Learning

I read this interesting piece online titled ‘Learning in a Digital World’ Mitchell Resnick from his book Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age (2002, find link below) which ties in with my earlier post regarding history and truth. He has some interesting things to say about the ways in which we educate and learn, and the new possibilities available to us with the ever evolving ‘technoscape’. In particular, new digital technologies (and the constant decrease of associated costs) has paved the way for the arrival of what Resnick refers to as the “learning revolution”. Resnick addresses in particular issues around the education systems and suggests that old methods of educating are no longer relevant in this new digital age. However, although new technologies make the “learning revolution” possible, it “certainly does not guarantee it” due to those technologies being utilized only to “reinforce outmoded approaches to learning” as opposed to discovering and embracing new methods of education.

Resnick sees this as resulting from how we think about the relationship between education and technology. He says that if presented with the Internet, a television and some finger-paint and asked which one is the odd one out, the commonsense answer would surely be the finger paint, for all the obvious reasons. But he sees a higher value in thinking of computer-based interaction more like finger paint and less like television, in that it does not speak at us, but interpellates us to be creative while using the technology as a tool, similar in essence to how we would use finger paint. The underlying issue for Resnick is how we perceive education and our ideas about how people learn. He refers to discussions regarding the contemporary era and a notion that we (humans) are currently moving out of the Industrial era and into a new Information era (also referred to as the Knowledge era), but Retnick sees more value in thinking about it as the Creative era. Whatever the label, we are in a new era where individuals seek out education and information in their specific areas of interest, at their discretion.

It is easy to see where Wikipedia fits into the discussion as it offers users the opportunity to not only discover information but to engage with it on a much more complex level. For example, users can question the validity of information presented on the website and a discussion about it can be held on the ‘discussion’ tab of each page. This level of involvement goes well beyond the manner of involvement users have with, for example, a traditional encyclopaedia. And the transparency of the methods and discussions around defining a truth means that users are equipped to make educated decisions on the accuracy and validity of a fact presented.

However, not all (or probably very many for that matter) users look at the discussions and debates surrounding a topic and many would come away thinking a fact was an absolute truth without realizing that a tense debate was occurring on the tab beneath. This then begs the question; how many users read the discussions surrounding the facts they are finding out? Have you ever looked at a discussion tab? Have you ever participated in a discussion or debate on Wikipedia? Furthermore, this leads me to ask; do Wikipedias gatekeepers have the authority to edit discussion pages? Well, actually the truth is that all users can edit the discussion pages……

If the only transparency of Wikipedia is achieved through the ‘history’ tab of a topic, then is that the same level of transparency as if the discussion pages were only edited in the deletion of abusive language and content? These topics and questions will be explored in future posts but I’d love to hear what you think about it..

Link: http://web.media.mit.edu/~mres/