This link has been bookmarked by 22 people . It was first bookmarked on 11 May 2008, by Rudy Garns.
-
10 Mar 09
-
09 Mar 09
Janet JordanDiscussion of difference in knowledge creation in web 2.0; implications and possibilities
-
20 Jan 09
-
Web 2.0 is redefining what and how and with whom we learn. For example, in Wikipedia, “knowledge” is constructed by negotiating compromises among various points of view. This raises numerous questions: How do we in higher education help students understand the differences between facts, opinions, and values—and how do we help them appreciate the interrelationships that create “meaning”?
-
Since almost any piece of information can now be found online in less than a minute (along with inaccurate and biased data), what core knowledge does every student need in order to prepare for twenty-first-century work and citizenship? Given these shifts driven by emerging interactive media, how might we reconceptualize “education”?
-
The term Web 2.0 reflects a shift in leading-edge applications on the World Wide Web, a shift from the presentation of material by website providers to the active co-construction of resources by communities of contributors.
-
shift in agency, from publication by a few to collective contribution by many.
-
In the Classical perspective, “knowledge” consists of accurate interrelationships among facts, based on unbiased research that produces compelling evidence about systemic causes.
-
In the Classical view of knowledge, there is only one correct, unambiguous interpretation of factual interrelationships. In Classical education, the content and skills that experts feel every person should know are presented as factual “truth” compiled in curriculum standards and assessed with high-stakes tests.
-
Classical perspective, experts with substantial credentials in academic fields and disciplines seek new knowledge through formal, evidence-based argumentation, using elaborate methodologies to generate findings and interpretations.
-
- Curriculum standards that guide the development of instructional resources (e.g., textbooks) and assessments (e.g., high-stakes tests) stem from disciplinary experts’ determinations of what students should learn.
- Presentational/assimilative pedagogies convey “truth” from content experts to students, who learn by listening.
- Students who have mastered large amounts of factual material and are fluent in academic skills are believed to be well prepared for a successful, prosperous, fulfilling life.
For example, formal schooling today remains based on the Classical view of knowledge, expertise, and learning:
-
politically motivated inaccuracies in textbooks, including biases against minorities and women, interpretations that privilege the perspective of the dominant subculture, and omissions of material about the contributions and interpretations of diverse groups, such as people of color.
-
Curriculum standards frequently reflect a hodgepodge of what students might need in order to become experts in the various disciplines rather than what they might need in order to assume roles as effective workers, citizens, and self-fulfilled people in the twenty-first-century global civilization.
-
Presentational/assimilative pedagogies typically result in learning that is ephemeral, unmotivating, and unlikely to transfer into life situations.
-
Active learning pedagogies emphasize constructivist and situated teaching approaches that scaffold students’ co-creation of knowledge.
-
This refusal to acknowledge the weaknesses of the Classical perspective and the strengths of Web 2.0 epistemologies is as ill-advised as completely abandoning Classical epistemology for Web 2.0 meaning-making.
-
- In a hierarchical meritocracy, experts selected on the basis of intelligence run the country.
- In a pure democracy, the entire population makes collective decisions about every aspect of governance.
- In a representative democracy, a small group of people selected by the entire population makes decisions.
In considering this seismic shift in how students learn and what they know, I find the following analogy, of the contrast between three systems of governance, to be helpful:
Any one of these three systems could work well if all participants were well informed, rational, and of good will—so the fundamental issue is which system works best given the human condition, which includes ignorance, irrationality, and the lust for power. The United States is a representative democracy, a synthesis that attempts to offset the weaknesses of the other two. Perhaps some similar synthesis about the nature of education can likewise bridge the Classical and the Web 2.0 views of knowledge, expertise, and learning—providing a smooth transition over this seismic shift in epistemology.
-
-
19 Nov 08
-
20 Oct 08
-
27 Sep 08
-
14 Sep 08
-
24 Jul 08
-
15 Jul 08
-
21 Jun 08
Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims. In other words, epistemology primarily addresses the following questions: "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", and "What do people know?" Wikipedia, Epistemology, 6.21.08, 1:19 P.M.
-
10 Jun 08
-
06 Jun 08
-
29 May 08
-
23 May 08
-
22 May 08
-
21 May 08
-
Web 2.0 is redefining what and how and with whom we learn.
-
raises numerous questions
-
The term Web 2.0 reflects a shift in leading-edge applications on the World Wide Web, a shift from the presentation of material by website providers to the active co-construction of resources by communities of contributors.
-
At first glance, this evolution might seem to be simply a shift in agency
-
from publication by a few to collective contribution by many. But in fact, the implications of Web 2.0 go much deeper
-
Classical perspective, “knowledge” consists of accurate interrelationships among facts, based on unbiased research that produces compelling evidence about systemic causes.
-
Classical education, the content and skills that experts feel every person should know are presented as factual “truth” compiled in curriculum standards and assessed with high-stakes tests
-
Web 2.0 definition of “knowledge” is collective agreement about a description that may combine facts with other dimensions of human experience, such as opinions, values, and spiritual beliefs
-
contrasts between Classical knowledge and Web 2.0 knowledge are continua rather than dichotomies,
-
formal schooling today remains based on the Classical view of knowledge, expertise, and learning:
-
would challenge
-
Advocates
-
for a Web 2.0 view of knowledge
-
documented politically motivated inaccuracies in textbooks
-
biases
-
omissions
-
interpretations
-
an educational system oriented around Web 2.0 perspectives might posit the following:
-
variation
-
Active learning pedagogies
-
participation
-
peer review
-
performances
-
overall, like many other technology-driven shifts, Web 2.0 aids with some problems but exacerbates others and creates novel challenges
-
At present, the response of most educators is to ignore or dismiss this epistemological clash
-
analogy, of the contrast between three systems of governance
-
hierarchical meritocracy
-
pure democracy,
-
representative democracy
-
Any one of these three systems could work well if all participants were well informed, rational, and of good will—so the fundamental issue is which system works best given the human condition, which includes ignorance, irrationality, and the lust for power
-
seismic shift in epistemology.
-
-
19 May 08
M C Morganthe tacit epistemologies that underlie its activities differ dramatically from what I will call here the “Classical” perspective—the historic views of knowledge, expertise, and learning on which formal education is based. I
-
18 May 08
Debby KWeb 2.0 is redefining what and how and with whom we learn. For example, in Wikipedia, “knowledge” is constructed by negotiating compromises among various points of view. This raises numerous questions: How do we in higher education help students understand the differences between facts, opinions, and values—and how do we help them appreciate the interrelationships that create “meaning”?
-
16 May 08
-
14 May 08
-
11 May 08
Rudy Garns"Web 2.0 is redefining what and how and with whom we learn." (EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 43, no. 3 (May/June 2008): 80–81)
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.