discussion on the collaborative intelligence of wikipedia

I view Wikipedia as the grandfather, whom you ask for advice and get the answers for your questions. You may not agree with what he says or you might not quite feel that he knows what he is talking about. He might give you an idea as to where to look next, de-fragmenting information to smaller bite size chunks. Left as that, wikipedia can be anyone's accessible wisdom source, especially when discussing trivia.

No matter how collaborative this knowledge might be, the facts presented are merely half digested - it needs to be agreed with, verified and checked. It would be interesting to know how often we use Wikipedia, without verifying or checking the information. Of course, sitting here at university we know better not to even mention Wikipedia as a reference; I question if people at large are aware of this need to double check the information before using it as fact.

There is a real concern of falling for the idea that "if enough people agree - it must be true". However, avoiding Wikipedia as collaborative knowledge in the education process will not highlight these important pitfalls. Therefore we need to use it and discuss it in our classes.

level of constructivism depends on the task and the audience

Today I am to talk about social constructivism and although important to evaluate and reflect on your deep values when it comes to teaching and learning, I find the idea of discussing your core pedagogy away from any potential future task in the classroom as confusing. After all, with my limited experience in the classroom, would I consider myself to be a behaviourist or constructivist in my approach to teaching? Well, doesn't that depend on the task? The students? Their age, ability and knowledge? It also depends on the teachers expertise.

Do I want to come from a constructivist point of view with students developing a deep sense of understanding and "aha!" -YES!

Will I initially fall into more of a behaviourist teaching trap as I venture into the primary classroom in my first year of teaching - probably.

At this point in time, without extensive experience to fall back on, without a classroom to act in or students to know, can I assess whether I will approach teaching from a constructivist point of view?

Of course what to teach and how goes hand in hand and perhaps I need to focus more on how to teach rather than how to fill that next day with meaningful activities for the students, with assessable end results and still following this rigorous, and to the inexperienced, enormous, curriculum. Contrary to the current interpretative curriculum, I wish for the old days' strict, descriptive format, with little need to reinvent the wheel.

I am sure this wish will diminish as my program and teaching repertoire develops - perhaps as the constructivist in me finds its place.

The new concept of blogging has now entered my world! How exciting!