XplanaZine

So, Carmen’s out and we’re now down to five contestants. It’s American Idol and it’s grown big enough to have coerced more than 21 million people to vote in its weekly contest and to drive American Idol alum Kelly Clarkson’s new album to the number one spot on the charts.
The phenomenon of American Idol, however, is about much more than household boredom and national crazes. It is also a successful business model that specializes in market interactivity. The formula for this business model is relatively simple — imagine a product, create an audience for the product, make the audience feel responsible for the product, and have the audience create the product. It puts on new spin on the old adage — “If they build it they will come.”
As a business model, the American Idol formula eliminates much of the risk normally associated with putting new products on the market. When Kelly Clarkson won the first contest back in the fall, the show’s audience had, through the process of voting for her over a several month period, already found the star they wanted and decided on the appropriate style to match. When her first single appeared shortly after she was elected, those fans were more than happy to make it a number one title because, after all, they had helped create it. It’s not hard to invest in something that you were a part of.
The business model has applications apart from the recording industry. Software and hardware companies are high-risk ventures that depend on introducing new features before there is an established market. The new features are a must if they want to be successful in such competitive fields. There is great risk, however, in so much innovation because the market may not respond.
This is precisely one of the advantages of open source developments. Open source software projects like Linux involve the community (public) at every level of the description and development process. By the time a major product is released, it already has a core following and, if it’s creators are wise, has allowed the community meaningful participation in the decision-making process.
That is why products like MySQL and Linux have made such rapid inroads into the proprietary software world. They create their dedicated markets as they develop.
It is this type of participatory interactivity in the commercial world that also seems to make sense in teaching. Our general approach in the classroom (or online) is to pre-define our product (material to be taught or digested) and allow little or no interaction with the public (students) that would allow them to determine the final outcome of the material or, for that matter, to alter the courses shape or direction. The risk is low because the audience doesn’t have much choice, and the result is predictable — the small percentage of students who already wanted the features we are offering become dedicated customers.
What happens, on a macro or micro level, however, if we “open” the product up to the students and allow them to become part of the ownership process? What if each student became a small franchisee of the course and began to feel that she/he had a real responsibility for its product? The end result, if done honestly, would be like successful open source projects or like American Idol.
The risk here is not in rejection, but in loss of control. Handing over a product to the public (students) means that you lose a certain amount of manipulation power. The final result of a course, for example, could no longer be scripted. Unexpected and disruptive evolution might become commonplace and new expectations and understandings would need to be developed.
Wait a minute. That sounds a lot like learning.
Exactly.