The third article I've recently read is by Christine L. Borgman, who reasons that with the ongoing digitisation of sources and journals, the days of humanities scholars spending months and years trawling solo through archives will become rarer, as collaboration and digital study could become the dominant force in humanities research this century. With an increasing number of journals becoming available online, due to demand from academics and students, information is becoming much more easily available, allowing for a greater likelihood of individuals doing the same research at the same time. Collaborative work would help reduce duplication of the same work and allow for greater development in field research, a distinct advantage over the old method of individuals working on their own.
Borgman identifies a problem with the way digital research is viewed and used by students and lecturers in the humanities, citing that concerns over publishing and promotion of one's work, as well as insecurity over tenure positions in universities, means that humanities scholars are more guarded about their work, and less willing to collaborate with colleagues, or to engage with new means of researching. University libraries allow the perpetuation of a cycle by continuing to stock printed books and journals, which humanities scholars continue to use. Borgman does not blame librarians for this, arguing that scholars should be responsible for breaking this cycle, and demand a change in the way they, and their students, access material. From what limited experience I have with administration, this demand from academics alone would be insufficient. There is a need to convince heads of departments and the upper echelons of universities that digital research is not only important, but something which they should ignore at their peril.
As the author points out, there is a mental block among humanities scholars to accept digital publishing and the collaboration which goes with it. Arts students are groomed into accepting that work must be done individually, that we are competing against our colleagues. Collaboration is a dirty word, little better than plagiarism. Large classes are broken down into smaller tutorial groups, but the message remains that we are individuals walking along our own paths and aiming for our own goals, apart from the rest of the group. I personally find it very difficult to engage in any form of collaborative work because of this engrained feeling that doing so diminished my effort. The fact that collaboration as a result of increased digital resources will become more commonplace means that I will have to address this.
Science and medicine have taken more readily to digital research than the humanities, perhaps because of the importance the data created in those fields have. Searching for cures to serious diseases is a preoccupation of many scientists around the world, with pooled information leading to quicker discoveries. I'm unable to think of the last time a single individual won one of the scientific or medical Nobel prizes, while the humanities prizes are frequently won by individuals.
The key question I have about the future of digital research in the humanities is how do senior academics and the upper rungs of university management be brought around to the idea that this is the trending way of research, that the old days of slowly going through archives is not just old-fashioned, but inefficient? I've been fortunate to complete a thesis already, and I can honestly say that while I did access books in the traditional manner, from university libraries, I did not access a single journal in its traditional printed format. Within the next generation, students will demand greater availability of information online, and digital study will become the dominant form of humanities research.
Saturday, 8 January 2011
Mapping Freedom
The overall theme of this article, by Edward L. Ayers, is of the history and migration of African-Americans after the Civil War, using images and video to illustrate his piece. Quoting Bob Dylan, Ayers rightly refers to the Civil War as "one long funeral song", with thousands dying in a cruel war fought between people who had "use[d] the same God, quoted the same Bible" yet forgot their unity and descended into bitter hatred and warfare. Of course, as Ayers also observes, the Civil War allowed for the emancipation of America's four million slaves, a freedom denied for over two hundred years to them and their ancestors, with the federal government refusing to give compensation to slave-owners.
The first image Ayers provides is a graph indicated the frequency of which the word "emancipation" is mentioned in newspapers in Franklin County, Pennsylvania, between 1858 and 1868. The article notes that the frequency "emancipation" is mentioned peaked in 1862, before rapidly diminishing. Ayers appears to extrapolate these figures to represent all northern newspapers, which is a bit odd, considering that his reference is two newspapers in one county of one state, hardly a large enough sample group to represent all newspapers in the north. In addition, though "emancipation" does peak in 1862 before rapidly declining, he fails to mention that, even in 1862, the word is only mentioned eight times by these papers. Further, he doesn't factor why "emancipation", as well as "slavery" (another key word in papers at the time) declined in usage: they were topical issues in the lead up to the Civil War, and especially so in the lead up to January 1, 1863, when the Emancipation Proclamation came into effect. The simple reason why these key words declined, in much the same way that any topical issues does, is that once enacted by Congress and instituted across the union, the issue died away.
The first image Ayers provides is a graph indicated the frequency of which the word "emancipation" is mentioned in newspapers in Franklin County, Pennsylvania, between 1858 and 1868. The article notes that the frequency "emancipation" is mentioned peaked in 1862, before rapidly diminishing. Ayers appears to extrapolate these figures to represent all northern newspapers, which is a bit odd, considering that his reference is two newspapers in one county of one state, hardly a large enough sample group to represent all newspapers in the north. In addition, though "emancipation" does peak in 1862 before rapidly declining, he fails to mention that, even in 1862, the word is only mentioned eight times by these papers. Further, he doesn't factor why "emancipation", as well as "slavery" (another key word in papers at the time) declined in usage: they were topical issues in the lead up to the Civil War, and especially so in the lead up to January 1, 1863, when the Emancipation Proclamation came into effect. The simple reason why these key words declined, in much the same way that any topical issues does, is that once enacted by Congress and instituted across the union, the issue died away.
I did like what he had to say about history as a subject, declaring it to be a projection which allows us to comprehend what has occurred, allowing us to use precedent to guess what may happen in future. Comparison is made between using history to predict future acts and using climate to predict the weather: it gives a good indicator but isn't always accurate, yet allows us to understand what has happened and why. It's an analogy I enjoy, and I'll be sure to add it to conversation I ever have with someone who queries the worth of history (Something which rarely happens to me, I'm glad to say. I like to think that people have a large respect for history!). A second metaphor is mentioned, attributed to Fernand Braudel, who explained history to be:
"An incredible number of dice, always rolling, dominate and determine each individual existence: uncertainty, then, in the realm of individual history; but in that of collective history . . . simplicity and consistency."
It certainly puts to shame my own interpretation of what history is, and why it's important: that it is current affairs, set in the past, but useful to explain the actions of our predecessors and as a guide for our own actions.
Finally, Ayers deals with an important aspect of the fallout of the Civil War, perhaps one which is not often reflected on, if mentioned in the first place: the human history of African-Americans freed by the Emancipation Proclamation and the Union victory in the war. Having illustrated this history with two examples, Ayers explains that these historical events are in the past to us, but are events which happened to real people, in real time. One of the freedoms associated with the emancipation was the freedom of movement, a freedom naturally denied to slaves. A series of maps indicating the migrations of African-Americans from the south-east coast of the United States into the north, west, and south illustrate the movement from the agricultural heartlands of the deep south to the wealthier industrialised north and the new frontier towns and cities of the west.
Overall, it's an article which emphasises the need to include images and video, not just to illustrate arguments in an article, but to make the subject more interesting to the reader, as well as show information which the reader can use to make their own judgements. The fact that I was able to query the limitations of the newspapers Ayers used could only have happened because it was provided to me, a positive step to allow for greater interaction with, and commentary of, articles.
Friday, 7 January 2011
The growth of digital world history
In his article on creating an agenda for digital world history, Patrick Manning attempts to push forward the idea of global history becoming a major element within history generally, explaining that the rise of modern technology has enabled what was once a small, niche part of historical study to become a more common approach.
Manning observes that global perspectives of world history as a study grew shortly after the dawn of digital technology. He further notes a link between the expansion of computers, and the dawn of the Internet, with a huge expansion of historical knowledge, notably in local history and in the coordination of national and international history.
On the local level, the Internet, as a free resource, enables the dissemination and spread of information which might not otherwise be possible, as book publishers are often reluctant to print books about issues with limited geographical or cultural appeal. With modern technology, historians can reach a greater audience at a minimal cost. In my own experience, the Internet has proven a useful tool, allowing me to send chapters of my thesis to friends far away who agreed to proofread it, without having to post copies, as well as acting as a storage location where anyone can access the final product, without having to travel to the library in UCC.
Globally, the use of an international service, which the Internet is, has allowed for a greater, and easier, collaborative effort between historians from different nations, allowing for common knowledge or experience to be interpreted from perspectives previously unknown in individual states. People have always been able to access information, but geographical barriers made it difficult to find sources that were not close to hand, while linguistic barriers and national borders made it difficult to access analysis or opinions from a different perspective. Personally, the Internet has made it easier to access information, even within Ireland. Books and articles useful for my thesis last year, but unavailable in UCC, were found in other universities with thanks to the search engines provided by other institutions. Internet shopping allowed me to find, and buy, a copy of the Pilkington Report on Broadcasting, long out of print, unavailable in UCC or any other Irish university, and not published on the Internet.
A major benefit of modern technology is the ability to create a database of information, featuring contributions from collaborators from around the world, which can be accessed by anyone, anywhere. Manning acknowledges this by pointing out the limitations encountered when he created the World History Center at Northeastern University. By placing information online, historians become capable of creating an expanded database, easily accessible and capable of allowing for greater interactivity than the limits which occur when a centre of excellence is restricted geographically within one university.
Though Manning believes world history is the up-and-coming area of history research this century, I wonder how much this is so because of interpretation of this area versus other aspects of history, and how much this belief rests on his desire for it to be so, given his speciality in the subject. No-one wishes to consider their area of expertise to be niche, or of limited interest to the general populace. I would agree with his argument that world history has expanded in tandem with the rise and expansion of the computer and the Internet, but I doubt that the correlation will rise exponentially.
Manning observes that global perspectives of world history as a study grew shortly after the dawn of digital technology. He further notes a link between the expansion of computers, and the dawn of the Internet, with a huge expansion of historical knowledge, notably in local history and in the coordination of national and international history.
On the local level, the Internet, as a free resource, enables the dissemination and spread of information which might not otherwise be possible, as book publishers are often reluctant to print books about issues with limited geographical or cultural appeal. With modern technology, historians can reach a greater audience at a minimal cost. In my own experience, the Internet has proven a useful tool, allowing me to send chapters of my thesis to friends far away who agreed to proofread it, without having to post copies, as well as acting as a storage location where anyone can access the final product, without having to travel to the library in UCC.
Globally, the use of an international service, which the Internet is, has allowed for a greater, and easier, collaborative effort between historians from different nations, allowing for common knowledge or experience to be interpreted from perspectives previously unknown in individual states. People have always been able to access information, but geographical barriers made it difficult to find sources that were not close to hand, while linguistic barriers and national borders made it difficult to access analysis or opinions from a different perspective. Personally, the Internet has made it easier to access information, even within Ireland. Books and articles useful for my thesis last year, but unavailable in UCC, were found in other universities with thanks to the search engines provided by other institutions. Internet shopping allowed me to find, and buy, a copy of the Pilkington Report on Broadcasting, long out of print, unavailable in UCC or any other Irish university, and not published on the Internet.
A major benefit of modern technology is the ability to create a database of information, featuring contributions from collaborators from around the world, which can be accessed by anyone, anywhere. Manning acknowledges this by pointing out the limitations encountered when he created the World History Center at Northeastern University. By placing information online, historians become capable of creating an expanded database, easily accessible and capable of allowing for greater interactivity than the limits which occur when a centre of excellence is restricted geographically within one university.
Though Manning believes world history is the up-and-coming area of history research this century, I wonder how much this is so because of interpretation of this area versus other aspects of history, and how much this belief rests on his desire for it to be so, given his speciality in the subject. No-one wishes to consider their area of expertise to be niche, or of limited interest to the general populace. I would agree with his argument that world history has expanded in tandem with the rise and expansion of the computer and the Internet, but I doubt that the correlation will rise exponentially.
Thursday, 6 January 2011
If I could give a lecture series...
As I’ve mentioned before, I have an interest in the history of the media. This is just as well, as I’m doing an MA in the History of Irish Media and Journalism, and I’ve written a thesis on the development of commercial television in the United Kingdom! I’ve also thought about becoming a lecturer, a career I’ve long had an interest in. Based on my own interests, I know I’d like to give lectures on twentieth century history, especially post-war, in politics or the media.
One of the tasks given to us by Dr. Cosgrave was to draw up a course outline for a module we’d like to teach. I would like to give a lecture series on the development of broadcast media in the United Kingdom from 1939 to 1997. This is a topic which isn’t really covered in Ireland, and only by a few universities to any level in the UK itself.
Aside from the topic being one I’m interested in, I should explain my choice of dates. 1939 saw the start of World War II and the coming of age of radio as a medium which delivered news more up-to-date than any newspaper could hope to achieve, leading to broadcasting supplanting the press as the main means of getting the latest news, with entertainment also providing a means of maintaining and improving morale. 1997 saw the fall of the Conservatives from power, having held it for the previous eighteen years, and thirty-five or the previous forty-six. During that time, the party introduced numerous pieces of legislation regarding the media, and so their fall from power and the start of a long Labour government is a natural end point.
Module: Broadcast Media in the United Kingdom, 1939-1997.
Module Objective: Investigating the development of sound and visual broadcasting in the United Kingdom from the Second World War to the fall of John Major’s Conservative government.
Module Content: The development of radio, and later television, as the dominant medium in British life as the twentieth century progressed. The introduction of commercial television as a competitor to the BBC will be featured, including the public debate over the role of the media; national and regional opt-outs and their contribution to making the media ‘more local’, especially on radio; the attempts at regulating broadcasting, including the introduction of further competitors, through the Broadcasting Acts under Conservative governments.
Learning outcomes:
- Understand the rise of radio over newspapers as the dominant medium in British life, before being usurped by television
- Apply knowledge of the differences between the main political parties in the debates over public service broadcasting to wider discussions on ideology in post-war Britain
- Evaluate the key moments in post-war broadcasting history, and the impact created
- Investigating the effects of parliamentary intervention on the media
- Acknowledging the impact of radio and television on other activities in twentieth-century Britain
- Learn the skills necessary to produce advanced critical essays
Assessment: Total Marks: 200 via continuous assessment (2x 3,000 word essays: 150 marks; seminar participation: 25 marks; class presentation: 25 marks).
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Leaving Behind Neidín
Another post I left in the new politics blog, Tea and Toast.
Amidst all the doom and gloom of the past year, with Ireland needing help from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, an economy which continues to stay in the doldrums, and another tough budget with the spectre of at least another three to come, one traditional Irish way of life has silently returned: emigration.
From May 2008 to April 2009, a Central Statistics Office report found that 65,000 people emigrated from Ireland, a forty per cent increase from the previous year. With 57,300 immigrating into Ireland, this represented the first net emigration seen here since 1995. Over half the people who emigrated were citizens of Eastern European states who had arrived here less than a decade ago, but Irish nationals accounted for the next largest group, some 18,100 leaving their home state to find a better life elsewhere.
The numbers leaving this country are hidden somewhat by the large natural growth in population enjoyed by Ireland. The highest number of births seen since 1896 contributed to a natural growth of over 45,000 in 2008-09, meaning Ireland’s population is still growing. This fact merely masks that while the number of people aged 65 or older has increased to record levels, and more children are born to adequately compensate for deaths, thousands of our citizens have been forced to leave their homeland to secure a future for themselves.
This sad reality is not a one-year blip. In 2010, despite a similar natural increase of population, another 65,000 people left, with Irish nationals accounting for the largest share of this group, 27,700. With a net emigration figure of over 34,000, Ireland is seeing emigration levels of a scale unseen since the 1980s. Next year, the Economic and Social Research Institute predicts another 120,000 will leave for foreign shores.
It wasn’t supposed to be like this. On the day I started university, in September 2004, my class was told how fortunate we were to live in a proud, modern nation with a booming economy that was the envy of the world. The enforced emigration which had plagued this land for four centuries, right up to the days of our own infancy, was a fading memory.
Our generation, we were promised, would be the first that would emigrate only by choice, free from being forced to suffer the pain of leaving family and friends to eke out a living elsewhere, with the real possibility of never being able to return. Thanks to the economic policies of our political and economic establishment, our generation were promised the lives that no-one could have dared to imagine we would have when we were born, with free education if we wanted it, and a huge range of jobs to choose from. Our parents would not have to bear the pain of seeing their children leave home for good, and we could become masters of our own destinies without climbing aboard a plane or ferry.
Yet less than a decade later, those promises ring hollow, and the economy which was once the envy of the world hasbecome the laughing stock, as the Celtic Tiger has turned into the Celtic Kitten, devoid of claws and with a whimper instead of a roar. Our parents worry that they may soon be bringing us to the departure gates, fearing we will only return for short holidays. Dozens of my friends have already left, in search of employment they cannot get here. They form part of the 1,000 people who move to Great Britain every month and the more than 7,000 who received residency rights in Canada, Australia and the US last year, as well as the22,000 who have obtained a one-year working visa in Australia. It is sad to see them go, and the sadness will continue as more friends leave in the coming years. I might even have to leave myself, a prospect I would never have contemplated five years ago.
The title of this piece refers to a Jimmy McCarthy song, performed by Mary Black, “As I Leave Behind Neidín”, used as a soundtrack to a piece on emigration shown on the 1986 episode of RTÉ’s “Reeling in the Years”. In that year, the year I was born, 30,000 people emigrated from Ireland as crippling unemployment and no economic recovery in sight forced tens of thousands of young Irish people to leave their homelands.
A tear comes to my eye every time I see that episode, but the reason it comes to my eye now is slightly different to why it came when I first saw that episode. Once, I wondered about the people forced to leave Ireland in that year, especially the people featured on the programme. What happened to them? Did they ever get the opportunity to return to the land they clearly didn’t want to leave? Were they even still alive, or did they die in a foreign land, far from the lives and people they loved and missed? The sadness flooded through me as Mary Black sang “won’t you remember me?”
I saw the episode again recently, and while those questions about the preceding generation remained, and the familiar sorrow repeated itself as the strains of that ballad played in the background, I found myself asking the same questions, but about my own generation. What will happen to us? If we have to leave this country, will we get the opportunity to return? Will we die in a foreign land we’ll never call home? Will we be remembered?
Of course, the world is a much smaller place today, and leaving one’s country doesn’t mean that you can’t return. But it does get harder once you lay down roots in your new country, and it becomes harder to uproot, especially after forging a career and begin a family. And although it has never been easier to return, that great fear which had plagued our ancestors, the one great illness which our generation had been assured was gone forever, has returned. We were promised that the saddest part of our history was behind us, but the spectre of emigration, and the resulting loss of our nation’s children, has struck again. Emigration helps ease unemployment and eases the burden on our economy, since the majority of emigrants are of working age. But what benefit does this easing have when, once again, our children, like our cattle, are being raised for export?
Amidst all the doom and gloom of the past year, with Ireland needing help from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, an economy which continues to stay in the doldrums, and another tough budget with the spectre of at least another three to come, one traditional Irish way of life has silently returned: emigration.
From May 2008 to April 2009, a Central Statistics Office report found that 65,000 people emigrated from Ireland, a forty per cent increase from the previous year. With 57,300 immigrating into Ireland, this represented the first net emigration seen here since 1995. Over half the people who emigrated were citizens of Eastern European states who had arrived here less than a decade ago, but Irish nationals accounted for the next largest group, some 18,100 leaving their home state to find a better life elsewhere.
The numbers leaving this country are hidden somewhat by the large natural growth in population enjoyed by Ireland. The highest number of births seen since 1896 contributed to a natural growth of over 45,000 in 2008-09, meaning Ireland’s population is still growing. This fact merely masks that while the number of people aged 65 or older has increased to record levels, and more children are born to adequately compensate for deaths, thousands of our citizens have been forced to leave their homeland to secure a future for themselves.
This sad reality is not a one-year blip. In 2010, despite a similar natural increase of population, another 65,000 people left, with Irish nationals accounting for the largest share of this group, 27,700. With a net emigration figure of over 34,000, Ireland is seeing emigration levels of a scale unseen since the 1980s. Next year, the Economic and Social Research Institute predicts another 120,000 will leave for foreign shores.
It wasn’t supposed to be like this. On the day I started university, in September 2004, my class was told how fortunate we were to live in a proud, modern nation with a booming economy that was the envy of the world. The enforced emigration which had plagued this land for four centuries, right up to the days of our own infancy, was a fading memory.
Our generation, we were promised, would be the first that would emigrate only by choice, free from being forced to suffer the pain of leaving family and friends to eke out a living elsewhere, with the real possibility of never being able to return. Thanks to the economic policies of our political and economic establishment, our generation were promised the lives that no-one could have dared to imagine we would have when we were born, with free education if we wanted it, and a huge range of jobs to choose from. Our parents would not have to bear the pain of seeing their children leave home for good, and we could become masters of our own destinies without climbing aboard a plane or ferry.
Yet less than a decade later, those promises ring hollow, and the economy which was once the envy of the world hasbecome the laughing stock, as the Celtic Tiger has turned into the Celtic Kitten, devoid of claws and with a whimper instead of a roar. Our parents worry that they may soon be bringing us to the departure gates, fearing we will only return for short holidays. Dozens of my friends have already left, in search of employment they cannot get here. They form part of the 1,000 people who move to Great Britain every month and the more than 7,000 who received residency rights in Canada, Australia and the US last year, as well as the22,000 who have obtained a one-year working visa in Australia. It is sad to see them go, and the sadness will continue as more friends leave in the coming years. I might even have to leave myself, a prospect I would never have contemplated five years ago.
The title of this piece refers to a Jimmy McCarthy song, performed by Mary Black, “As I Leave Behind Neidín”, used as a soundtrack to a piece on emigration shown on the 1986 episode of RTÉ’s “Reeling in the Years”. In that year, the year I was born, 30,000 people emigrated from Ireland as crippling unemployment and no economic recovery in sight forced tens of thousands of young Irish people to leave their homelands.
A tear comes to my eye every time I see that episode, but the reason it comes to my eye now is slightly different to why it came when I first saw that episode. Once, I wondered about the people forced to leave Ireland in that year, especially the people featured on the programme. What happened to them? Did they ever get the opportunity to return to the land they clearly didn’t want to leave? Were they even still alive, or did they die in a foreign land, far from the lives and people they loved and missed? The sadness flooded through me as Mary Black sang “won’t you remember me?”
I saw the episode again recently, and while those questions about the preceding generation remained, and the familiar sorrow repeated itself as the strains of that ballad played in the background, I found myself asking the same questions, but about my own generation. What will happen to us? If we have to leave this country, will we get the opportunity to return? Will we die in a foreign land we’ll never call home? Will we be remembered?
Of course, the world is a much smaller place today, and leaving one’s country doesn’t mean that you can’t return. But it does get harder once you lay down roots in your new country, and it becomes harder to uproot, especially after forging a career and begin a family. And although it has never been easier to return, that great fear which had plagued our ancestors, the one great illness which our generation had been assured was gone forever, has returned. We were promised that the saddest part of our history was behind us, but the spectre of emigration, and the resulting loss of our nation’s children, has struck again. Emigration helps ease unemployment and eases the burden on our economy, since the majority of emigrants are of working age. But what benefit does this easing have when, once again, our children, like our cattle, are being raised for export?
Friday, 26 November 2010
Knowledge management and the development of a personal learning environment
This week's Digital History class almost seemed like a Philosophy lecture, as it focused on our personal learning environment and personal learning management. The lecture examined the traditional ways students are taught, and the informal methods of learning not usually found in the classroom, before asking us to consider what contributed to the way we learn, and how we access and filter information, to be used in our research.
Most learning seen in education continues to be the old method of formal lectures, with a learned individual speaking to a number of passive people, who take notes or listen, but do not actively engage in the process. The information passed to the class is then regurgitated in essays or exams, because little worth is attributed to finding additional, or contradictory, readings on the topics covered. This problem is especially prevalent in second-level education, where memorisation is emphasised, rather than active participation in learning. This means that a good memory is confused with intelligence, and the ability to understand or interpret information is dismissed as secondary to learning off by heart.
My own learning experience largely followed this trend before starting my first postgraduate degree last year. In school, given the focus the Leaving Certificate has on memory, no system was in place to either expand or criticise the material which pupils are expected to learn wholesale. Since virtually all grading was conducted through examinations, there was no desire on the part of my school to encourage questioning of the material, and no attempt was made to evaluate how any knowledge learned by pupils was applied in our education or in real life.
To a large degree, undergraduate study is quite similar. With the huge numbers of students taking undergrad courses, lecturers have no time to engage in small group sessions, or to see if students are engaging with the material. Exams are, again, used more to evaluate a student's memory, rather than whether they bothered to actively engage with the information.
At postgraduate level, one is forced to engage with material, and must find it themselves. Having being forced to do this, I was able to gain a better understanding of what I read, because I had to rationally think about what was being presented, and question aspects of what I read that I didn't agree with. This gave me a better understanding of what I was studying, because I had to actively engage with the subject material, rather than simply passively read it and store it in my memory for exams, after which I could promptly forget the information that I had learned simply for the process of regurgitation on an exam paper.
Of course, what I learn in college isn't the only way I learn about the world, in fact, it's probably smaller than I had ever realised. Every day, I access the news through one or more types of media, though the convenience and zero cost that the Internet provides makes it my main source. I frequently use Facebook and Gmail chat to engage with other people, their thoughts and the links they post, often through debate. YouTube provides video footage which might never be seen on television, because of either timing constraints, or editorial policy. I probably became more aware of the unfolding national chaos of last week via social networking groups than I would have anywhere else. Social networking sites, like Facebook, are mainly for entertainment purposes but, as Juche observes, they can also encourage "accidental" or serendipitous learning, where the user receives an education without realising it, an grown-up example of "edutainment" programming aimed at children, if you will.
The spread of the Internet has enabled an expansion of a dual learning process outside of the formal setting of a classroom. The first aspect, independent learning, allows me, or anyone, to access information at any time, from any location, quickly and inexpensively. Through search engines or news organisations, one can acquire information which compliments, or contradicts, information the user already holds, challenging them to think about what they have learned before. The second aspect, shared or collaborative learning, encourages people to interact by commenting on posts, sharing links to interesting web pages or by instant messaging. This allows for the development of a shared learning experience, where knowledge is gained equally, and at the same time, by the participants in the discussion. Both aspects force the user to engage actively with what they are reading or discussing, allowing them to react positively or negatively, and to draw their own conclusions about the topic they are learning about.
The key to successful learning, I find, is through making sense of the material. We are able to access copious amounts of information, physically and online, and we must decipher valuable information from the nonsensical, in a process called knowledge management. As Juche observes, once you find the information you need on a certain topic, you must then study it, observing what is being covered. Then, one must challenge the material, to see what flaws exist in the arguments given, before evaluating the overall worth of the document. After this process is complete, one can use the information to construct their own arguments and beliefs.
Knowledge management is a skill which I have learned rather recently, in the main because it is not a skill required when one is in second level or undergraduate studies. Advancing beyond these levels, however, a student must find material themselves, without the comfort of being spoonfed information by a lecturer or tutor. Without the recommendations of lecturers, I had to find books and articles myself, learning to differentiate between useful and unhelpful sources, and pick up the ability to filter arguments and quotes, customising them to suit my approach, in order to assist me in constructing a discussion in topics I found interesting.
In a world where any slant can exist on any topic, it is important to be able to engage with material and see what parts you find believable, in the first instance, then adapting it to suit one's own arguments. Knowledge management, therefore, is important in creating a stronger, more independent, personal learning environment.
Most learning seen in education continues to be the old method of formal lectures, with a learned individual speaking to a number of passive people, who take notes or listen, but do not actively engage in the process. The information passed to the class is then regurgitated in essays or exams, because little worth is attributed to finding additional, or contradictory, readings on the topics covered. This problem is especially prevalent in second-level education, where memorisation is emphasised, rather than active participation in learning. This means that a good memory is confused with intelligence, and the ability to understand or interpret information is dismissed as secondary to learning off by heart.
My own learning experience largely followed this trend before starting my first postgraduate degree last year. In school, given the focus the Leaving Certificate has on memory, no system was in place to either expand or criticise the material which pupils are expected to learn wholesale. Since virtually all grading was conducted through examinations, there was no desire on the part of my school to encourage questioning of the material, and no attempt was made to evaluate how any knowledge learned by pupils was applied in our education or in real life.
To a large degree, undergraduate study is quite similar. With the huge numbers of students taking undergrad courses, lecturers have no time to engage in small group sessions, or to see if students are engaging with the material. Exams are, again, used more to evaluate a student's memory, rather than whether they bothered to actively engage with the information.
At postgraduate level, one is forced to engage with material, and must find it themselves. Having being forced to do this, I was able to gain a better understanding of what I read, because I had to rationally think about what was being presented, and question aspects of what I read that I didn't agree with. This gave me a better understanding of what I was studying, because I had to actively engage with the subject material, rather than simply passively read it and store it in my memory for exams, after which I could promptly forget the information that I had learned simply for the process of regurgitation on an exam paper.
Of course, what I learn in college isn't the only way I learn about the world, in fact, it's probably smaller than I had ever realised. Every day, I access the news through one or more types of media, though the convenience and zero cost that the Internet provides makes it my main source. I frequently use Facebook and Gmail chat to engage with other people, their thoughts and the links they post, often through debate. YouTube provides video footage which might never be seen on television, because of either timing constraints, or editorial policy. I probably became more aware of the unfolding national chaos of last week via social networking groups than I would have anywhere else. Social networking sites, like Facebook, are mainly for entertainment purposes but, as Juche observes, they can also encourage "accidental" or serendipitous learning, where the user receives an education without realising it, an grown-up example of "edutainment" programming aimed at children, if you will.
The spread of the Internet has enabled an expansion of a dual learning process outside of the formal setting of a classroom. The first aspect, independent learning, allows me, or anyone, to access information at any time, from any location, quickly and inexpensively. Through search engines or news organisations, one can acquire information which compliments, or contradicts, information the user already holds, challenging them to think about what they have learned before. The second aspect, shared or collaborative learning, encourages people to interact by commenting on posts, sharing links to interesting web pages or by instant messaging. This allows for the development of a shared learning experience, where knowledge is gained equally, and at the same time, by the participants in the discussion. Both aspects force the user to engage actively with what they are reading or discussing, allowing them to react positively or negatively, and to draw their own conclusions about the topic they are learning about.
The key to successful learning, I find, is through making sense of the material. We are able to access copious amounts of information, physically and online, and we must decipher valuable information from the nonsensical, in a process called knowledge management. As Juche observes, once you find the information you need on a certain topic, you must then study it, observing what is being covered. Then, one must challenge the material, to see what flaws exist in the arguments given, before evaluating the overall worth of the document. After this process is complete, one can use the information to construct their own arguments and beliefs.
Knowledge management is a skill which I have learned rather recently, in the main because it is not a skill required when one is in second level or undergraduate studies. Advancing beyond these levels, however, a student must find material themselves, without the comfort of being spoonfed information by a lecturer or tutor. Without the recommendations of lecturers, I had to find books and articles myself, learning to differentiate between useful and unhelpful sources, and pick up the ability to filter arguments and quotes, customising them to suit my approach, in order to assist me in constructing a discussion in topics I found interesting.
In a world where any slant can exist on any topic, it is important to be able to engage with material and see what parts you find believable, in the first instance, then adapting it to suit one's own arguments. Knowledge management, therefore, is important in creating a stronger, more independent, personal learning environment.
Monday, 22 November 2010
And they say a WEEK is a long time in politics...
The funeral bell for the thirtieth Dáil began to pall this morning, with a statement from John Gormley saying that his Green Party were eager to publish the four year-plan for economic recovery, pass the upcoming budget and come to agreement with the IMF and the ECB, but that the party wanted a general election to be held in the second half of January. It was the first major event of what was a tumultuous day for Irish politics and society, one which will probably force the night staff working overtime to get tomorrow morning's headlines up to date.
Last night's conference featuring Mr. Cowen and Mr. Lenihan seeking assistance from the IMF and its EU partners sought to restore some confidence in both the Irish economy and the euro, which was met with enthusiasm as markets opened, with shares across Europe up on Friday's trading, while the euro climbed against the dollar and Ireland's borrowing rate decreased. Following the statement, these trends were reversed, the markets closing down, while Ireland's interest rate returned to over eight per cent. Any hopes that pressure on the single currency would ease, and that the spooked global markets would regain faith in the Irish economy, were lost after little more than twelve hours.
As the day continued, while the Greens were committing to remain in government until after the budget was signed into law, the two of the three government-supporting independent TDs stated that they could not guarantee their support even as long as that, while two Fianna Fáil TDs called on Mr. Cowen to resign as Taoiseach and as leader of the party. From the opposition ranks, Labour's Eamon Gilmore and, later, Fine Gael's Enda Kenny issued statements calling for an immediate dissolution of the Dáil and a general election to be held before Christmas.
With the opposition parties, understandably, refusing to support a budget before seeing what the government proposes on December 7, and strong views by Fine Gael's deputy leader and Health spokesman, Dr. James Reilly, and Labour's Justice spokesman and former leader, Pat Rabbitte, on tonight's RTÉ's Six-One News that the government couldn't be trusted to provide a budget they could agree with anyway, the government majority might be wiped out completely, should the two independent TDs on the government benches refuse to support the budget.
This evening, Mr. Cowen gave a press conference on the steps of Government Buildings shortly after 19:00 and, flanked by Fianna Fáil ministers, he promised to go to Áras an Úachtaráin "once the budgetary process was complete" to ask for a dissolution of the Dáil. Given that the budgetary process usually takes several weeks (last year's wasn't finished until March), and that the Christmas recess runs until January 19, it has been estimated that an election wouldn't be held before February, at the earliest.
Mr. Cowen gave a brave performance on the Government Buildings steps, but he surely knows the jig is up. Fianna Fáil ministers are believed to be incensed that the Greens have pulled the carpet from under the government, though the declining majority was probably going to disappear completely by spring anyway. Pulling out of government, now or after the budget, isn't going to do the Greens any favours; they will be severely punished by the electorate, whenever the election is held. What the move has done, though, is add further uncertainty into the mix, with foreign governments and international markets unsure what's about to happen. If today is any example, no-one could predict what the political outlook will be in 24 hours, let alone by budget day.
Last night's conference featuring Mr. Cowen and Mr. Lenihan seeking assistance from the IMF and its EU partners sought to restore some confidence in both the Irish economy and the euro, which was met with enthusiasm as markets opened, with shares across Europe up on Friday's trading, while the euro climbed against the dollar and Ireland's borrowing rate decreased. Following the statement, these trends were reversed, the markets closing down, while Ireland's interest rate returned to over eight per cent. Any hopes that pressure on the single currency would ease, and that the spooked global markets would regain faith in the Irish economy, were lost after little more than twelve hours.
As the day continued, while the Greens were committing to remain in government until after the budget was signed into law, the two of the three government-supporting independent TDs stated that they could not guarantee their support even as long as that, while two Fianna Fáil TDs called on Mr. Cowen to resign as Taoiseach and as leader of the party. From the opposition ranks, Labour's Eamon Gilmore and, later, Fine Gael's Enda Kenny issued statements calling for an immediate dissolution of the Dáil and a general election to be held before Christmas.
With the opposition parties, understandably, refusing to support a budget before seeing what the government proposes on December 7, and strong views by Fine Gael's deputy leader and Health spokesman, Dr. James Reilly, and Labour's Justice spokesman and former leader, Pat Rabbitte, on tonight's RTÉ's Six-One News that the government couldn't be trusted to provide a budget they could agree with anyway, the government majority might be wiped out completely, should the two independent TDs on the government benches refuse to support the budget.
This evening, Mr. Cowen gave a press conference on the steps of Government Buildings shortly after 19:00 and, flanked by Fianna Fáil ministers, he promised to go to Áras an Úachtaráin "once the budgetary process was complete" to ask for a dissolution of the Dáil. Given that the budgetary process usually takes several weeks (last year's wasn't finished until March), and that the Christmas recess runs until January 19, it has been estimated that an election wouldn't be held before February, at the earliest.
Mr. Cowen gave a brave performance on the Government Buildings steps, but he surely knows the jig is up. Fianna Fáil ministers are believed to be incensed that the Greens have pulled the carpet from under the government, though the declining majority was probably going to disappear completely by spring anyway. Pulling out of government, now or after the budget, isn't going to do the Greens any favours; they will be severely punished by the electorate, whenever the election is held. What the move has done, though, is add further uncertainty into the mix, with foreign governments and international markets unsure what's about to happen. If today is any example, no-one could predict what the political outlook will be in 24 hours, let alone by budget day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)