Will R. (via David W.) : Will Richardson is a learner, and he learns through his blog. Everyone he interacts with, who reads his blog, who blogs about his blog, who comments on what he’s written — is a potential teacher for him …and they come to his blog because they believe that he is a potential teachers for them.
Kids understand this in a personal way. They do not understand it as a life-long learning skill. It’s a personal living skill. MySpace is where they go to learn, and it is not going away.
David W. : Good Point! Certainly some of what is available on the Wikipedia is not correct. We don’t know how much, though studies indicated that the Wikipedia is amazingly accurate. But — compare this with the probably percentage of what we teach today, that will not be accurate ten — or five — years from now. We, educators, are swimming in a wikipedia style of curriculum, foundering in an ocean of rapidly changing times.
Clarence Fisher : This is completely true. We may have trouble with Wikipedia; it is certainly not a flawless system. But it is good enough for now, for here. As a first source of information that needs to be backed up by more research, Wikipedia is a fabulous starting point that I encourage kids to use.
But the same is true for our official curricula documents. They are good enough for here, for now, but they are certainly not infallible and they will need to change over time at an increasing pace to keep up with our changing ideas of what counts as knowledge.
Pour avoir travailler longtemps à l’élaboration de programmes d’études, j’adhère à ce que dit Clarence. Les programmes d’études ne sont pas statiques, ils sont dynamiques et évoluent au rythme de l’évolution des connaissances de la société. Impossible de l’avoir et de le figer dans le roc. par le temps qu’il est prêt pour impression papier, y’a déjà des éléments qui sont désuets. Dynamique et organique, tout comme Wikipedia…