An expanding universe?

A Private Universe is a video documentary of Harvard grads, alumni, and faculty being largely unable to detail what causes the seasons of the year or the phases of the moon. Their views were sometimes based on the correct fundamental idea, but were an incorrect understanding of the facts. Why had they never solidified their understanding of these basic principles of astronomy and geography? Had they carried these incorrect concepts since grade school, or somewhere along the line unlearned what they previously understood. I was left asking of the Harvard grads, did they used to know, had they never learned, or had they learned these principles incorrectly.
In his speech at TEDxNYED on Saturday, George Siemens, author of Knowing Knowledge which is a study of how the context and characteristics of knowledge have changed, argued that what we see in A Private Universe is an issue of "conceptual failure". Siemens argues that "the inability on the part of individuals to share and shape their understanding of a subject through discourse with others causes erroneous or errant concepts that could be eliminated through social interaction."

Siemens contends "the scientific method offers a response to faulty connections, offering a long history of creating a transparent structure whereby connections are validated and evaluated." Traditionally, educators have lead students to meaningful and useful information via the curriculum (scientific method), and helped them build understanding through socialization (the classroom).

Web 2.0 and New Media change the equation. Rather than the educator creating a linear series of lessons within a tightly structured curriculum, learners build knowledge and understanding as part of what Siemens calls "peer participative pedagogical practice". Students make sense of content via social and technological connections. The educator still has an instructive role, but now the responsibility moves directly to the learner in terms of how they interact with the information and their peers.

Siemens argues that social media rebuild a sort of lost "small group" socialization that existed prior to modern production and transportation networks. Prior to mass movement via mechanized transportation networks, and mass production of goods and food, core knowledge was validated in a small group within a family, a village, a farming community, a church, where people discussed these matters, and provided peer instruction. In a mechanized world these validation tools break down, and things like the cause of the seasons lose relevance and importance.

In a new world of social media, sites like Delcious, Facebook, Ning, and products like blogs, podcasts, and now Twitter represent an increased exchange of information and a possible reconstruction of social systems. The new media tools allow socialization that sort of recreates traditional small groups and communities. These technologies offer a link to our social, networked, small-group past. Siemens thinks these tools represent a recreation of "a past centered on the social sharing of information and making sense of the world together."

The promise of this idea in the abstract is limitless. Our ability to network, recreate shared sense of community, not based on geography, but on ideas and values, is exciting and potentially powerful. The visualization tools are well beyond the power of television because they are not unidirectional, the viewer can now react, and interact in a way traditional video lacked. The capability to share text, audio, and images, holds incredible potential. Thus the sharing of ideas and knowledge and information could grow in an almost limitless manner.

Yes, but were these small networks of our agrarian past always accurate in the information they shared and validated? Didn't isolation lead to bigotry and racism? Didn't some of us hold on to outdated, unscientific ideas for hundreds of years based on religious tradition and fear? I am shocked when I hear my 10 and 11 year old students tell me that President Obama is going to take away their guns. How do they know, their parents read it on the internet. In how many blogs could I go to read that global warming is a myth? Can misinformation be spread just as fast or faster using new media? Can wrong ideas become ingrained by a sense of shared community in a new media environment. Instead of a private universe, could it just turn in to a shrinking universe?

In a modern new media world, does it really matter if you know what causes the seasons? As long as you know they are coming and can adjust, isn't that all that matters. Does it matter if you accept an idea that is incorrect without questioning the validity of the idea?

This is a fundamental challenge to those of us who want to see new media tools reach their great educational potential. To overcome the pitfalls of small ideas, and fulfill the potential of new media tools with a great cacophony of big shared ideas. To make a social media landscape that inspires a great pursuit of knowledge and information, that leads the way to true reconnection of community around the shared goal of the common good.

Map image from Wikicommons:
Planisphaerium Coeleste, by G. C. Eimmart (first published in 1705, copy probably by Matthäus Seutter, c. 1730); 56.5 x 49 cm
Date Augsburg, c. 1730
Source http://www.jpmaps.co.uk/map/id.32893
Author
Georg Christoph Eimmart (1638(1638)–1705(1705)

Map is part of the public domain