#Change11 What can be learnt from Steve Jobs through the eyes of Guy Kawasaki

If you watch this, you could be shocked by the first lesson:

Experts are clueless. Guy Kawasaki explains that “Apple has proven that experts are WRONG”.  Wow! That is a bold statement.  May be this claim is applicable in the case of entrepreneurship.  But in the case of education, are experts to be trusted and relied upon?  Would this challenge our thoughts about experts and expertise?

Would the frame of reference be important when it comes to whether experts are really clueless?

This would be especially relevant when Christin posted in the post of What is expertise in a MOOC the question: “how do participants determine who to follow and how do they grant the title of ‘expert’ to others within the MOOC?”

Should participants follow experts?  Or what is a better question to re-phrase this notion about following experts in MOOC?

Better still, when learning in networks, social or learning networks, or in business settings, should we be following experts, if that is the case?

Would this question be context driven?  That is, would it depend on what sort of experts and expertise that we are referring to?

Just can’t wait to hear from you!

Postscript: Here is another video on experts

#Change11 Patterns, fractals and conversation

This relates to a conversation here on Change11 MOOC and Connectivism.

Based on the network drawn by Matthias (see below), I have been thinking of 3 kinds of knowledge here: (1) knowledge as revealed by the blogger, as a critical and reflective learner, in form of “personal knowledge” as “integrated and curated” from his/her blog post and other posts/artifacts, as a broadcast/reflection/stimulus to conversation, (2) knowledge as the conversation (of the concepts behind, in critical thinking & analysis), and learning as distributed knowledge, or conversation), and (3) the emergent learning and knowledge, as a set of connections between nodes (revealing a pattern that consists of crystallization of thoughts and perceptions out of the minds, conversation of different nodes), and in these connections that knowledge could reside (as Stephen has elaborated).  I would also add that this would become a valuable “learning object” and artifact for the community or network to base upon,  in further knowledge exploration and building in networks.

Picture: Sourced from Matthias Melcher

Picture credit: From Tony Hirst

Photo: Flickr & Google

So, relating to the proposition that perception is active, engaged, embodied, and so these were a product of engagement, yes. Is the pattern in the interaction/engagement? If we were to conceive knowledge as conversation, & that a set of connections (the engagement), I could also interpret this as a development like the fractals, where such fractal would repeat itself but its shape would be based on initial conditions of agents, with “spirals” & re-birth or re-configuration of different fractals (patterns) emerging in different forms.  Such fractal formation would be dependent on feedback and looping back into other posts, via the linkage, and thus could be amplified or dampened as the pattern developed.

References:

Conversation 4

Smitherman, S. Chaos and Complexity Theories: Creating Holes and Wholes in Curriculum