I woke this morning and found reference to this blog in my aggregator. I wish people would put their names on their blogs. I assume that the blog was written by Rob Darrow, because that the name in his URL, but I’m not sure. This Rob Darrow’s blog also resonated with me, because of one of the sessions I did yesterday at NCETC. It was a session about wikis, and I mentioned Wikipedia as an atypical example of a blog, and people started asking questions about validating Wikipedia articles.
Anyway, it was an interesting post that made me think. He said…
The other day, David Warlick posted the statement “It’s not about the technology, it’s about the information.†He received some responses from others who questioned if information was knowledge…or when information becomes knowledge. I would agree with him that it is in the use of information that one constructs knowledge.
This made me think. It’s another reason we should be concentrating more on the information and lesson the technology, that its through the manipulation of information (on many different levels) that results in knowledge. It isn’t the technology thatmakes knowledge. Technology is merely one tool or lens that we use todo the manipulating.
The writer went on to say
Knowing which information is important to use to construct that knowledge is called information literacy.
I believe that it is literacy. I believe that the ability to expose the value of the information that we read is as important, as critical, as being able to read it. Until we come to realize that there is one literacy (skills involved in using information to accomplish goals), rather than lots of literacies (reading, information literacy, digital literacy, computer literacy, blah blah blah), we will not be giving appropriate attention to any of them.
As adults, most of us have a natural information filter that causes us to determine which information is important and which is not. Students do not automatically have this filter which is why it is important to teach students information literacy skills and utilization of information literacy models such as the Big6….
I think that this is also why we teach history, and science, and health. It’s our expanding world view that helps us to intuitively see what is likely and what is not likely. But it’s one of the things that is wrong with the way we have been forced to teach these things. Students are measured on how much history they have been taught by how many fact-based questions they can answer — and there is nothing wrong with this as one measure, so long as it does not suck up all of the learning time and all of the learning resources.
If students are to learn to be intuitive filters, then it happens when they spend time not just learning history, but learning what historians do. Not just learning science, but learning what scientists do. Then learning becomes a human experience, drawing on human curiosity, human communication, human resourcefulness — not just brute memorization.
Thanks mystery blogger.
Image Citation:
Deerbourn. “Evan the Archeologist.” Deerbourne’s Photostream. 1 Sep 2005. 30 Nov 2006 <http://flickr.com/photos/bloodstone/39404322/>.
technorati tags:warlick, education, technology, literacy, informationskills, conference, ncetc, ncetc06
Blogged with Flock
You are not nearly as persistent in looking for the author name as you could be.
If you follow the link in the About page you get here http://www.cusd.com/calonline/infolit/ where you find the name stated: Rob Darrow
Of course, if you simply looked at the URL of the blog you’d learn the same thing.
While I’m here – your discussion of information is odd – I’m not sure what you mean (if anything) when you say we make knowledge through the manipulation of information. I think you may have a very non-technical understanding of what information is – I would recommend Fred Dretske’s ‘Knowledge and the Flow of Information’ as some background reading.
But this, at least, is right: “If students are to learn to be intuitive filters, then it happens when they spend time not just learning history, but learning what historians do. Not just learning science, but learning what scientists do.” But what does it mean to be a filter, much less an intuitive filter? You should read Andy Clark’s book Associative Engines: connectionism, concepts, and representational change.
Why is this important? Because if we are creating concepts associatively through the selective and context-based filtering of information (which is something like what happens) then we are *not* ‘constructing’ knowledge or ‘manipulating’ information. One is a passive process, the other is an intentional process.
I really like your concept of literacy encompassing all we learn and know. I think that we also need to remember that literacy is not single place or point – it’s not an either/ or or an end point. Maybe we need to talk in terms of helping ourselves and our students become more literate. Unlike pregnancy, we can be just a little bit literate or a lot literate.
In the day of collaborative blogging, I think every blog post should be clearly labeled with the title of the author just like a magazine author. Just a point of consistency that I wish would happen, so although David could look, he shouldn’t have to.
Secondly, as a classroom teacher, I believe that you are right on the money, David. Perhaps theory x or theory y could be something different but I don’t know those theories. What is important that it is not about taking a “technology class” but taking the technology to class to facilitate learning. Just like bringing your textbook. Or hopefully in the near future, the laptop IS the textbook. It is a painful process but we are giving birth to a new method of communication as it becomes integrated into the fabric of our society.
Great point, I think you’re on the money from what I see in the classroom.
Actually, I had a professor that taught us his “information conversion” theory and spent quite some time covering it. He defined information as basically human input — anything you take in from all of your senses. He said that knowledge was created when you combined your interpretation of the input (information) with your current knowledge base to extrapolate and make more knowledge.
It is a process. I think technology creates a good framework to promote the process of information conversion.
It’s really inappropriate to embed your response right into the text of my comment. Leave my words the way I wrote them; create a new comment for your response.
> I guess what I meant was that information is much more the building block of knowledge than technology is.
Well yes. But *nobody* says that.
Actually, I don’t thing anybody even says that information is a “building block” of knowledge. But I digress.
> Information is the raw material that we work with, compare, alter, turn around, disect, test, and investigate, assemble and test again, and… to construct knowledge.
Except… it isn’t.
The raw material we work with are things like words and sentences, videos, images, perceptions, experiences, and other things like that.
The closest parallel I can come up with to illustrate what I mean is this: it is as though you were saying “We manipulate binary numbers in order to produce knowledge.” Except even that is a bit misleading, because binary numbers at least exist, they are some sort of abstract concept the way ‘information’ is.
> I will look into the Dretske book.”
Good.
Stephen,
Sorry for the violation of protocol! I guess I need to read the same rules of that you’ve read. Care to share that book with me as well?
Dave
Yeah, it’s called the internet.
Go look at some websites, some blogs.
In how many cases do you see website owners actually inserting their own comments right inside someone else’s comments?
Right. You don’t. Not anywhere. Never.
The history of the web and of blogging is littered with products that were supposed to insert comments (or whatever) into people’s writing. Things, for example, like Microsoft’s smart tags. They were met with a chorus of criticism.
As for where it’s written…
Well, I think the principle that “You don’t change someone’s comments when they post them to your site” is one of those principles that’s so obvious it doesn’t need writing.
Sheesh.
Fair enough! And I did mean the “sorry” part!
— dave —
Ha! I must say that I have never blogged or even left a comment on a blog a day in my life. Because of the NCETC workshop and the wiki session tht I attended with David yesterday, I’m here, reading my first blog ever. I have to say that it really scared me, and I had to leave and read a few others before I realized that the Internet is just like the real world. Human nature remains the same.
It seems to me that what Dave did was interrupt Stephen, who in turn, became very angry at the fact that he was not allowed the chance to coherently finish his thoughts. Dave then apologized. Fascinatingly like real life.
To apply this to the conversation (which by the way is completely out of my league because I haven’t read ANY books really – but I like to try): I think that I will take this association that I have made between real life conversation interaction and apply it to my future blogging experiences on the Internet. So technically I am CHOOSING to use this new piece of information (or material) I’ve found and apply it in the future, which means that information is the raw material with which I will build my future on the Internt.
Right???
Isn’t this like what Dave said:
>If students are to learn to be intuitive filters, then it happens when they spend time not just learning history, but learning what historians do. Not just learning science, but learning what scientists do. Then learning becomes a human experience, drawing on human curiosity, human communication, human resourcefulness — not just brute memorization.
I learned in my workshop yesterday how to make a wiki and blog and such officially, but now I’m out there learning about the community and about the “unofficial rules” of blogging and then planning to apply them in thre future. Perhaps this puts me at the beginning of literacy in terms of the conversation that’s been going on here?
I have to agree with what Dave has to say. Information is the raw material of knowledge. When we input data into our computers, it is up to the user to determine what happens to that data, how that data gets manipulated. The text I use in my classroom defines information as “data that has been made useful.” The next logical question would be, “Useful for what?” That’s where information literacy comes into play. Knowing how to take that “useful” information and absorb, apply, integrate, and ultimately creating knowledge, that is what we must make our highest goal in our classrooms. Now, if information is “data that has been made useful,” then is there any useless information? I don’t know the answer to that question. I only know that it is my job to help my students learn how to determine which information is useful to them for the specific task they are attempting to accomplish.
I’m glad to see you can discuss and work through this. I’ve had to apologize myself too many times to count. It only escalates my opinion of people who change and are corrected and apologize.
I like to see real people discussing real issues. I guess it is important to remember– sometimes HOW we do things is as if not more important than WHAT.
As a classroom teacher who LIVES dealing with interpersonal skills — here are my thoughts:
I recently had someone take me to task on my blog for a misspelled word and although I breached protocol, we must remember that we are human and this is the read/write web and with it brings humans who don’t know everything — no one is the master of this Internet and we all must learn.
However, in correcting the errors of others, we all must be careful not to condescend to those that are at a differing place on the learning curve than we are.
I find that if I have a problem with a breach of netiquette that I like to e-mail them privately and directly to let them publicly correct their own problem rather than chastise and embarrass them in a public forum. An alienated person becomes an enemy and life is too short to create enemies — we need all the friends we can get. (We remember our critics!) I always appreciate this method of communication and the chance to correct myself. No one likes to feel humiliated and no wise person would do this intentionally. (This is why a cardinal rule of teaching is to always talk privately to students when you have a dispute, same goes for the blogosphere.)
So, I see two breaches of netiquette here.
Dear David —
and anyone else who reads this —
What amazes me the most about this article is the assumptions that have been made by ALL that people really are reading blogs CAREFULLY (and comments as well.)
You all have made me realize several things:
1. When reading a blog, I might wish to read it 2 or 3 times. Especially if it gets under my skin…….because I might be reading MY perception into it, instead of letting the author voice an opinion.
2. Totally agree with Vicki — write the person OFF the blog if there is a big issue. I am a Christian — and we are shown in scripture that is someone offends (or sins against you — and I don’t mean that commenting on a blog is a sin) you go to them SEPARATELY first to resolve the issue. And you don’t have to be a believer to see the power & possibilities in that action.
3. Decide if you really need to comment and WHY you need to comment. I might offend here — but I think sometimes people post because they want their NAME and THOUGHTS to be heard and if you are posting EGOTISTICALLY — perhaps you shouldn’t post.
Wow — this discussion was ONE of the best. Yet, I am sorry if it caused you any distress – David Warlick, you are respected and your gentleman behavior in this blog shown through. Most people don’t apologize even in real life.
But I do have to state 1 thing – and honestly, it made me quite angry.
When someone asks a direct question — you do not give a vague answer or a broad answer. If a student came to me with a true need, I would not say well go check the library and walk away. I would want them to find it, but I need to map it out a bit more to not lead to frustration.
I think that when David asked, “Care to share that book with me as well?” — which many of us are wondering about as well — I think to answer “the internet” was glib and flippant and totally irresponsible and LOST the learning moment there. How easy would it have been to give several links of information?? not hard at all.
And now — I need to walk away. It is a beautiful winter day and I have good plans.
David – I am glad your whirlwind of events are over and you can enjoy some down time. I look forward to 2007 when perhaps our paths will cross again.
Happy Holidays
Jennifer Wagner
Well, David, you are a better man than I for allowing yourself to be berated on your own blog by comments I wouldn’t have allowed my students to post during a class discussion. It’s too bad when the great conversation between educators adopts the tone of political ads in early November.
What if I were to speak to my students like this when they botched links and sent work to the wrong printer? Not exactly building the learning community Downes so eagerly promotes.
It’s about people. How will we react when our colleagues join in – those who haven’t read any of these books and don’t care to, but are smarter than we are anyway? I don’t think they’ll be impressed when we reference old Microsoft product roll-outs.