Signal and Noise: The Power of n-Dimensional Query and Education

[Reid Cornwell]

This paper argues that fundamental problems in the way that knowledge is represented and accessed on the Internet prevent the Internet from achieving its full, positive potential in education. Among these fundamental problems are intrinsic deficiencies in keyword search technologies, deficiencies that place undue burdens upon student, teacher, and researcher alike. Vannevar Bush’s 1945 article “As We May Think” is used as a framework for discussing in a historical perspective how knowledge representation, the growth in human knowledge, and the means by which we find and relate knowledge continue to confound our use of knowledge. Correlation-based n-dimensional search technology is offered as an important advance over keyword searchs.

The Full Publication - Signal and Noise: The Power of n-Dimensional...

Citation: Cornwell, W.R. & Cornwell, J. (2009). Signal and Noise: The Power of n-Dimensional Query and Education. In I. Gibson et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2009 (pp. 2505-2511). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/31009.

[Robert E. Watson]

I'd note that one of the "problems" searchers have in finding information is that they are frequently looking to obtain knowledge which (generally) supports some preconceived notion they already have. One may make the assumption -- good for pedagogical purposes -- that there is "one version of truth" but that , in my view, only works within a constrained and vetted subset of what is available on the Internet.

To reference the great Ranganathan, "To each person, his book."

The obverse of this is the searcher who has "no idea" as to what he/she will discover as an "answer" -- hence, students accept what's near the top of the first page in a search response whether or not it is relevant. That's why Eastern Illinois University recently dropped "federated searching."

[Reid Cornwell]

@Bob, There is a book in the answer to you points. :-)

1. I take exception to your first sentence because you reduce "knowledge" to facts in support of some argument. Embodied in that sentece is what is wrong with current paradigms for education. True knowledge is far, far more.

2. In this sentence you raise the issue of "canonical knowledge." I.e. the textbook that provide a filtered version of knowledge through the eyes of the scholarly expert. A representation that, these days. is out of date before the ink dries on the printed book.

Technology has changed the game. Students are giving back to us what we believe is canon when it is in fact apocrypha. When they give us back the "top" of the page they are reading the abstract and think that is all there is required. We barely teach them how to read and we fail in the extreme to teach then to read "criticaly."

With explosion of available information, it is the process of discovery that is more important than what is discovered. Most so called scholars don't get it. they are so invested in what they think they know that they don't realize that what they actually have is only what they "believe."

[Robert E. Watson]

No, I view "knowledge" as an internal state. It can simply be wrong. "Education" can be defined as obtaining the level of understanding needed to pursue other knowledges rather than an "end in itself" covering various subject matters.

Of course, as H. G. Wells pointed out many years ago, human limitations mean that a person who is knowledgable in one field is apt to be abysmally ignorant in another.

There is, of course, a balance to be struck between what one "must know" from the POV of a given society and what one "must know" as an individual with complex desires and curiousities. We have, if you will, a bit of a crisis today inasmuch as the "societal POV" has become too greatly privileged over the private. IMHO.

[Reid Cornwell]

Bob, we are largely in agreement. Your point, "understanding needed to pursue other knowledges" is precisely what I mean about the process being more important than the "facts".

I was accused recently of asking questions about "settled issues". My reponse was, "what is settled and what is your point?"

I am told that on her deathbed Gertrude Stein was approached by Alice Toklas with, "Gertrude, Gertrude what is the answer, what is the answer!" Stein rose up on an elbo and said, "Alice what the F... is the question."

"Knowledge and scholarship is all about questions not answers," i'll own that. ;-)

[Flint Adkins]

Very interesting paper. I had this thought.

In contrast to using the internet - Why not use Television as mass media outlet for eduction?

News media services like CNN/FOX have millions of viewers each day. Imagine if they suddenly started presenting educational content and covering it the say way they cover day to day news and events like Monday night football.

Could you imagine if any major news provide started delivering live classrooms on a channel for all major courses of study in the exact same way those same companies deliver volumes of up-to-the-minute news content to millions of viewers?

I'm going to guess that the cost of the infrastructure for collecting and broadcasting constant day to day coverage of entire metropolitan areas around the globe - or even one major city is more than the amount that would be needed in order to cover enough live classrooms to present every subject matter from preschool through PHD several times over.

If I had enough resources I would create an entire media organization dedicated to television broadcasting constant coverage of people actually learning and working in the American education system. If it succeeded, I would obviously go to global coverage just like CNN (only for education).

[Reid Cornwell]

Flint, I am of the opinion that a convergence between all the media will ultimately be the solution. I could not agree more. I am trying to build a cohort for just such an idea.

The video is bandwidth intensive over the internet. Digital television does not have that problem since it caches the stream to prevent unsteady images. Send video through the TV and the interactive piece can be traditional internet conferencing (synchronous).

the fact is that all the media are merging in to one.

The big problem is that educators don't know technology and tecnologists don't know education. For education they cannot be effective without one another.

[Flint Adkins]

Reid, I agree that convergence of all media it the ultimate solution. However, a monumental undertaking, it is.

I myself am no expert on education, or the education system but it seems fair to say that most educational institution are on the technology/interent bandwagon (at this point).

On the other hand, educators/teachers/professors may not share the interest in technology that the institutions have adapted.

I can think of several reasons. One thing is that teachers/instructors/professors who were not involved in the internet during their studies prior to becoming an educator maybe less likely to immerse themselves and explore what benefits are available to them using all of the current free technology (unless it is a required by the educational institution where they work).

Advocates (such as yourself and TCFIR) will become a source for counsel and guidance as more institutions explore this topic and eventually take steps towards solving the issues.