would open new doors to acquiring knowledge.
• Mind alterations - implanting memories and knowledge into the brain. No learning required anymore...
• Real AI. If computers started to think, the pillars of human society would tremble.
• Tinkering with human genes. The systematic selection of embrios (to sort out genetic defects, shortcomings, reduced intelligence...) is a first, crucial step to alter the species itsself.
• Improbable Star Trek stuff (beaming, replication, interstellar travel etc.).

Now, conservative as I am, I do not expect any of those to become reality within the upcoming 11 years - although the possibility exists, esp. for the first point (The game changes if the time horizon is 100 years - given that our civilization stays alive and continues to innnovate).

Without any of those radical and disruptive changes, the CPod model could continue for far over a decade - although maybe in a different business structure (e.g. as part of a big learning corporation - or after a transformation wich turns CPod into such an entitiy).

goulniky: I'd differentiate between non-linear and non-continous change. There has been exponential growth in computer power and internet coverage. The latter will peter out in terms of absolute coverage (extension) and will turn to change in terms of intensity, e.g. bandwidth, speed and storage capabilties of devices, mobile availabity -> ubiquity. These exponential developments might trigger "catastrophic" changes.

The nice thing with some devices and the according infrastructure is the possibility to leap-frog, e.g. start with a mobile phone right away and never have a landline.

Is the divide increasing because of the extremily rich getting richer exponentially or because of the poor getting even poorer? 

Joachim: as I said, by catastrophy I meant radical, non-continuous change, not necessarily wars or comets.

Technology evolution over the past 10 years was all but linear. The exponential nature of Moore's law in terms of hardware performance has been matched by societal impacts and major shifts, ChinesePod being one of the resulting avatars.

Even if everything remains the same, what would be the human / educational impact of say, a sensitive device in every house / car etc. carrying audio, video, olfactive signals so that we can immerse ourselves in millions Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian, African homes (dreaming)?

That's not too far-fetched, except it assumes there will be more energy, more speed, more and smaller devices by a few orders of magnitude (2^10), also more freedom etc.

But there may not be, something is likely to give, you mentioned regulations (politics) yourself. That doesn't even start touching on the rapidly growing divide between disgustingly rich and unacceptably out of reach poverty.

goulniky: The scenarios ARE 2x2 as explained in the wired.com-article. I only used them as a starting point. We may come up with our own scenarios.

There might be catastrophic events, but I'd like to take major underlying trends as a more important foundation to derive conlusions. Things like 9/11, Tchernobyl should be considered as "wildcards".

I don't expect any sudden catastrophies in the next ten years like a comet smashing into earth etc.

kimik: Some of those Wired-scenarios might mean that there is a fragmented web, like in North Korea, or as with regulations under consideration in Australia. That is a good point.

I actually do not think that the web in 2020 will be the same thing. At least in terms of technology storage will still increase, speed will increase, general availability and coverage will increase. Regulations and politics will be very important concerning density distributions and access for all in terms of regions and income status.

The questions for Chinesepod are: What are the factors influencing the essence of Chinesepod. I think that Chinesepod's essential features are:

• (almost) global availability,
• asynchronous learning,
• scale effects through an easy, cheap worldwide distribution,
• user generated topics and
• close feedback between service provision and user.

The internet today enables these things. Future technology, a future "internet" might still enable them - and hopefully help them flourish and grow.

taking henning's point in reverse, I looked back 11 years and found a quite interesting book :

the introduction is still worth reading

CPod in 11 years?

3960 lessons (then focussing more on subjects like "mid life crises" or "kids in puberty").

And the Grammar Guide is just about to come (soon, very soon).

Joachim,

In all your predictions, there's a strange postulate saying that the World Wide Web as we know it today may still exist in a decade.

In fact, if we're going the same way as the decline of the Roman Empire, there's also a possibility of a fragmented Web in a close futur.

I can't fully visualize those scenarios, but they seem very much evolutionary to me, down to the infamous 2x2 matrix of the large consultancies.

But difficult as it is to predict, I think we can reasonably assume that a catastrophy will put the world on a different orbit. Not excluding cataclismic events, mainly think catastrophy theory here, where

'small changes in certain parameters of a nonlinear system can cause equilibria to appear or disappear, or to change from attracting to repelling and vice versa, leading to large and sudden changes of the behaviour of the system.'