Schools in an Age of Abundance
Chris Anderson’s PopTech talk looks at what happens as we move from economies of scarcity to an age of abundance. The implications are interesting, especially as they pertain to schools. If we look at most schools today, we can see that they are still operating under (and often locked into) a model of scarcity. From the bookshelf space in the library to the information that is doled out by professors with limited office hours, we notice that the information, services, and availability to connect with others comes in quantities that are meager compared to what we experience outside of these institutions.
The brick and mortar institution’s limits become quite apparent in an age of connective simplicity and informational abundance. A school’s institutional dilemma (its management costs) preclude it from joining the age of abundance with the same effectiveness as say, self-organizing, non-hierarchical groups. Budgets limit the amount of teachers a school can hire or the variety of classes it can offer. Economic considerations make it more likely that popular classes are offered at the expense of more eclectic, less mainstream offerings. Under this model of scarcity, we end up with more homogeneous curricula which is less capable of expanding students’ horizons or fulfilling niche interests. Studying long-tail retailers like Netflix, marketers have been surprised by the vitality and variety of niche-based communities and their ability to produce a viable, if not small, market. One can only wonder what niche educational markets are currently going untapped due to the prevailing educational model of scarcity and the narrow economic filters it finds itself obligated to use. It seems inevitable, as many are currently doing in affinity groups, that more and more students will self-organize, teaching each other and working with formal and informal mentors in ways that traditional institutions, operating under models of scarcity, simply cannot match.
The current educational model, one of scarcity, requiring a safe and conservative approach, has produced a type of education that is far less dynamic than what is happening in informal, open, and self-organizing groups. The following paragraph from Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century (p. 9) says it well [bold added]:
Affinity spaces are distinct from formal educational systems in several ways. While formal education is often conservative, the informal learning within popular culture is often experimental. While formal education is static, the informal learning within popular culture is innovative. The structures that sustain informal learning are more provisional, those supporting formal education are more institutional. Informal learning communities can evolve to respond to short-term needs and temporary interests, whereas the institutions supporting public education have remained little changed despite decades of school reform. Informal learning communities are ad hoc and localized; formal educational communities are bureaucratic and increasingly national in scope.We can move in and out of informal learning communities if they fail to meet our needs; we enjoy no such mobility in our relations to formal education.
People are flocking to information providers that have embraced the economic model of abundance. Providers such as Wikipedia, iTunes, Netflix, and Flickr have stolen marketshare from providers like Encarta, Tower Records, Blockbuster and Corbis, respectively–in some cases, driving them out of business or forcing them to radically alter the way they operate. It will be interesting to see how the disruptive forces of abundance play out in educational institutions. It will also be interesting to see the variety, depth and educational richness that will flourish when economic, geographic, temporal, regulatory, and bureaucratic barriers no longer limit what people are able to study.
Of possible interest:
The Invention of Air, PLNs, and School Transformation
