Thinking About 'Technique' and 'Innovation'

Siemens noting the distinction between 'technique' and 'innovation'.

Technique is about duplication and scale. Innovation is about novel, serendipitous connections.

But 'technique' can also be about careful listening, or mutual acceptance of set of conditions for conducting an experiment.

And 'connections' can just as well turn out politicization, as anyone who has ever observed a school cafeteria can attest to.

I'm leaning more towards an anthropological/sociological definition of clairvoyance. Where technique and connections alike are part of the Zeitgeist and innovations are little hits that have the potential, though not the implicit right, to create new rhythms.

What will 'thinking' look like?

A reader writes:

I am completing my Thesis on the effects of Digital Media in the classroom and prediction of what it will be like in 5 years.

I am excited when I look at what's going on in academia with regards to education and technology. I think, as a rule, tech/ed and ed/neuro are the best things going in ed school classrooms right now.

As for five-year predictions, let's just say that my cellphone is more powerful than the laptop I had five years ago. Predictions are such a tricky thing in this environment. In general I think rather than predicting what classrooms will look like and how they will work in the future, it's more exciting to think about what people will 'think' like in the future. Because what history tells us over and over again is that more than anything else, technology -- whether papyrus or the printing press or the Internet -- allows for the distribution of fresh ideas and new ways of thinking about ideas.

What will those ideas look like?