There is a very interesting conversation going on at Weblogg-ED, concerning the role of teachers as experts in light of a new term called, "produsage" from Axel Bruns' Blogs, Wikis, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. From the synopsis provided, and the ensuing conversation, one of the main points being made is that if students are to view teachers as experts in Web 2.0 tools, then teachers need to be actively engaged in using those tools themselves. This led to much discussion around the general notion of teachers as experts, a term many teachers appear to be uncomfortable with using to describe themselves, as well as to some debate regarding just what a teacher is an expert in - is it content area, information transfer, or both?
We would submit, at the secondary level at least, that teachers are, or need to be experts in both. Clearly, the difference between a scientist and a science educator is the expertise that the educator has in allowing/facillitating the transfer/gaining of science knowledge in someone else. Part of this process involves understanding not just what consitutes "knowledge" in a particular discipline, but also what "knowledge" is worth transferring in a socially constructed process, and what can be left for self-discovery. To do this, one needs a certain level of expertise in the content area one teaches. Modern staffing though, that only deals with full-time or half-time equivalents, makes this problematic and occassionally leads to scenarios where teachers end up teaching subjects they have no expertise in, solely because the timetable needs a teacher in a classroom.
Another wrinkle in this problem is that teachers need to viewed as experts in their content area by students, so that students can trust that the knowledge they are receiving is accurate and authentic. This becomes highly problematic in certain subject areas. As science teachers, we are very impressed with our colleagues in music, drama, art, and phys. ed, in that they are always talking about the non-teaching community activities they are involved with; ie. so-and-so is playing on this sports team, appearing in this production, or performing with that group, all of which grants them a degree of authenticity that it is hard for science teachers currently to match. When was the last time any of us was engaged in scientific research, production, or other activity related to our field?
One the ideas that we've been trying to develop and shop around here at Exploding Beakers is the idea of the Summer Teacher Internship, that would see teachers placed in science organizations for a week or two over the summer. So far it's just a dream . . .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hey, I found your blog to be particularly interesting, asking what constitues 'knowledge'. This is my overall view on how 'experts' are identified.
Burns explains that in the collaborative online communities, ‘experts’ or roles as ‘leaders’ are ultimately decided by the quality of active content from participants, regardless of their role in the academic hierarchy. The ability regarding online users to be assessed of importance based on their personal user-led content is I think the most appropriate way of discovering an ‘expert’ in a certain field of knowledge. Isn’t this how ‘experts’ are identified? Not by their qualifications or level in the academic hierarchy; but their skills, knowledge and ideas that are exemplified in their user-led content. The produsage community is becoming more increasingly popular and relevant towards academic research. Researchers seeking proper knowledge for a subject no longer search by looking up experts, but by users whose academic profession and credentials are frequently never shown. And as part of the online collaborative community, the content that could possibly be faulty can always be judged, edited and commented on by other users (much like what I am doing to your blog). As Axel Burn refers to in one of his readings, that outcomes of users will always remain unfinished and continually under development-that this is sharing of knowledge and ideas. However that does not mean that users who provide quality user-led content on the web2.0 may be creditable, I am just saying in the collaborative online community, we all have the ability to set what is right.
Post a Comment