Module one Assignment one Willinsky
In this week’s reading we see the enthusiasm of John Willinsky’s views on embracing ‘this new communication technology” (Willinsky, 2006) to encourage educational researchers to do “more to foster open, better organized scholarly communication in the name of democracy and education, rather than setting out technical solutions for achieving this organized openness” (Willinsky, 2006) pitted against the cautionary views of Neil Postman as he writes “every technology is both a burden and a blessing; not either –or, but this-and- that” (Postman, 1992). Postman goes on to say “that the benefits and deficits of a new technology are not distributed equally. There are … winners and losers (Postman, 1992).” We have been placed in the midst of a global competition for dominance over access to the growth of ‘open access’ knowledge when our energies and focus should be on the cooperative and sharing aspects of these communication technologies. In most competitions, there are also those who finish second, third and fourteenth and those who do just finish the race; a personal accomplishment. We must look past the top winner to the needs of the others in this race. Yes, we should be cautious when approaching new technology especially when surrounded by the propaganda of the ‘inventor’s’ marketing in what Willinsky sees as a social ‘experiment’. “The discoverer of an art is not the best judge” (Postman, 1992). ” Our attention should most definitively also include the ‘technical solutions’ required to bring about a viable open information resource if the transition forward is to result in an inclusive democratic society. “Every technology is both a burden and a blessing; not either-or, but this-and-that” (Postman, 1999). Even in today’s world, depending on which way the wind blows an umbrella can become a hindrance rather than a helpful tool.
Postman tells us “that radical technologies create new definitions of old terms, and that this process takes place without our being fully conscious of it.” We may unknowingly be witnessing this taking place in online communities. The Internet seems to possess its own ‘code of conduct’ in defining its own meanings. With the increased dependence on these digital resources, could we be eroding our own human instinct? Is our intuition reliable when it comes to reacting wisely? Are we willing to trust it or Google?
Terry
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage Books.
Willinsky, J. (2006). The access principle: The case for open access to research and scholarship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
I agree that we should approach things cautiously because as Willinsky terms it, we are in the midst of a social experiment. I do like your mention that is not just a race for first, but we must also consider the other participants. Willinsky speaks a lot about how we must use technology to democratize the education. He mentions how useful it is for small universities to be able to access journals and scholarly articles that have been made public. There are also people who want to continue to learn in an informal setting. I think we need to balance the possible benefits to the possible detriments.
Catherine
Yes Catherine;
I see myself after the MET program wanting to continuing to learn on my terms, informally. I guess the question is how many of our education system can be devoted to informal learning when there is so much material that teachers are required to cover in a limited amount of time. Do today’s children have the opportunities to be free spirit explorers with adventures into the world of knowledge that regular trips to the public libraries afforded past generations. Picking out books from the library shelves seems to have better safety/security controls than searching the internet.
Terry
Terry,
I agree with your comment about the safety/security controls of the library, but I think that the internet provides more of an opportunity to be a free explorer! I look up more things on Google now than I’d ever have had time to trek to the library to find out. Any time that something is asked in my classroom that I can’t answer, we turn to the computer and Google it! But, you are right that the potential is there for misinformation or security issues when allowing students access to the internet, and also that the time factor could certainly be a great issue! That is why it is so important that we teach critical literacy in our curriculum so that students learn to differentiate legitimate information in an expedient way.
Jennifer
Recently, John Willinsky gave a talk in the Digital Literacy Centre (LLED). Very interesting, he talked about the impact that microblogging (specifically twitter) could have for academia. Just like you both mentioned, we are in the midst of a social experiment, one that we have waited too long to acknowledge. Anyways, I found this article recently. Food for thought ;):
http://www.straitstimes.com/news/opinion/more-opinion-stories/story/prof-no-one-reading-you-20150411
In reading this article, Ernesto, I can’t help but think that the onus is wrongly placed on the scholar. They are doing their part in spending years in research then producing the necessary documentation within the rules set down by the publishing companies. What responsibilities do these companies have to these creators? Are they vehemently promoting/marketing their findings? I don’t think so. Just printing the scholarly papers is not enough, especially when they put up hurdles (unrealistic user fees) in front of any possible audiences. And as for the politicians, well, how educated are the candidates that run for office? We may be partly to blame for electing individuals with little or unfinished post secondary education to make worldly decisions. Do we question their education during election campaigns? They and possibly their staff may not have developed proper skill sets to handle doing background research. From this article, it would seem their political worlds revolve around themselves first, then their party, then the electorate maybe.
“Brevity is central.” Not so. To be memorable, intriguing and noteworthy there must be content that sustains the audience’s attention for the optimum amount of time to impact with lasting effect on one’s understanding. What can be taught in 140 characters or less that is of quality? Social media has it’s place in educating but as for meaningful dialogue, I vote no.
Terry
In conversation today, a friend reminded me that the scientists funded by the US government publish their research on an open Information Commons while here in Canada, our government is reducing their funding and ‘muzzling’ our scientists (climate change) to keep their research under wraps.
Terry