Yes, I believe humans have the basic instinct to 'interact and work as a group' as Rheingold proposed in his discussion of the evolution of Wikipedia as a collectively developed encyclopedia. Humans coming together is an instinct entrusted from birth. They naturally gravitate to others for bonding and acceptance. It is only natural that the same need will cross over into the area of work. "Constructivist theory rests on the assumption that knowledge is constructed by learners as they attempt to make sense of their experiences" (Driscoll, 2005, p. 387). Wikipedia as an open forum for people to record what they have learned to through experiences and adjust their ideas by the new material being absorbed is a perfect way for humans to collaborate on an intellectual level. Wikipedia is an open source in which anyone can revise or add information to the data currently on the site, which makes it an ever changing, ever growing piece of work. Driscoll states, "new, particularly conflicting experiences will cause perturbation in these structures, so that they must be constructed anew in order to make sense of the new information" (2005, p. 388).
Constructivists purport collaboration and social blending as an integral part of learning in the constructivist method. "Because constructivists hold to these beliefs about learning and thinking, they emphasize collaboration as a critical feature in the learning environment" (Driscoll, 2005, p. 396). In constructivist theory, every member of the group brings an integral element to the group to solve and pull the puzzle together. Wikipedia allows for this to happen where members of the learning community can help others to learn.
Wikipedia as an illustrative example is a poor choice as many people will ignore anything said once they hear the word. The online resource has gathered an unfortunate reputation has unreliable. What other examples of constructivist collaboration could Rheingold have chosen?
ReplyDeleteWikipedia, as Lisa states in her comment above, is a poor example, yet I see it also as a good example. Human collaboration is flawed as is Wikipedia. To think that all humans have an innate ability or desire to interact and work together is as a group is flawed as well. It is true that newborns seek out their mothers - but can it be viewed as a survival instinct? To play as children who share with others is a learned behavior. There is a fine line that separates man from beast and it is believed to be man's ability to rationalize. In considering all of this - would it be better to lean towards the Wikipedia version in that experiences shape man and as a result collaboration being a positive experience is often repeated?
ReplyDeleteKimberly Arlia