6) How does it differ from web 3.0?
After conducting some research into the concept of semantic web, it seems like the main difference is, unsurprisingly, do to with meaning. Web 3.0 is merely able to present you with preset information, for example the layout of a web-site, links to other sites, the ability to search and then filter your results. However, it doesn’t have an understanding of the meaning behind the information it is presenting, human agency is required to actually make any useful sense of the information.
Semantic web, on the other hand, it is proposed will be able to understand the information it is telling you. In this way the possibilities from the web are dramatically increased. The article I was reading talks of an “agent” within a handheld web browser, this “agent” is able to search for information and marry it with other variables, the example given being able to search through a doctors schedule, and match it with your own to see when you are free to have an appointment, and further to when traffic is best and so on.
Berners-Lee,T., J. Hendler and O. Lassila (2001) ‘The Semantic Web’, Scientific American Volume 284 (Issue 5): P.28–37.
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
9.5- Semantic Web
5) What is the 'semantic web'?
According to Berners-Lee within Scientific American, ‘The Semantic Web’, semantic web will be the next generation of the Web. However, the key difference is that the semantic web will not merely regurgitate pre-programmed information back to you; it will understand the deeper meaning of the data and be able to use it in a similar way which a human would interpret it. No longer will computers think in terms of lists of 0 and 1, instead it will have a much deeper understanding and be able to help us in ways which were previously impossible.
This therefore opens up lots of new possibilities from the web. Things will be able to be synchronized with each other with a lot more logic than previously possible. However, to me this seems like an extremely large task. How can a computer possibly have the same logic and thinking as a human can? To me it seems like there will inevitably be a number of “holes” with this system, as there are just too many possibilities and variables which go through the human mind which a computer cannot replicate. Maybe this is because such technology seems inconceivable to me given the basic problems of technology at the moment (basic things like being unable to filter search results more specifically or by the required number of fields, I am always being told “your search has generated no results, please edit your search and try again”) Although I am reassured that this technology is on its way, to me it seems a long way off before this ideal is put into useful practice in everyday life.
Berners-Lee,T., J. Hendler and O. Lassila (2001) ‘The Semantic Web’, Scientific American Volume 284 (Issue 5): P.28–37.
According to Berners-Lee within Scientific American, ‘The Semantic Web’, semantic web will be the next generation of the Web. However, the key difference is that the semantic web will not merely regurgitate pre-programmed information back to you; it will understand the deeper meaning of the data and be able to use it in a similar way which a human would interpret it. No longer will computers think in terms of lists of 0 and 1, instead it will have a much deeper understanding and be able to help us in ways which were previously impossible.
This therefore opens up lots of new possibilities from the web. Things will be able to be synchronized with each other with a lot more logic than previously possible. However, to me this seems like an extremely large task. How can a computer possibly have the same logic and thinking as a human can? To me it seems like there will inevitably be a number of “holes” with this system, as there are just too many possibilities and variables which go through the human mind which a computer cannot replicate. Maybe this is because such technology seems inconceivable to me given the basic problems of technology at the moment (basic things like being unable to filter search results more specifically or by the required number of fields, I am always being told “your search has generated no results, please edit your search and try again”) Although I am reassured that this technology is on its way, to me it seems a long way off before this ideal is put into useful practice in everyday life.
Berners-Lee,T., J. Hendler and O. Lassila (2001) ‘The Semantic Web’, Scientific American Volume 284 (Issue 5): P.28–37.
9.4 Education and Cultural/Personal Preferences
4) Is there a potential problem being stored up for people if 'education' is tailored to fit into their cultural and personal preferences?
I believe that a potential problem in tailoring education to an individual’s specific needs is that what fits one person may not fit another and we may not have the resources to offer each individual a different set of teaching methods. However, I do not believe this problem to be anything new, as at the moment people can be divided into visual, aural or active learners and therefore will find it easier to learn in different ways.
Some people, like me, may have a more traditional view towards education, and believe that actually writing rather than word processing, and having something explained to you face to face holds many benefits to sitting in front of a computer and having information delivered into your inbox.
I believe that this way the process of socialization is lost, which I see as being one of the main problems with the continuing development of technology and its increasing affect on the way we live our day to day lives. If people’s cultural and personal preferences dictate that learning remotely via the computer is best for them, what will happen to the institution of schooling and the ideologies which are installed into us through this? I doubt a computer will be able to offer the same sets of attitudes and values, and you could be much more open to being influenced by all the nasties which exist on the Internet, for instance pro-anorexia web-sites, pro terrorism web-sites, web sites encouraging odd cults etc. etc. This is made all the more worse by the fact that at the age in which education takes places, young people are attempting to find their own sense of self, so being negatively influenced at this stage could potentially be extremely damaging,
Of course this is an extremely cyber-dystopian view point, as I am only pointing out the potential negatives of this. There is a possibility that eLearning could also bring its fair share of benefits for the individual, as it could open people’s eyes to view points they would not be taught in a school environment and encourage cyber democracy. However, in my eyes the potential threats seem to outweigh the potential benefits to the individual.
I believe that a potential problem in tailoring education to an individual’s specific needs is that what fits one person may not fit another and we may not have the resources to offer each individual a different set of teaching methods. However, I do not believe this problem to be anything new, as at the moment people can be divided into visual, aural or active learners and therefore will find it easier to learn in different ways.
Some people, like me, may have a more traditional view towards education, and believe that actually writing rather than word processing, and having something explained to you face to face holds many benefits to sitting in front of a computer and having information delivered into your inbox.
I believe that this way the process of socialization is lost, which I see as being one of the main problems with the continuing development of technology and its increasing affect on the way we live our day to day lives. If people’s cultural and personal preferences dictate that learning remotely via the computer is best for them, what will happen to the institution of schooling and the ideologies which are installed into us through this? I doubt a computer will be able to offer the same sets of attitudes and values, and you could be much more open to being influenced by all the nasties which exist on the Internet, for instance pro-anorexia web-sites, pro terrorism web-sites, web sites encouraging odd cults etc. etc. This is made all the more worse by the fact that at the age in which education takes places, young people are attempting to find their own sense of self, so being negatively influenced at this stage could potentially be extremely damaging,
Of course this is an extremely cyber-dystopian view point, as I am only pointing out the potential negatives of this. There is a possibility that eLearning could also bring its fair share of benefits for the individual, as it could open people’s eyes to view points they would not be taught in a school environment and encourage cyber democracy. However, in my eyes the potential threats seem to outweigh the potential benefits to the individual.
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
9.2- Digital Divides
2) What difference to all this might the 'digital divide' make? a) To socioeconomically related access issues within a society? b) To global access issues across countries and regions?
I think that the assumption is that the digital divide, certain people being able to afford to have the means to access the Internet and other new technologies, in terms of Prensky’s ideas, will result in digital natives having a better understanding of the things they are taught than those who do not have access to such technologies. As Prensky suggests that natives speaking a new language should be taught through this new language of technology.
However, one commentator on this topic, Henry Jenkins, in his blog writes about the way in which the term digital native is all encompassing and does not allow any room for variations. He states that his research suggests that whilst lots of the children he has worked with do use technology, there were variations in the way in which it affected their lives. For example, although lots of the children did not have Internet access or a computer at home, they were still able to use technology to express themselves, for example through computer games or DVD collections.
Therefore, the digital divide, according to Jenkins, will not necessarily mean that those with Internet access will not benefit from learning by using technology, as those without it still have the means by which to experience many of the same benefits, such as expressing themselves, finding information, and communicating with friends.
The result of this, in terms of global issues across countries and regions, will mean that those with access to the technologies will not be any better equipped or learn the content in an easier way, because, as Jenkins suggests, those who do not necessarily have Internet access at home, still do have a means of expressing themselves through technology as it is so ingrained in modern day life.
I think that the assumption is that the digital divide, certain people being able to afford to have the means to access the Internet and other new technologies, in terms of Prensky’s ideas, will result in digital natives having a better understanding of the things they are taught than those who do not have access to such technologies. As Prensky suggests that natives speaking a new language should be taught through this new language of technology.
However, one commentator on this topic, Henry Jenkins, in his blog writes about the way in which the term digital native is all encompassing and does not allow any room for variations. He states that his research suggests that whilst lots of the children he has worked with do use technology, there were variations in the way in which it affected their lives. For example, although lots of the children did not have Internet access or a computer at home, they were still able to use technology to express themselves, for example through computer games or DVD collections.
Therefore, the digital divide, according to Jenkins, will not necessarily mean that those with Internet access will not benefit from learning by using technology, as those without it still have the means by which to experience many of the same benefits, such as expressing themselves, finding information, and communicating with friends.
The result of this, in terms of global issues across countries and regions, will mean that those with access to the technologies will not be any better equipped or learn the content in an easier way, because, as Jenkins suggests, those who do not necessarily have Internet access at home, still do have a means of expressing themselves through technology as it is so ingrained in modern day life.
9.1- Wenger and Prenksy
1) How might Wenger's notions on practice communities relate to Prensky's on education?
Wenger (2001) came up with the idea of Communities of Practice, referring to the notion that learning benefits from experiencing a sense of community with those around you whom you learn with.
I believe that this related to Prensy’s ideas about education in that it implies that students can benefit by taking advantage of their ability to connect digitally, and so by doing so can form an online Community of Practice which will aid the process of education.
So for example, for digital natives, learning online through online lectures or computer games as Prensky suggests, and having the ability to discuss their thoughts and ideas with peers and tutors remotely through perhaps forums or instant messages, means that they will be able to create an educational community of practice, which according to Wenger, will help them to learn.
Therefore by combining Prenksy’s ideas about digital natives and how to most effectively teach them, and Wenger’s ideas about communities of practice and education, we should, in theory, create an environment which is conjunctive to their learning.
Wenger (2001) came up with the idea of Communities of Practice, referring to the notion that learning benefits from experiencing a sense of community with those around you whom you learn with.
I believe that this related to Prensy’s ideas about education in that it implies that students can benefit by taking advantage of their ability to connect digitally, and so by doing so can form an online Community of Practice which will aid the process of education.
So for example, for digital natives, learning online through online lectures or computer games as Prensky suggests, and having the ability to discuss their thoughts and ideas with peers and tutors remotely through perhaps forums or instant messages, means that they will be able to create an educational community of practice, which according to Wenger, will help them to learn.
Therefore by combining Prenksy’s ideas about digital natives and how to most effectively teach them, and Wenger’s ideas about communities of practice and education, we should, in theory, create an environment which is conjunctive to their learning.
9.1- Wenger and Prenksy Cont.
However, a problem of such a strategy would be plagiarism. Whilst this method would encourage the sharing and discussing of ideas, as the Internet is very much an open resource based on the idea of gift economy and digitality, in that nothing is fixed and is open to be edited and re-edited an infinite number of times with no “owner” as it were.
It does however create problems with grading or marking. If a student were to be graded on their specific contributions to a discussion, would their individual work be being assessed, or would it be more accurate to say that it is their ability to find information on the Internet which was being examined?
It does however create problems with grading or marking. If a student were to be graded on their specific contributions to a discussion, would their individual work be being assessed, or would it be more accurate to say that it is their ability to find information on the Internet which was being examined?
W9. Task c. Person who most threatens the notion of native/immigrant in digital culture
c) A person known to you (could be you, but you don't need to admit it!) who most threatens the notion of native/immigrant in digital culture.
The person I know who most threatens the notion of native/immigrant in digital culture is Mark, as mentioned in a previous post.
I believe this is because technology is so ingrained into his day to day routine, that he would be unable to go about his daily life without it and to remove facebook or his mobile phone from him would leave him completely lost.
I believe him to be a digital native in that the way he uses technology means that he would be unable to return to when he did not use it, both on a professional and a personal level. I don’t see him as having an “accent” as Prensky puts it, in that his use of technology resembles that of someone who has been exposed to it for all of their lives, as opposed to Mark who has only been exposed to it as it began to affect his life, which could not have throughout the duration of his life.
The person I know who most threatens the notion of native/immigrant in digital culture is Mark, as mentioned in a previous post.
I believe this is because technology is so ingrained into his day to day routine, that he would be unable to go about his daily life without it and to remove facebook or his mobile phone from him would leave him completely lost.
I believe him to be a digital native in that the way he uses technology means that he would be unable to return to when he did not use it, both on a professional and a personal level. I don’t see him as having an “accent” as Prensky puts it, in that his use of technology resembles that of someone who has been exposed to it for all of their lives, as opposed to Mark who has only been exposed to it as it began to affect his life, which could not have throughout the duration of his life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
