Module V for LIBR559M is all about Aggregation–how to take seemingly infinite and often disparate 2.0 tools and utilize them as a social media network or web. The goal is not to focus on the individual components–not Twitter or Flickr, but Twitter and Flickr and wikis and all of these participatory learning platforms–and see exponential strengths. Specifically, this week’s module focuses on how libraries, archives, and museums can utilize these aggregations of social media tools. The ultimate goal of aggregation in the information sphere is to allow and encourage greater participation by users in a range of new ways–it is no longer just the librarians who catalogue, no longer just the archives which preserve, no longer just the musems which exhibit and question. Now, the users can be active in these tasks as well–the death of the expert and the birth of all as experts is now possible because the power of expertise is taken out of the hands of the few, and now possible by all interested parties. Michael Wesch discussed this in his lecture, “A Portal to Media Literacy.”
My focus has been on archives and 2.0 technologies throughout this course, but I was struck by how so much of what Wesch was talking about in his lecture directly related to what inspired me about museums and archives in the first place–especially museums. I have come to identify museums especially as a realm of learning which throws the traditional educational model (ie k-12) on its head. Rather than learners being passive vessels for the transmission of information, in museums the learner controls the path and the depth of their own meaning-making experience. The learner is active, the information is passive. Wesch discusses in detail innovative 2.0 technologies which utilize the same ideas of participatory, constructivist learning, but in a different realm. As a college professor, Wesch came to realize that many “students do not like the institution of learning, but like learning”–the “readings and information presented are not relevant” to their lives. This makes sense, because in the traditional educational model, students are not consulted on what is relevant to their lives–assumptions are made, and facts are related for them to memorize. Wesch brings up an awesome point–facts can be looked up and verified using Google and any computer or smartphone, so why not encourage students to learn in more meaningful, critically-minded ways? Rather than absorbing passively, the time is now ripe for students to be primed to question actively–THIS is what has drawn me to both museums, and 2.0 technologies.
One part of Wesch’s presentation dealt with”What [the walls of academia] have to say”:
1. To learn is to acquire information
2. Information is scarce and hard to find
3. Trust authority for good information
4. Authorized information is beyond discussion
5. Obey the authority
6. Follow Along
Wesch goes on to explore how 2.0 technologies can break down these barriers that academia creates which prevent students from achieving truly meaningful knowledge-building experiences. With 2.0 participatory technologies, learning is no longer passive–students are actively involved in creating the content, rather than just being a receptacle for what Wesch calls an “information dump.” With 2.0 technologies, the ivory tower of “expert knowledge” crumbles–Wesch points out that all of us are at the same starting point with social media 2.0, that there is no a priori understanding. No longer is it necessary to TRUST authority mindlessly, because everything is verifiable, and should be questioned! Wesch deconstructs many components of classroom design which inhibit critical thinking: chairs in a lecture hall do not swivel to allow conversation with peers, they are fixed straight-ahead. This sends the strong message of passive reception of information, without questioning.
Wesch’s lecture really helped me process the potential for these 2.0 technologies to be harnessed into a comprehensive whole which can fundamentally change the way students engage with information, reducing the power of the inflexible academic machine, and giving new strength to the true purpose of education–to create citizens who are capable of thinking critically, and thinking for themselves.
3 replies on “Critical Thinking 2.0”
Wesch is an inspiration for his integration of media technologies and the social elements of learning into his classroom. I think to a large extent his subject area — ethnographic work and anthropology – also lends itself extremely well to the social aspects of the web. He is definitely a leader in the area.
After looking at various orgs throughout this course, I really agree with your comment that “museums especially as a realm of learning which throws the traditional educational model (ie k-12) on its head”. It seems a lot of museums are really getting on board with the social media technologies that allow them to make their collections and the work they do more interactive. Moving away from the artifact under glass concept is, I think, very exciting and will help, I hope, to bring history/culture alive to successive generations who (according to many studies) are less and less interested in what the past can teach us – its relevance today.
I’ve been thinking about the criticism of the current learning model. At first I thought, there were great minds in the past, and they learned by rote, so what is the problem now? Perhaps it is that learning by rote is a relatively new phenomenon that came into being as a response to educating the masses. The model before that would have been the Socratic method. Using this method, the student learns through questions and reasoning what is already known to him. You could say that the questioner and respondent create an answer together. This sounds a lot like 2.0 learning to me.