Thankyou Gordon,
Given my earlier posting, perhaps first I should clarify my use of terms. In
quick and dirty metaphorical mode here is my hierarchy:
Data. Epistemic packages aobut the world. = This is a nut. This is a bolt.
This is a spanner
Information. Add context = The nut screws on to the bolt. the spanner is
used to tighten it.
Knowledge. Add the environment and systemic relations = You must tighten the
nuts regularly or the machine will shake to pieces.
Wisdom. Add purpose and values and ethics = if we don't maintain the
machines the business will fail and we'll lose our jobs.
I fully agree with your caveats about the need to transform information into
knowledge. But my point is that this is increasingly happening without the
intercession of the shaman/teacher. If this intercession is lost then what
is 'known' becomes dispersed and fragemented, and most likely culturally
decontestualised, or at least recontextualised. This is the dark side of
democratised knowledge.
If this is so we begin to find that new knowledge is rarely integrated well
into pre-exisitng knowledge, we cease to be able to define, identify or
recognise accomplishment, and we lose our capacity to develop a collective
ownership of knowledge.
My conclusion is that the education system must not face these trends by
throwing up its hands and abrogating. It must reinvent itself such that it
can once again perform its function of assisting in sense making. But if it
can no longer do this by controlling, or partly controlling, the
information base, then it must develop entirely new mediational strategies.
It must also recognise that it is no longer the sole arbiter of what
constitutes knowledge. This must become a negotiated process, not a
transmitted one.
I am not suggesting that this is new. All that the Internet does is take us
on to a new level in a shift that began in the 1920's. But a school is a
technology that was developed in the 1780's (or even earlier) when
information and its transformation into knowledge was almost entirely vested
in its control. It is an inappropriate mediating tool for a world where
access to information is broad, deep and wide throughout the community. The
activity of transforming information into knowledge requires a different
process and different kinds of social relationships between 'teachers' and
'learners'.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Wells [mailto:gwells@cats.ucsc.edu]
Sent: Monday, 8 July 2002 4:53 p.m.
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: ISCRAT: Epistemic Activity
Phillip,
I appreciated your comments on epistemic cultures and your criticisms
of the typical stance towards "knowledge" found in schools. However,
I think it's important to distinguishg between "knowledge" and
"information". When what is"'knowledge" for the expert is
transmitted - as through teacher lecture or textbook - what is
transmitted is received as "information". For it to become
"knowledge", some form of transformation by the receiver is
necessary: at minimum, assimilation into the receiver's "knowledge"
systems or, very frequently, an accommodation of those structures to
make sense of the new information. Even more effective is some action
in which the information is put to the test: does it enable the
receiver to act more effectively or to understand the relevant
phenomena more deeply?
Information obtained from the internet is no different. In itself,
it does not constitute knowledge. As with information from any
source, it has to be transformed by the receiver in order for it to
contribute to the receiver's understanding of the world.
What do you think?
Gordon Wells
-- Gordon Wells UC Santa Cruz. gwells@cats.ucsc.edu http://people.ucsc.edu/~gwells/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 01 2002 - 01:00:10 PDT