Entrepreneurial Learning in Networked Age

Entrepreneurial learningin the networked ageHow new learning environmentsfoster entrepreneurship and innovation

Computers and the Internet started in the later half of the 20thcentury as instruments of research and thereby of learning. Today,they have become an omnipresent part of our daily routines bybecoming much easier for us to use. During this evolution theyhave also become consumer products and, at least partially, losttheir original educational potential. It is the social peer productionaspects of the online environments as well as the hardwareplatforms described in this article, which makes us subsume themas social technologies specifically favorable for entrepreneuriallearning.

MAX SENGESJOHN SEELY BROWN HOWARD RHEINGOLD

Learning for cultural and technologicalcitizenship in the 21stcentury

Knowledge work reverses several negative (de-humanizing) trends of the industrial age, butwhile the demands of the workplace havechanged, the educational system hasnt. Ratherthan developing in parallel with technology andmodern businesses, education is still dominantlygeared to condition its subjects to embody whatGermans dub Fachidioten people who arewell suited to adapt into hierarchic organiza-tions, and to perform repetitive tasks. By focus-ing on the potential of innovative socio-techno-logical learning environments, we address thisdiscrepancy by proposing an enlightened humanistic educational paradigm.

The paradigmatic shift from the current system is moving awayfrom educational institutions towardslearning environments whereindividuals are encouraged to liberatethemselves from the self-incurredtutelage.

The first paradigmatic shift from the current system is moving away from educational institu-tions towards learning environments where individuals are encouraged to liberate themselvesfrom the self-incurred tutelage1 and to devel-op an internal locus of control thus makingfree choices about who they want to become.Differently put, the aim of the approach de-scribed is to generate entrepreneurial mindsets.We define entrepreneurship as the practice ofidentifying and creating all kinds of opportuni-ties and then taking action aimed at realizingthem2. We see this proactive target mindset asthe basis for enlightened self-realization.

Next to fostering an entrepreneurial mindsetin the students, the objectives of humanistic

learning can be framed around the traditionalHellenistic knowledge dichotomy: episteme andtechn. Episteme stands for big picture learning3,

for learning about the world as a whole andones position in it. It represents education to-wards cultural citizenship4, i.e. the responsibili-ties and contributions one makes to the societyby participating in the community and generat-ing culture. Techn instead focuses on learningabout special traits, i.e. learning the techniquesof a profession and producing economical valueby performing the tasks associated with itthrough the division of labor this knowledgeallows for what Delanty (2001) dubbed technolo-gical citizenship5.

The overarching competence we are concernedabout is enabling students to perceive the world(and esp. social technology) as a learning oppor-tunity space. This technology can be used forcritical inquiry that allows them to develop ashumans and as professionals. It is a, if not the,central challenge of educators to provide stu-dents with the skills of critical inquiry.

Today, the worlds knowledge is literally in theair6, an ephemeral library to be retrieved by theright device and the right search term. But agreat deal of misinformation and disinformationis also in the air. How does one find out whatone wants to know by asking the right questiononline? Equally important, how does one knowthat the results returned from such queries arefactually accurate or true? Hence, we see a needfor training, both in the art of inquiry and criticalanalysis. This question relates back directly toFreire7 and Postman8.

When all information is available, the educators challenge is to identifyand select materials.

Curiosity is the motivating force for learning inall humans, but is often blunted by traditionaldelivery of knowledge from expert to novicepedagogy. With a movement away from theknowledge container delivery method to a moreactive inquiry method, we witness the renais-

Talent management126

sance of curiosity. Curiosity is the most impor-tant motivating force for inquiry which is howknowledge is discovered online.

Curiosity as cognitive fuel

The core philosophical objective of curiosity is tocause learners to release themselves from theirself-incurred tutelage9 and dare to know (sa-pere aude). To come of age cognitively means todevelop an internal locus of control and realizethat one has free will and accountable agency.Once realized, this fundamental component ofan entrepreneurial mindset10 instigates continu-ous venturing towards a better understanding oflife (episteme) and an improvement in methods(techn).

But for now, lets leave the ends aside and returnto the fuel itself curiosity.

It is important to allow students to learn how to interact with othersand how to be socially online.

Curiosity11 is the behavior that represents a fundamental component of neophilia, definedby the New Hackers Dictionary as the trait ofbeing excited and pleased by novelty.12 ColinCampbell, professor of sociology at the Univer-sity of York in the UK, assesses neophilia to bean explicitly modern disposition: Pre-modernsocieties tend to be suspicious of the novel. Itis a feature of modernity that we are addictedto novelty. In many ways this mindset is em-bodied through the archetype of the British explorers, the trappers scouting the Wild West,and more recently, in hackers.

Perpetuum Addisco

The search for the perpetuum mobile is almost ashistoric as the alchemists dream of turning metalinto gold. In the world of meta-physics therehas always been what we humbly call perpetuum

addisco (never ending learning). The equation ofthis learning engine can be formulated as:

curiosity + thematic scaffolding = infinite selfmotivated learning

Historically, the thematic scaffolding was doneby elders who passed on their knowledge. Overtime, more and more knowledge transfer tech-niques have been developed. The result of thismodel is our current system, which so woefullyneglects curiosity13. Instead, pre-packagedknowledge containers (standardized lesson-plans, textbooks, and the unfortunate first gen-eration approach of e-learning, where learnersinteractions are reduced to a click on the nextpage link) are forcefed on the learner who isexpected to sit back and consume (at least thebasics) without asking too many questions14.

Vygotsky bounds learning within what hecalls the zone of proximal development, whichhe defined as the distance between the actualdevelopmental level as determined by inde-pendent problem solving and the level of poten-tial development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or incollaboration with more capable peers.15 Cu-riosity researcher Day16 describes a system witha zone of relaxation and a zone of anxietysurrounding what he calls the zone of curiositywhere ideal learning conditions prevail.

The net is so versatile that it can be the suitablezone of curiosity for most learning endeavors17.Next to the intellectual skills of cyber literacy, itis important to allow students to learn how to interact with others and how to be socially on-line. Alongside the technical skills of creatingand sharing informational social objects, thelearners must master social skills, like facilitat-ing a debate, dealing with disruptive partici-pants, asking for assistance, etc. These scenariosexpose users to very similar challenges to of-fline social interactions.

How then can we translate these concepts intoinnovative tools and services that allow for betterlearning?

127paradigmes / Issue no. 1 / December 2008

The perfect cyber-stormfor learning

Several early phenomena in the social technolo-gies environment portend the promise of trulyamending the educational practices and systemto comprise the humanistic approach outlinedabove.

The Long Tail of learning

In his seminal article The Long Tail, Chris Anderson18 presented an astonishing analysisof how online business changed the fundamen-tal market conditions. In all classical markets,businesses have traditionally made the lion shareof their sales from the most popular best-sellingproducts in their catalogs. While this continuesto be true, the internet allows vendors like Ama-zon to offer an enormous variety of niche prod-ucts which are sold slowly but steadily through-out the year. The volume of these sales is lower,but the cost to store them as commodities is alsolower because the products are stored in lowbudget warehouses. Andersons surprising find-ing is that, taken together, these millions ofniche products can create a serious business.

Those students who participated insmall study groups are significantlymore engaged, better preparedfor class, and learn substantially morethan those students who studyby themselves.

We observe a very similar scenario for learning.While there is a high volume of demand for pop-ular subjects and courses, there is also massivedemand for special interest courses, which areseldom realized. These niche courses on e.g.Norwegian sheep breeding cannot be offeredby traditional institutions because they simplycannot afford to create or license the content norcontract a teacher. On the web however, demandis aggregated from students from all over the

world, thereby increasing the likelihood that acritical mass is reached.

Open Educational Resources

Secondly, networked technology allows for edu-cators around the world to digitally create, share,and remix their course materials. This movement,which has been dubbed Open Educational Re-sources (OER), has recently been building largerepositories. Once an educator has contributedhis material to this pool of common resources,it evolves and becomes part of a universalknowledge base, which both educators and students can access. Courses can be translatedinto other languages and localized to fit moretopically specific cultural contexts.

Networked technology allows foreducators around the world to digitallycreate, share, and remix their coursematerials in so-called OpenEducational Resources.

The most prominent OER initiative, which pio-neered and popularized the idea around theworld, was born when the Hewlett PackardFoundation funded MITs Open Courseware(OCW) initiative in 2001. In what was widelyperceived as an epochal strategic decision, MITsleadership agreed to make its courses freelyavailable on the internet. Today, after severalyears of OCW, MIT recognizes a very positive assessment of their initiative. Not only has ithelped MIT to fulfill its mission to widely spreadhigh quality education, it has also substantiallyincreased MITs institutional recognition, thusserving as a marketing tool to attract prospectivestudents.

The OER movement is picking up momentum.Hundreds of educational institutions and thou-sands of educators have teamed to collaborateand pursue a practice of global sharing and co-operation towards the provision of engaging,timely and highly customized learning materials.


Social media as affordance to scale meaningful learning

Digital ethnographer Michael Wesch excellentlydescribes how social media enables scalabilityof the pedagogy we are exploring. When, as discussed above, all information is available, theeducators challenge is to identify and select ma-terials that make meaningful connections andgenerate significance in the learners life. Weschdistinguishes between intellectual and personalmeaningfulness. Intellectual means results froma learner understanding that a word, conceptor idea is not just meaningful for what it is, butfor how it relates, connects, and contrasts withother words, concept and ideas.19 Personallymeaningful connections are created in the inter-action with others and through the individualslearning to be a respected participant in a com-munity. Both aspects are very much humanisticin that they focus on the creation of significanceof information for the individual. Consequently,for information to reach the learner, the educatorneeds to aim to create a situation where the student cares about the subject.

Learning with social technologycomprises an immanent shift to a newparadigm of social learning whereinstudents learn to be knowledgeablerather than to memorize information,and to live and experience this newknowledge.

When aiming for care in a reciprocal manner,the big question is scalability: in a small class it ismuch more possible for the educator to careabout the individual. Traditionally, this resulted ina one-to-many relationship, with the educatorbroadcasting to the students. This is where socialmedia based e-learning changes the class condi-tions dramatically. By using the many-to-manymediation services of the web, students interactamongst themselves and thereby set the stage fordevelop caring relationships (through discussionsin the forum, sharing and commenting onblogsand social bookmarking, etc.). In this model,

the educators role isnt simply to dispenseknowledge from a vessel, but instead to point outthe whereabouts of the knowledge pool, and tocoach students how to dip into it themselves.

In this sense the teacher serves more to catalyzeinterest, to instigate flows and facilitate theemergence of a vibrant learning community.

The web as a social and scientificlearning environment

ETraditional media allowed for a clear distinctionbetween private and public writing. Online, thisdichotomy has blurred to the point of useless-ness. Netizens have always held public (globallyaccessible) discussions, but the new wave ofplatforms and services dubbed web 2.0 havesubstantially increased democratization by en-abling all digital natives20 to aggregate, syndicate,comment on, and edit content through a host ofdesktop and mobile tools.

In fact, the participatory ubiquitousness of theweb makes information-sharing so abundant


The new wave of web 2.0 platforms and servi-ces have enabled all digital natives to aggrega-te, syndicate, comment on, and edit content.

that the social context (the community) withwhom one is relaying information, communicat-ing and co-creating, becomes a key aspect of theonline experience. The strength of web 2.0 liesin the tools that allow us to team-up and digi-tally cohabitate with other people who share ourinterests.

Virtual communities form very rapidly aroundsocial (information) objects21 weaving a decen-tralized discussion, or through the recognition ofa common interest.

Rather than memorizing textbookknowledge students should be errordetectors.

These new ways of networking and collaborationprovide an enormous potential for social lear-ning22. The quality and didactic style of the edu-cational resources is only one component thatdetermines the learning outcome. Equally im-portant is how the learner studies the material.Richard J. Light from Harvards School of Educa-tion has reported some very interesting insightsrevealing that those students who participated insmall study groups (even only once a week) weresignificantly more engaged, better prepared forclass, and learned substantially more than thosestudents who studied by themselves.23 Treis-man24 also reported that cultural differences werevery influential in determining the dispositiontowards creating and participating in studygroups. Treismans findings are especially rele-vant when thinking about mainstreaming trans-institutional e-learning practices globally. Hencelearning with social technology comprises an immanent paradigm shift from a Cartesian un-derstanding of knowledge as a didactically trans-ferable substance to a new paradigm of sociallearning wherein students learn to be knowledge-able rather than to memorize information, andto live and experience this new knowledge bysocially and collectively constructing it, hencemaking it meaningful in their cognitive context.

CCCEs director Lance Bennett describes a learn-ing style paradigm shift from an authoritative,

text-based, one-way knowledge transmissionfrom instructor to instructed to an interactive,project-based, peer-to-peer information-sharinghive. In his words, learning to be is characterizedby participatory media creation in comparison topassive media (knowledge container) consump-tion. Along these lines, Postman25 too called for acure for the itch for absolute knowledge andencouraged teachers and students to accept im-perfect knowledge. This is present in Bennettspromotion for the preference for democratic en-vironments, where learners participate in creat-ing content & assessing credibility.26 Ratherthan memorizing textbook knowledge studentsshould, in this view, be error detectors.27 Theseerror detectors shouldnt focus solely on the fac-tuality of a static historical date, but insteadshould be alert to the potential to create newcontent in a credibly focused manner.

In the following section we review three educa-tional ventures, which all in different ways exem-plify the use of social media for entrepreneuriallearning and cultural and technological citizenship.

Learning throughCollaborative Inquiry

Our first example is Howard Rheingolds SocialMedia Collaboratory (CoLab). He tackles themission of spreading an understanding of thesocial empowerment and self-development pos-sible through participation in the netpublics28. Tothat end, Rheingold has created an online-class-room and course design meant to allow studentsto learn about the tools and services which arethen employed to create a vibrant public sphere.Students are also encouraged to learn to be-come an engaged and constructive netizenthrough collaborative and self-directed experi-mentation.

The CoLab provides the tools and thematic scaf-folding that are needed to foster a good learningexperience. More than just the tools, it is thecourse design itself which exploits the web 2.0tools functionality to facilitate what Dewey called


productive inquiry to engage in productiveinquiry is to be actively pursuing a problem,puzzle, point of fascination, object of wonder,or the like; it is to seek an answer, solution orresolution.29

Howard Rheingolds Social MediaCollaboratory spreads anunderstanding of the socialempowerment and self-developmentpossible through participation in thenetpublics.

In the Social Media course, this concept ispushed even further. Here, the term collaborativeinquiry is used to stress the community and inter-active learning. As a consequence of this learningphilosophy, students enrolled in Rheingoldscourse dont simply receive lectures from an ex-pert. Instead, the instructor, together with studentteaching teams, invites and facilitates co-explo-ration of and co-experimentation with social me-dia theory and practice. There is no static canonto be transmitted and memorized. Rather, knowl-edge is to be actively explored, interrogated, criti-cally analyzed, and collaboratively assembled inwhat has been dubbed the online col-laboratory.

Self-evaluation and productive inquiry begins assoon as the student applies for the course. To beaccepted in this learning community eachlearner answers a set of questions. These ques-tions serve to build an initial profile which willmake him share and reflect about his personalexperience with, as well as his personal interestin, social media. This learner profile serves aspoint of departure for the inquiry and reflectionsof the learner as well as the instructor (allowingboth to compare his activities and progress tothe initial state). Throughout the course, thelearner then engages in a conversation withhimself (in a blog which serves as learning jour-nal) about what the subject might have to dowith (or mean in) the real life world, i.e. thatworld which the learner actually experiences. Inthe learning journal, the student provides the information and experiences its meaning.

Unlike traditional pedagogy, the majority ofthe class content (teaching, discussion, collec-tive inquiry) is performed by the learners withthe instructor serving as a coach or consultantto the learners. First, students self-organize intoteaching teams which collaboratively prepare,teach, and lead inquiry during class presenta-tions by raising questions and moderating discussion about one specific theme.

Second, following the leadership of the studentteaching teams, the entire class will participate inconstructing a wiki page for structuring the knowl-edge that was aggregated and debated during theweeks reading and class discussions. Finally, stu-dents organize into teams of four to conduct anindependent inquiry (research project) which occurs throughout the last half of the course.

At the CoLab, the majority of the classcontent is performed by the learnerswith the instructor serving as a coachor consultant.

All teams form and self-organize based on ashared interest of inquiry. Once formed, theteams review the annotated list of resources pro-vided by the instructor. But rather than just takeresources from the instructor, these teams alsohave to select materials for the remaining stu-dents. These materials must include four hoursworth of specific assigned readings and videosfor the week prior to the following class meeting.The team is thus able to pursue their own locusof inquiry by recommending the readings bestsuited to share their insights.

Additionally, each teaching team formulates fivequestions for five different in-class studentgroups. These questions are designed to initiatethe inquiries most likely to lead to deeperknowledge of the texts subject. Finally, theteaching team leads the wiki-based process ofcapturing and distilling collective knowledgefrom in-class and online discussions. The teamaggregates this information before, during, andafter each class meeting.


The overall grade a student obtains is based 25%on his/her reflections about social media and on-line communities which were documented inher/her personal learning journal. Another 25%of the grade comes from his/her contributions tothe discussions and of the knowledge socializa-tion and codification which occurred in the wiki,and other social media tools. A further 25% isbased on his/her contribution to the teachingand the insights reached by collective inquiry.The final 25% is allotted upon the results of thegroup research project.

Supercool creation of learning opportunitie

Another example of a venture that has set out tochange the way we learn and to promote alearning lifestyle is Supercool School. SupercoolSchool is an online learning marketplace thatempowers everyone to learn and teach using asimple webcam. The recently founded SiliconValley based stealth start-up is a live social e-learning marketplace, which means that it al-lows learners to request or offer classes onwhatever the individual is interested in, or feelscompetent about, and then make this class avail-able for others to join and eventually have a liveonline class using video and audio chat as wellas a shared presentation to guide the learning.

Supercool School gives learners thepossibility to request classes on anysubject and hence to team up withothers who are interested.

It is the antithesis of a standardized curriculum.On Supercool School what matters is the intrin-sic motivation to learn or teach about a subject.The schools founder Steli Efti believes that eachindividual has a dormant passion to learn. Ac-cording to him this innate curiosity has beenlost through the years of forced competitivelearning deployed by the educational system.Supercool School is meant to allow the learner

to regain and gradually develop a new passionfor learning because the content is meaningfuland the setup is informal.

Practically, Supercool School consists of a learn-ing marketplace and a live online classroom.In the marketplace, participants can create class requests or offers, or browse the existing class-pages and sign up as student or teacher. Eachclass-page has a description of what the creatorwants to learn or teach, and this descriptionserves to attract learners and especially ateacher who feels competent to give the class.The page also offers a forum to coordinate thescheduling of the actual live class, as well aspre- and post-class discussion and reflections.At a pre-scheduled time, the students gather ina live online classroom in which the teachersvoice and web-cam video are broadcasted to thestudents while the teacher explains conceptswith the aid of a presentation. Students can in-teract with the teacher and with their peers viachat. The live classes are recorded and uploadedto a public web-video provider so teachers canfurther leverage their efforts, and prospectivestudents can catch up with the information covered in preparation for follow-up classes.

Most classes on Supercool School deal withrather broad subjects such as introductorycourses to foreign languages or internet market-ing. But the ventures team believes that this isdue to the early stage and still relatively smalluser community. They stress that SupercoolSchool gives learners the possibility to requestclasses on any subject and hence to team upwith others who are interested to collaborativelypursue the exact inquiry or theme they are inter-ested in. This claim seems reasonable given thatthe universal nature of the web can bring thevery few people interested in Norwegian sheepbreeding together, as long as they have the media competence to signal their interest andparticipate in the exchange.

Another aspect of learning the Supercool way isthe setup to promote recursive, active learning orlearning to be. People who take classes on Su-percool School are meant to use the platform not


only to learn through the classes imparted byknowledgeable members of the community, instead learners should use their increased com-petence and extend their learning by preparingand imparting classes on a level they feel theymaster. This setup not only provides a morecomprehensive platform for learning to be, but itis also meant to make the Suprecool Schoolmodel sustainable, because if only a part of thestudents give a class on the same subject thelearning continues.

Supercool School is a truly liberal platform as itdoes not influence what nor how learning hap-pens. They write: We believe that there are infi-nite paths to knowledge and that to attempt tosteer is to constraint and to forge new chains.The aim is to provide an evolutionary environ-ment where good practices prevail naturally.30

This approach is in line with educational re-former John Holt, who wrote: Since we cannotknow what knowledge will be most needed inthe future, it is senseless to try to teach it in ad-vance. Instead, we should try to turn out peoplewho love learning so much and learn so wellthat they will be able to learn whatever needs tobe learned.31 The vision is that once educationis understood as learning to make life morewonderful32 rather than to fulfill expectations,natural curiosity becomes an all-encompassingintrinsic motivation for self-directed learning.

Why teach for free?

At Supercool School all standard teaching is donefor free. What motivates the teachers to dedicatetheir time and effort? The Supercool team identi-fies three key motivations: one is that teachingand learning are concomitant; that is, teaching isalso a learning process that enhances ones un-derstanding of a subject.33 Secondly, teaching sat-isfies a social need34 to feel of value to a commu-nity of individuals no matter how geographicallydiverse who share the same interest. Last butnot least, a Supercool teacher, like a blogger,builds a reputation through the profile created bylearner evaluations and by the constructive cri-tiques offered by the social network of learners

familiar with the teachers expertise. These cri-tiques serve as direction how to improve theirskills. Plus teachers with excellent reputations willattract greater numbers of students and profes-sional opportunities based on the trusted net-working of the learning community.

Qualitative and Discrete PerformanceMeasures

At Supercool School there are no exams to passand no test-scores to reach. True learning is mo-tivated by understanding and what is under-stood brings one to the next level, henceprogress is reflected through further learningand especially teaching activities that allowlearners to build a personal profile. Peer learnersand teachers are encouraged to share their im-pressions of the level of understanding and givesocial feedback by describing him/her using key-words (tags), both meant to be foremost a con-structive recommendation for concrete improve-ments and referrals to additional learningresources. This is yet another practice where thisschool turns tradition on its head: it is foremost


Supercool School is an online learning marketplace that empowers everyone to learn and teach using a simple webcam.

the teacher who is assessed by the students. Oneadvantage of the qualitative tagging of theteacher and co-learners is that not only thematiccompetence but also personality traits like pas-sion, humor, or patience are assessed and allevaluation is 35open in the sense that there areno pre-defined categories. The innovators at Supercool School believe that the resulting pro-files will tell much more than a traditional reportcard, as they reveal not only the skill of theteacher but also the efficacy of the learning expe-rience itself for all of the participants. The idea isto create a record of the informal learning activi-ties by formally codifying learning through thecollection of information about the learners in-terests and level of understanding distilled fromthe actual learning activities and the impressionleft with co-learners at Supercool School.

Cooperative learning groups, in which members teach each other,improve attitudes, motivation andlearning.

The system puts into practice what researchershave known for years. Benware and Deci foundthat learners who were given material with theinstructions that they will have to teach it toothers (a setup which was meant to cause moreactive learning) learned significantly more thanstudents in a control group who were instructedthat they will be tested after the learning period.Similarly, Aronson et al. (1978) found that coop-erative learning groups in which memberstaught each other improved attitudes, motiva-tion and learning. Not only is the Supercool set-up meant to increase active learning by causingstudents to be more receptive during class (asfound by Deci & Ryan36) but it also allows for animproved form of collaborative assessment.

Recent trends in education are towards more andmore standardized testing which almost alwaystranslates to automated testing setups performedby machines. However, we agree with educationalentrepreneur Steve Downs, who does not believethat this is neither a good nor a sustainable trend.

In the future, people will not be judged by ma-chines.37 Rather, assessment (such as constructivecritique) will be conducted to improve learningand to develop peer and community recognitionand reputation.

Yet another traditional separation is overcome bythe Supercool approach: there are no cohorts.While there is a certain logic to grouping childrenaccording to their age, it is not the adequatemeans for clustering many learners. Alternatively,ambition and personality types may be moreaccurate as indicators of the students compatibili-ty. In fact, the Supercool profiles are meant to fa-cilitate just that.

Supercool School sees itself as an institution ofthe new culture of learning that emerges at theheart of the knowledge society. The vastness andmultiplicity of the netpublics online knowledgesphere (fora, blogs, wikis, etc.) may be viewed as asingle, complex educational institution, a globalcyber agora where the distinct economies ofknowledge are immanently understood, practiced,and developed by digital natives.

Teachology Sowing theseeds for a more creativesociety

The last innovative approach to education we wantto review is the brainchild of Mitch Resnick, whosepassion is inspiring especially young learners toengage in a virtuous circle of learning through theprocess of creation, use or play, and feedback orreflection which in turn triggers a new round oflearning, which he understands almost as a by-product of creation. His research lab at MIT goesby the name of Lifelong Kindergarten, because forhim technology is above all an enabler to creationand expression, and should be as accessible as thefinger paint and Lego blocks kids use to exploreand learn. The most widespread product that hasits roots there is Lego Mindstorm (intelligent Legobricks that can be programmed really easily tocause reactions to pressure, light or sound).


Currently he and his team work on two morelearning devices: Cricket is meant to be the swiss-army-knife of digital hardware. Crickets are smallprogrammable devices that can make things spin,light up, and play music. You can plug lights, motors, and sensors into a Cricket, then writecomputer programs to tell them how to react andbehave38. Scratch is Crickets complement on thesoftware side. Without the burden of complex programming syntax, learners use the Scratch pro-gramming environment to teach the machinewhat to do in what circumstances. Scratch usesnatural everyday language instead of tech-lingoand most aspects are build up using a modular,Lego-like construction environment. Learnerscombine hard and software engineering to createall types of interactive inventions: musical sculp-tures, interactive jewelry, dancing creatures.39

A boy used Cricket and Scratch to buildhis own version of a computer game.To do so, he had to learn a wholevariety of subjects, not becausesomeone else told him to but becausehe had a genuine interest and was ableto create something which wasmeaningful to him.

After the launch of Scratch over 20 000 program-ming projects were registered within the firstthree months, on the site where learners canshare their creations. And a surprising 15% ofthe projects are extensions to those creationsdone by prior learners. Hence the technologyis only the hook that sparks interest. In this sce-nario the teacher is much closer to a learningconsultant serving as enabler to allow the learnerto learn what is needed to realize their vision.

That is why we decided to dub these immanentlylearning evoking devices teachology.

One illustrative recent example Resnick told usabout is that of a boy, who after playing the hugelypopular console game Guitar Hero was inspired touse Cricket and Scratch to build his own version of

this IT music extravaganza. In the process of build-ing the guitar (simulator) he had to learn a wholevariety of subjects, from electronics, to program-ming, but most importantly about music and howto understand and write notes. Not because some-one else told him its important, nor because hewould be punished if he didnt (like in a schoolexam), but because he had a genuine interest andwas able to create something which was meaning-ful to him and brought him respect from manywho were impressed and appreciated his creation.

Silicon Valleys TechShop is the firstto offer unlimited access to a highend machine shop, prototyping facility,and to a community of fellow maker-entrepreneurs.

Resnick concludes what he perceives as relevantlearning objectives on the way to a more creativesociety: students must learn to think creatively,plan systematically, analyze critically, work collab-oratively, communicate clearly, design iteratively,and learn continuously.40 The aim of RheingoldsCollaboratory resonates well with Resnick, wholikes to expand the voice concept to not only re-late to political voice and citizen duties, but to in-clude all forms of self-expression; especially artisticand the connection to other people. In his view,one important aspect of this kind of entrepreneur-ial learning is accepting the risk of being wrong.Ken Robinson epitomized this aspect that one hasto be prepared to be wrong or otherwise youwill not be able to create something original.41

The bottom line here is that computers are won-derful for transmitting and accessing information,but they are, more broadly, a new mediumthrough which people can create and expressthemselves. And it seems this understanding isemerging as a new trend.

This learning by doing is also the motivationamong the entrepreneurs of Silicon ValleysTechShop42. First of its kind, the TechShop offersits members unlimited access to a high end machine shop, prototyping facility, and to a


community of fellow maker-entrepreneurs. Themodel, which the TechShop founders plan toreplicate and export around the globe, is not newas such (shared workshops are a common practiceamong craftsmen), but what is extraordinary is thekind of sophisticated equipment enabling users toapply otherwise unimaginable techniques likerapid prototyping for the high tech innovationsSilicon Valley is famous for. What is also differentto the traditional common workshop is thatTechShop members are a heterogeneous mixof technologists, engineers and hobbyists from allwalks of life, what allows for extensive cross-fer-tilization and learning.

Conclusions

Four trends that will hopefully bring new impuls-es to and complement the formal educationalsystem have been identified:

High quality learning materials are beingmade available for free and educators as well asself-directed learners can complement and remixthem to create ever more customized learningopportunities.

The new social tools of the web allow forever more special interest communities to reachcritical mass and develop as vibrant onlinelearning communities.

The open mentality and technology thatenables a see-for-yourself and do-it-yourselfmaker culture has sown the first seeds for moresocial technology and entrepreneurial mindsets.

Digital natives grow up in a world wheredealing with enormous amounts of informationis second nature. We can only speculate what in-formational capacities these generations will de-velop. Some claim that the result will be mainlyshort attention spans and an enormous accumu-lation of trivial knowledge about football, stars,and brands etc. They might be right that the cur-rent trajectory looks like it is going in this direc-tion, but if we go back to conceptualize the web

as a mind amplifier and the medium to promoteperpetuum addisco things look brighter. There-fore let us re-examine the two components ofthe formula: thematic scaffolding + curiosity =infinite self-motivated learning.

The web as the ultimate personalizedlearning environment

The web, and search engines in particular, haveprofoundly changed the way we are willing toengage in things we dont know how to do. Inonline learning there is no longer a personstanding at the front of the room to guide thestudent through a lesson for an hour.43 Thesedays one is not stared at with disbelief whenclaiming that the internet is quickly evolving tohold the most complete representation of hu-man knowledge. The part that holds contentthat is explicitly educational is still small, butone can easily imagine the collection of OpenEducational Resources to become the worldsbiggest collection of educational materials. Inthis context it seems adequate to envision how,over time, educators will remix and customizethese materials for a multitude of learners al-lowing them to penetrate the body of knowl-edge through an entry point that takes their individual background, current knowledge aswell as specific inquiry into consideration.

The key ingredient to fosteringcuriosity is the social learningpotential of social technology.

In this scenario one imagines (traditional) edu-cation institutions like universities to providelearning spaces equipped with special affor-dances and teachers, who are experts consultingwith the learners on how to realize their proj-ects. This type of learning is pioneered by inno-vative institutions like Stanfords d.school44 adesign thinking laboratory, where students learncreative solution oriented thinking, multi-disci-plinary team work, and iterative developmentand refinement of prototypes. Because studentteams are working with real problems of real


clients and because of the multi-disciplinarity,the applied learning that is happening is pro-found and meaningful.

In order to benefit and strive in this global learn-ing environment local and regional decisionmakers should encourage and set incentives soeducational institutions and their educators be-come aware of these open repositories and learnhow to participate in the expansion, optimizationand localization of the educational resources offered by the web.

The last frontier is the human mind (or how to find the well of curiosity)

We discussed in the section on curiosity thatopen networked technology by itself has a posi-tive but limited influence on the learners curiosi-ty, but the key ingredient to fostering curiosity isthe social learning potential of social technology.On the web thematic peer-learning communitiesallow learners to practice the trait in question. Itis through this relationship building (peer-caring)that social technology can increase overall curios-ity. The netpublic created through social technolo-gy has its roots in the complex emergence of relationships expressed by its users. It is the so-cial interplay and participation in the weaving ofthis web that generates significance, engagementand therefore curiosity.

The global nature of the networkedtechnology sphere has the potential tofoster global thinking andcosmopolitanism.

It is through relationships, through the weavingand dancing together that networked technologyallows for a new perception and self-definitionof oneself, which, in our view, favors the devel-opment of an internal locus of control, which liesat the very center of an entrepreneurial mind-set.45 Additionally, the global nature of the net-worked technology sphere has the potential tofoster global thinking and cosmopolitanism. In

short, the intrinsic conditions when using socialtechnology are favorable for both aims of the hu-manistic educational approach described bigpicture learning and discourse (episteme) as wellas development of highly specialized professionalexpertise (techne).

Technology in itself, apart from social contextand human agency, is neither good, bad norneutral. Instead it is up to each individual to en-gage in peer-producing the learning space thatallows him to pursue his interest. Technologygenerates learning experiences, these experi-ences have to be translated into meaningfulcompetencies and practices. What matters is howthe experience can be exploited to generate per-sonal development or professional knowledge.

All ventures we reviewed shared a convictionand dedication to use ICT to empower the learn-er to release themselves from their self-incurredtutelage, give him reasons to continue educat-ing themselves,46 by making him digitally flu-ent, which involves not only knowing how touse technological tools, but also knowing how toconstruct things of significance with thosetools.47 It is in this creative power that we as-sess a great potential for social technology tofoster an entrepreneurial mindset and therebyinnovation. This is why we assess cyber-literacyas trained in the Social Media Collaboratory tobe so instrumental for meaningful participation(learning to be online) in todays and tomorrowssocieties. Efforts to enable citizens to use andcontribute to the netpublics should therefore havehigh priority for decision makers aiming to se-cure the competitiveness and innovative capacityof their constituency.

While this article embraces a positive percep-tion of the new technologies of learning, wewant to close by pointing out one of the greatremaining challenges. Even though we agreewith Wesch48 that information has individualrelevance for each learner, there can be nodoubt that there is different quality of informa-tion. Thus a balance has to be found by the ed-ucator between giving learners freedom to explore and develop their individual curiosity


or interest in a subject and him/her providingaccess to the concepts, ideas and findings thathave won legitimized recognition. In otherwords, if the objective of inquiry is to generatean understanding of the truly essential, theneducators are facing the paradox challenge to

encourage learners to use the new environ-ments described, but also to stay focused andnot to get carried away surfing and chatting,rather then standing on the shoulder of gi-ants and taking in and understanding whattradition has selected as the essential insights.


MAX SENGES

PhD at the Open University of Catalonia and Master in Business InformationSystems at the University of Applied Sciences of Wildau (Berlin).

He recently finished a post-doc visiting scholarship at the School of Education ofStanford University.

JOHN SEELY BROWN

BA in Mathematics and Physics at Brown University and PhD in Computer andCommunication Sciences at the University of Michigan.

Visiting scholar at USC and advisor to the Provost.

He was the the Chief Scientist of Xerox Corporation and the director of its Palo AltoResearch Center up to 2002 and has taken part in the International Panel of

Advisors to the National Pact for Research and Innovation of Catalonia.

He has been awarded the McKinsey prize by the Harvard Business Review twice.

HOWARD RHEINGOLD

Visiting professor at De Montfort University, UK, as well as lecturer at UC Berkeleyand Stanford University.

A former editor of Whole Earth Review and The Millennium Whole Earth Catalog, aswell as founding executive editor of Hotwired and founder of Electric Minds. He was

a non-resident Fellow, Annenberg Center for Communication, USC.


References

BENKLER, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven [Conn.]: Yale UniversityPress.

BENWARE, C. A., & DECI, E. L. (1984). Quality of Learning with an Active versus Passive Motivational Set. American Educational ResearchJournal, 21(4), 755-765.

BOROWSKE, K. (2005). Curiosity and Motivation-to-Learn. Paper presented at the ACRL Twelfth National Conference

BROWN, J. S., & THOMAS, D. (2006). You Play World of Warcraft? You're Hired! Wired, 14 April, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archi-ve/14.04/learn.html

BROWN, J. S., & THOMAS, D. (2008). The gamers disposition. Harvard Business Review (February).

CARSON, B. H. (1996). Thirty years of stories: the professors place in student memories. Change, 28 (6), 10-17

d.school. (2008). Developing a Point of View. Retrieved 15 Sep. 2008, from http://www.irishideas.org/cia_pov_overview.pdf or http://tin-yurl.com/69lhuu

DECI, E. L., & RYAN, R. M. (1981). Curiosity and Self-Directed Learning: The Role of Motivation in Education. Retrieved 25 Sep. 2008,from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED206377

DELANTY, G. (2001). Challenging knowledge : the university in the knowledge society. Buckingham [England]; Phildelphia, PA: Society forResearch into Higher Education & Open University Press.

ENGSTRM, J. (2008). Nodal Point. The Web and Beyond 2008. Retrieved 16 Sep. 2008, from http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=SiW-jAVcWK4g

EUN-News. (2008). Xplora hands out the Millikan web experiment to Finnish school. Retrieved 24 Aug. 2008, from http://www.euro-peanschoolnet.org/ww/en/pub/eun/news/news_headlines/2407.htm

FREIRE, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

HOLT, J. C. (1964). How children fail. New York: Pitman.

KANT, I. (1990). Foundations of the metaphysics of morals and, What is enlightenment (2nd ed.). New York, London: Collier Macmillan.

KASHDAN, T. B., ROSE, P., & FINCHMAM, F. D. (2004). Curiosity and exploration: Facilitating positive subjective experiences and personalgrowth opportunities. Journal of Personality Assessement, 82(3), 291-305.

KEATS, D. W., & SCHMIDT, J. P. (2007). The genesis and emergence of Education 3.0 in higher education and its potential for Africa. FirstMonday, 12(3).

LAVE, J., & WENGER, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LIGHT, R. J. (2001). Making the Most of College: Students speak their Minds Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

LITTLE, S. E., & RAY, T. (2005). Managing knowledge: an essential reader (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

LOMBARDO, T. (2007). The Pursuit of Wisdom and the Future of Education [Electronic Version]. Retrieved 28.May.2007 fromhttp://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/dd/wisdom05/pursuit_of_wisdom.pdf.

MARTIN, J.-P. (1985). Vorschlag eines anthropologisch fundierten Curriculums fr den Fremdsprachenunterricht. Tbingen: Narr.

POSTMAN, N. (1995). The end of education: redefining the value of school (1st ed.). New York: Knopf.

PRENSKY, M. (2004). The emerging online life of the digital native: What they do differently because of technology, and how they do it.Retrieved 10 July, 2008, from http://www.selma.bsu.edu/dixon/digital%20natives.pdf

RESNICK, M. (2008). Sowing the seeds for a more creative society. Learning and Leading with Technology.

ROBINSON, K. (2006). Do schools kill creativity? Retrieved 25 Sep. 2008, fromhttp://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

ROSENBERG, M. B. (2003). Life-enriching education: nonviolent communication helps schools improve performance, reduce conflict, and enhancerelationships (1st ed.). Encinitas, CA: PuddleDancer Press.

SENECA, L. A., & MOTTO, A. L. (1985). Seneca, Moral epistles. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press.

SENGES, M. (2007). Knowledge Entrepreneurship in Universities: Practice and Strategy in the case of Internet based Innovation appropriation.UOC, Barcelona, 9 Sep. 2008, retrieved from www.knowledgeentrepreneur.com.

SMITH, R. M. (2008). Design with Learning in Mind. In Conquering The Content: A Step-by-Step Guide to Online Course Design: Jossey-Bass / Wiley Imprint.

SUPERCOOLSCHOOL (2008). Supercool Educational Philosophy: Learning to be Free. Retrieved 25 Aug. 2008

TREISMAN, U. (1992). Studying Students Studying Calculus: A Look at the Lives of Minority Mathematics Students in College. CollegeMathematics Journal, 23(5), 362372.

VYGOTSKY, L. S., & COLE, M. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress.

WESCH, M. (2008). A portal for media literacy. Retrieved 11 Sep. 2008, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4yApagnr0s

Notes

1. KANT, 1990.

2. SENGES, 2007.

3. LOMBARDO, 2007.

4. DELANTY, 2001.

5. The result of education and research on the episteme side iscritical thinking (HABERMAS, 1978) or reflexive capacity (DE-LANTY, 2001; HARVEY & KNIGHT, 1996). The results of techn aretrained workers, technologies and knowledge about thephysical reality.

6. In the form of wireless internet.

7. 1970.

8. 1995.

9. KANT, 1990.

10. SENGES, 2007.

11. Curiosity is the innate drive that makes us explore theworld and thereby learn about it. Hence a curious personshows a systematic and targeted explorative behavior. Experts(BOROWSKE, 2005; KASHDAN, ROSE & FINCHMAM, 2004) prescri-be liberty and stimulating environments as favorable condi-tions to foster curiosity. Pedagogues traditionally stress thegreat importance of curiosity for the development of the moti-vations towards a disposition of striving for education, kno-wledge and insights.

12. RAYMOND, 1991.

13. Surprisingly, little has been done in terms of measuringhow successful educators are in arousing curiosity. One at-tempt is the US National Survey of Student Engagement(NSSE), which surveys learners to check for successful enga-gement. However, the questions themselves allow only for arather superficial analysis. Nevertheless, while limited, thisexample is one of the very few starting points.

14. We have to put a disclaimer at this point: yes, there is a lotof information about topics that has to be memorized and e.g.video lectures, podcasts and textbooks are a viable (re)sourcefor learning. What we argue for here is a paradigm shift whichis less about content and technique, than about sparking theengine daring to know.

15. VYGOTSKY i COLE, 1978, p. 86.

16. 2005.

17. Currently we are talking primarily about intellectual lear-ning, but once Wii style physical activity simulations have rea-ched a higher level also physical skills can be learned.

18. 2004.

19. WESCH, 2008.

20. PRENSKY, 2004.

21. ENGSTRM, 2008

22. BROWN i THOMAS, 2008

23. LIGHT, 2001.

24. 1992.

25. 1995.

26. BENNETT, 2008.

27. POSTMAN, 1995.

28. http://networkedpublics.org.

29. LITTLE & RAY, 2005, p. 62.

30. SUPERCOOL SCHOOL, 2008.

31. HOLT, 1964.

32. ROSENBERG, 2003.

33. SENECA i MOTTO, 1985.

34. MARTIN, 1985.

35. 1984.

36. 1981.

37. DOWNS, 2008.

38. http://llk.media.mit.edu/projects.php?id=1942.

39. RESNICK, 2008.

40. RESNICK, 2008.

41. ROBINSON, 2006

42. www.techshop.ws.

43. SMITH, 2008.

44. http://dschool.stanford.edu.

45. SENGES, 2007.

46. POSTMAN, 1995.

47. PAPERT i RESNICK, 1995.

48. 2008.


Documents

Entrepreneurial Learning in Networked Age