There were too many things to touch on in considering these articles Minds on Fire and Learning Working & Playing in the Digital Age by John Seely Brown. In Minds, I enjoyed the examples of the difference Cartesian vs Social Learning and agree that much of what I found most valuable in my own life were social learning situations either formal or informal.
The use of open source to illustrate both the development of participants (from lurkers, to small contributors and possible authorities) as well as the potential of social learning generated by millions of contributors refining, collaborating and teaching is powerful. Throughout both articles it was discussed and illustrated that Web 2.0 (Learning 2.0) in the context of a social and dynamic event is changing how learners learn. I especially liked the example of the tech’s telling war stories since when I worked for an Apple re-seller in the mid 1990’s I would have never survived without my much more knowledgeable coworkers or my two-way radio.
Some time ago (a decade or more) a colleague explained to me the difference between the guide on the side and the sage on the stage. More recently a teammate used an illustration of a symphony conductor to illustrate the evolution of learning and the premise that struck me the most was about building trust between the leader of the band and the musicians. In a sense that how I see the role of facilitator, can we get the interested lurker (don’t really like that word) trusting enough to participate in a larger and larger way. And this all sounds great!
So, being somewhat of a contrarian there has to be a qualification. When referring to Amazon and how they can service and make as much money since the long tail does not apply the same in eCommerce as it does in the brick and mortar world of business. Brown, the other one not me, uses this as a way to include everyone as a social learner building the same types of skills if in alternative areas.
The concern I would think about when comparing learning to Amazon books is that yes we can have people learn a niche area they can “learn about” as well as “learn to be” a full participant but how narrow is the niche? It works with business in catering to niche markets but will this also be effective when learners seek employment? Further in the article It seems to say that learners (and it can be assumed later on as employees) need to be able to move from area to area or niche to niche. This is assuming that they have developed a robust set of 21st century skills that would carry them from niche to niche. Here is the caveat (Caveat it’s like Steve Martin said “those French have a different word for everything” ).
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_8amMzGAx4&w=420&h=315]
What happens if learners focus on very narrow niches like say 19 century French poetry/literature
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVeJ5F26uiM&w=560&h=315]
Sorry if anyone has a doctorate in French poetry but I always found Groundhog Day to be a funny movie and that line always makes me laugh. Having said that, how much of a niche area is that? By the very nature they specialize in such a small and refined area that will those skills be transferable? French would be… but If students don’t learn those transferable skills will they be a segment of the population who will miss out? Creating a new wrinkle on the digital divide if you will.
Sorry, I just can’t help playing Devil’s advocate when considering issues. Not because I like to be difficult or believe in that view point but feel that all aspects and issues should be explored (It’s why I usually get in trouble with the powers that be when they have made up their minds and I guess they are asking rhetorically if anyone has any different input). Plus now you have food for thought to comment on :-))