I have always included this statement when teaching science: “Scientists think.” I agree with Siemans that information/knowledge is not static. I had not heard of the terms hard/soft knowledge, but it makes sense. I agree Pluto is a good example. It is now not considered a planet because of a shift in definition (which was arrived at collectively). It could very easily “become” a planet again in the near future. I also like his idea that new knowledge (technology) “…does not wash away previous knowledge, but rather is the fertile top layers of soil.” Pluto is still there and is still larger than asteroids (planetoids), and can be considered a moon. All of our readings refer to Wikipedia as an outstanding example of collaborative work of knowledge. I love the idea in Richardson of having a district or school wiki that becomes a way to share and exchange lesson plans and ideas. One teacher could add ideas to another’s lesson. The adding and changing would be a major difference from just a repository of lessons.
One other thought on libraries relates to Siemans’ thought on how it’s more important to know where and who more than what and why. What did we do before the internet? I don’t think any one person should be expected to know it all. We should be working collaboratively (connectivism).
David
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment