My previous use of the example of expert and novice was quite deliberate since I believe that today knowledge is largely conceived as residing in expert disciplines with their own distinct discursive practices (and material and political interests).
One writer puts it this way:
A number of theorists have specified the existence of diverse discourses, or bounded, relatively autonomous spheres of differentially sedimented and systematized signifying practices. Whether called "discursive formations" (Foucault, Pecheux), "communicative-markets" (Rossi-Landi), "regimes of signes" (Deleuze and Guattari), "language games" (Wittgenstein), "enunciative modalities" (Goodrich), or "linguistic coordinate systems" (Milovanovic) what is suggested is that the Symbolic Order is not a monolithic structure. Rather, signifying production has much to do with the agent situating him/herself within a particular discourse and availing him/herself of the circumscribed and specifically accented signifiers available. (Milovanovic, Postmodern Law and Disorder)
That was why I suggested instructional media should try to provide those experiences which would be most helpful in initiating the novice into the disciplinary discourse. (Of course my discipline is mostly concerned with textual manipulation and production, but every field of knowledge has its own discursive modes which support and reflect its practices.)
But if higher education left it at that it would not be doing all that I for one expect it to do, and that is to bring a critical eye to bear on orthodoxy in all the disciplines.
Perhaps it is here that I see a connection with Steve Draper's [2 May 96] "general learning skill." But rather than just the ability to learn successfully in a variety of contexts (and disciplines) I would see it more as a "critical faculty" which allows learners to grasp the meaning of what is presented as truth without being blinded to the possibility of error.
Again, it seems we come back to the problem (at least in higher education) of inculcating expertise without inducing unreflective uniformity.
Well, what does all this mean for IT? Here I must differ somewhat with Diana Laurillard in her assessment of current technologies. It appears she is doubtful of the educational value of "surfing the net" for instance. Yet, from my point of view such an experience may well be broadening and instructive (perhaps essential) for the student who is also receiving rigorous training in a specialized discipline.
I am reminded of a primitive technology that my wonderful fourth grade teacher used. For those students who had finished their assigned work early a box of cards was available on which were contained a great variety of tasks, puzzles, tidbits of knowledge and games. Those cards stimulated my interest in many areas not covered by the curriculum and challenged me to learn things on my own. Perhaps the net can fill the same function today?