Comments on: Does technology change the nature of knowledge?

By: Laurence Fitzgerald

Laurence Fitzgerald — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:25:17 +0000

Hi! I read about half of this essay and the summary. I think the question is valid and this blog is somewhat a part of the answer… yes, in some ways knowledge (or how we manage/access it) is changing.
When did any of you first start participating in blogs? Probably, since the advent of the Pentium chip (‘93). I have kind of a diverse background that integrates both academic and “real world” and right at this time, I’m looking for work. I mention this, because I am now in my mid-50’s and sort of say to myself, “What do I know that’s worth knowing?”… I could say quite a bit to … not much. I am a little self-conscious about how the world has changed since I last looked for work (‘92). This led me to your blog, because I asked myself the question, “Is knowledge changing?”
I have 4 academic degrees and am a journeyman electrician. I was also a military officer. I love music, especially rock and roll. I have a turntable… and I have an Ipod. In sentimental terms, I love my turntable, but the Ipod is pretty cool and amazing in how much capability it has. Does this relate to what you guys are discussing? Do you “get” what I am saying? Being able to talk about theories is one thing… knowing if a specific circuit is “live” or dead is quite another. i.e. it might be OK to not know there is a 27 mile disparity in the spherical shape of the earth… but you have to know if a certain circuit is live or dead… or you could be dead. I think the communications/info. tech. explosion is having an effect on how knowledge is perceived and exchanged. Maybe the cumulative impact of all this is at least making it seem like knowledge is changing… that is the process(es) are almost more important than the product. Yes? No? What do you think? Thank you for letting me participate. LF

By: Knowledge Networks « Potentially Coherent 2

Knowledge Networks « Potentially Coherent 2 — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:52:09 +0000

[...] 2009 by cindyu This week, I came across a blog post from Tony Bates where he poses the question: does technology change the nature of knowledge? As usual, Tony’s brilliant yet practical observations drew me in and once I read Stephen [...]

By: Kombi Tamiri

Kombi Tamiri — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:40:23 +0000

Interesting analysis and a great post.

By: Information-rich and attention-poor « Tony Bates

Information-rich and attention-poor « Tony Bates — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:28:50 +0000

[...] See also: Does technology change the nature of knowledge? [...]

By: John Morrison

John Morrison — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:16:16 +0000

There are all sorts of problems with the “knowledge”, which Stephen addresses. I would suggest that a more fruitful question to ask would be “Is the nature of learning changing and does this have any implications for networked learning?” To divide theories/approaches to learning up by their underlying metaphors (Sfard, 1998, Paavola and Hakkarainen, 2005), learning can be seen to have historically largely concerned with Acquisition and more recently to have also become concerned with Participation and Creation. I would suggest that given our long established history and cultures of providing acquisitive learning environments and well established physical infrastructures for doing such (schools and post secondary education), there is relatively little to be gained by attempting to supplant or extend this with elearning. In a sense, this type of learning really isn’t networked. I would argue that this can be seen in the relatively small impact that elearning has had. I would, however, argue that learning focused on Participation or Creation is more aligned with networking, as it is often hard to find adequate local resources to support this type of learning these types of learning and the underlying infrastructures for Participation and Creation, beyond education, are networked.

So in summary, our conceptions of learning are expanding, even though Acquisition based approached to learning still dominate and it is these newer forms of learning, Participation and Creation, where networked learning really has a role to play.

Sfard, A. (1998). On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One. Educational Researcher 27(2), 4-13
Paavola, S. and Hakkarainen, K. (2005). The Knowledge Creation Metaphor – An Emergent Epistemological Approach to Learning. Science & Education 14, p.535–557

By: Bates and Downes on new knowledge: Round 3 | Tony Bates

Bates and Downes on new knowledge: Round 3 | Tony Bates — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:38:14 +0000

[...] very much appreciate Stephen Downes’ response to my posting, and I encourage you to read not only his posting, but several other comments on his posting that [...]

By: Stephen Downes

Stephen Downes — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:28:15 +0000

I have posted a response to this post at http://tinyurl.com/cfwp3f

By: James

James — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 05:49:12 +0000

Interesting analysis and a great post.

I’m just not sure I can fully buy connectivism, or the argument that knowledge is a process. It seems likely that conduits, connections, technology and many other contextual elements will affect what you can learn and how you can learn it.

However, making information into new knowledge still seems to me a personal process. The social and connective elements help us uncover new information, but the knowledge each of us makes is going to be individual and different.

Are there any universal truths or universal knowledge? I’m not sure there are. Even totally scientific absolutes probably ‘mean’ slightly different things to different people and that probably makes them slightly different knowledge, too.

By: Sui Fai John Mak

Sui Fai John Mak — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:33:33 +0000

I found your post so inspiring that I have posted it on our Community Network on http://connectivismeducationlearning.ning.com for further discussion.
John