One thing I'm seeing in the first week's readings on connectivism is the idea of changing theories for changing times. Technology impacts the way we live and work, and the way we learn as well. Our lives are more networked in more ways with more groups and individuals - connections abound.
That theories should change and evolve seems perfectly sensible to me. The philosopher types seem to like to argue about the value and validity of new theories. It's not a bad idea to put them to the test, of course, but I get the sense that there's some either/or thinking going on - that one theory is right and the others are wrong. But as was quoted in one of the LAK11 readings, "all the models are wrong." Some theories are more useful than others in different situations, as suggested by hte "types of learning best explained" row in the comparison chart.
Some statements I find questionable. "Technology is altering... our brains." This implies passivity on the part of the brain. Would it not be better to say that we are adapting - as we always have?
I got stuck for a while on one part: "When knowledge is subject to paucity, the process of assessing worthiness is assumed to be intrinsic to learning. When knowledge is abundant, the rapid evaluation of knowledge is important." Does "knowledge" here actually mean information? Isn't knowledge the result of learning? Since "information" is used in the same paragraph, I'm assuming there is a distinction. Confused. Maybe it's talking about specialization - if my colleagues know something, then maybe I don't need to since I can rely on them - my value is what I bring to the table that wasn't there before. Maybe "rapid evaluation of knowledge" refers to self-evaluation: is there something lacking within us that we need to acquire this new information?
Some statements jumped out at me: "Know-how and know-what is being supplemented with know-where" As one who teaches information literacy, the recognition of this is comforting.
No comments:
Post a Comment