We began this week's lesson with a reflection on a comment written by a teacher on a blog. The question is: is this comment authoritative? who is this person? is she an expert in her field? Moreover, is this blog a reliable source of information? For some this is not the case, for example for Andrew Keen. He argues in fact that Web 2.0 is not a source of reliable knowledge because from his perpective knowledge is only produced by authoritative people. I think this idea is not totally wrong because we need to know who says what, and sometimes we don't in the Internet. But this doesn't mean that what is not written on paper and in strictly academic or formal contexts cannot be considered authoritative. We need criteria to evaluate. If we apply these criteria to the material we find in the web, we will have at our disposal an almost infinite online library for our researches.
While looking for articles on Personal Learning Environmemts I found a very interesting one entitled "Learning networks and Connective Kowledge". In the abstract the author (-itative?) states that his idea of e-learning is based on the theory of Connectivism. I think this is somehow the opposite view of Keen: connectivism, which asserts that knowledge -and therefore the learning of knowledge - is distributive, that is, not located in any given place (and therefore not 'transferred' or 'transacted' per se) but rather consists of the network of connections formed from experience and interactions with a knowing community. (Stephen Downes,
Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge. October 16, 2006)
This idea of knowledge is realized in the Internet, especially in blogs and wikies. As for all sources it's up to the reader selecting reliable and authoritative information.
Francesca
14 anni fa
Hi Francesca,
RispondiEliminahow are you?
I think that your post is really interesting! The abstract you quoted is what we can call a proof: the Web CAN actually BE SERIOUS! Of course we need to be able to select and to use online resources in an appropriate way, but, as you say, knowledge is a network, an interaction. This means that it is possible to find reliable information coming from reliable sources even in the Web.
I hope sooner or later everybody will come to our conclusion!
See you tomorrow!
Elisa
PS: somewhere in your post(line 6)there's a comma before 'because'... find it, or Sarah will eat you! :-D
Hey Elisa thanks...the comma before the because is a bad habit to eradicate :))).
RispondiEliminaHi Francesca!
RispondiEliminaI really really like yur post!
First of all I liked the fact that you have compared two different sources, that is a kind of metacommunication about "the web talking about the web"! :-) And I agree with the theories of Connectivism, as I strongly believe in culture as a set of different elements that stands together in various ways, so why not the web?
Moreover, the web respresents a cultural innovation for two reasons:
-it is a product of the modern technology (so a product of our contemporary reserach and culture)
- its contents are often linked to real-life contents like books, places, people and so on.
So why we shouldn't trust the web?
The fact about the web containing many unauthoritative or untrustful sources is absolutely true and also equal to the fact about the spreading of crime in our contemporary society: not all people are criminals, eve if there are many!
In fact, our teacher tries to help us with the criteria we should use to recognize a good source from a "criminal" one! :-)
I think that your English is good, but I don't really understand this:
"This idea of knowledge is realized in the Internet"
what do you mean by "realized"? maybe you wanted to say is spread, is common, right?
It's all for now,
BYE!