Monday, 17 October 2011

A Web of Memories

The near ubiquitous web, even in it's basic form, provides a vast interconnected mesh of facts, thoughts and ideas such that there is almost never a question where the answer is not at our finger tips, but can our education system, and the world, keep up with such a radical new way of thinking and learning?

With the ever increasing ubiquity of the internet, carried wherever you might want it on your laptop, tablet or smart phone means that you now have constant access to a stream of information about almost anything. Who's that actor? What's that song? What is the speed of light? When was Mozart born? Two or three taps on your device of choice and you have the answer, anywhere, any time.

If you can have the answer to anything at your fingertips, instantly, where is the value of memorising untold quantities of facts, figures, formula and processes? More and more the human condition is being stored in a digital enclave, thoughts and feelings, facts and figures, all safely stored for later retrieval away from our fragile collection of flesh and bone.

Those in accademia have long accepted that learning to do things repeatably and accurately by rote has become less and less valuable, this is highlighted no better than manufacturing. Once the great engine of the British industrial age, manufacturing has withered away as such tasks have been moved to areas with suplus labour, and hence lower wages, such as China. Even the precision or artistry of an engineer or craftsman has been largely replaced by mechanised alternatives who work tirelessly without mistakes. So what of our studies?

One might argue that even at the university level much of what is required is nothing more than creative plagiarism and rote regurgitation. Take Brunel University's CS3010 where the students are tasked with filling a wiki with social web concepts. Here much of the work required is simply ripping off the appropriate articles from Wikipedia and not getting caught. A task that could no doubt be accomplished algorithmically with a little thought, replacing the students with nothing more than a small shell script.

And here in lies the answer. It is the creation of such an algorithm, such a script, which requires thought, understanding and presence of mind. It could be argued that universities already assess understanding of concepts and ability to apply concepts in their testing, but ever so frequently this is entirely dependant on rote learning of an underlying thought. For example, imagine a question like so: "Apply a WBS to the following case study." Here we are undeniably testing the ability to apply concepts, but without the rote learning of how to do such a process, or even what WBS is, you have little hope of attaining any grade.

The fragile existence of human beings lends itself to offloading as much as possible into this backing store, a cloud brain, that can be accessed at will without burdening our main cognitive processing abilities, but at what point do we stop such progression and how do we determine fact from fiction and who has what abilities as we move on from the Information Age, where information is currency, to an era where information is ubiquitous and truly free?

Cross-posted from cs08jjj on social media

4 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You do make a good point here. Factual information is extremely easy to get hold of nowdays; Be this through the use of wikis and through the use of social networking. Memorising facts is now less and less valuable.

    This is certainly being indicated in the software project management module, where the module leader wants us to use the facts and put these into practice. He said he was happy to put down the triple constraint on the exam paper and that we would get marks for explaining the triple constraint and its attached conditions.

    I use wikipedia for looking up the odd fact all the time, just because it is very convenient to use as well as the wealth of information available.

    What other thoughts do people have on this area? How often do you use wikipedia for looking up factual information?

    ReplyDelete
  3. @julianwoj I'm a huge fan of Wikipedia, and use it far more frequently than most academic purist would like. I find it amusing how different academics variously deride books, journal, conference papers and other literature based on context - but seem to hold almost universal contempt for content from the a site which insists on religious citation with rigorous standards. If one verifies the source (just as one would with which journal a paper is sourced) and seeks independent verification (as any good scientist should), you'll Wikipedia an extremely valuable resource.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with some of your point, I believe that information is widely available at our fingertips. However, I somewhat disagree with your thoughts around Wikipedia as I think you give it too much credibility.

    With our course, I guess there is some leniency towards referencing from ‘.com, .co.uk,’ etc websites and Wikipedia itself. However in some courses, referencing from online sources like these are unacceptable, with lecturers specifically wanting citations and references from books, journals, and in certain circumstances websites such as ‘.edu, .org, .gov, ac.uk’ etc.

    Wikipedia has on some levels been criticised for being biased, not reputable, and only a very simplified version of what is actually covered by a subject. Don’t get me wrong, Wikipedia is a great foundation for research, however leaves a lot to be desired.

    ReplyDelete