Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0: Reading Response

Education has certainly shifted since my graduate collegiate years (2001-2002). During my graduate study, pedagogical practices were mostly affiliated with plausible theoretical review for field knowledge (supply-push method). However, the years have brought about a societal shift. Today, pedagogical practices semi-correlate to these societal shifts  (to meet the needs of today’s students), but to an extent.  Brown and Adler’s article “Mind on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0,” examines educational practices today and provides insight for future pedagogical needs. 

Brown and Adler state, “As we move from career to career, much of what we will need to know will not be what we learned in school decades earlier. We are entering a world in which we all will have to acquire new knowledge and skills on an almost continuous basis.” I do agree with the authors’ belief. (This statement has validity.) However, I am concerned about the feasibility of this statement. If the majority of importance is placed on “current-ness” of knowledge, then what will be the level of importance placed on prior education? Would students begin to devalue education if importance is placed on the “now” instead of the previously learned? (Imagine a student during his or her freshman year of college. The student plans to obtain a doctorate degree in Biology. The student is aware of the current knowledge career preparation importance theory. Thus the student decides to slightly neglect his or her undergraduate study, as the theories taught will no longer be of value when doctoral graduate study begins/concludes. Is this student’s actions deemed appropriate?) Will there be a decrease in long-term program enrollment at higher education institutions (students opting for certificates, or professional development courses instead)? These are some questions that I ponder.

Student-expert learning is one intriguing educational factor that Brown and Adler discusses. In the article, the authors mention the e-Science program that allows students to interact with scientist. I believe that student fieldwork should be immersed in this concept. It provides students with the opportunity to learn via direct interaction with a scholar in the field. This in turn would improve student learning, confidence, and sustainability.

Brown and Adler conclude by denouncing rigorous formality (rightfully so).  The authors encourage more demand-pull educational practices, and less supply-push utilization (student memorization/knowledge building).  According to the authors, “The demand-pull approach is based on providing students with access to rich (sometimes virtual) learning communities built around a practice. It is passion-based learning, motivated by the student either wanting to become a member of a particular community of practice or by just wanting to learn about, make, or perform something.” Education needs to continuously evolve to equate with societal needs. Today, students need to be inspired. The demand-pull approach allows student experimentation while ensuring learning. This is a practice that should be universally used.