![[spacer]](/schemes/blue/line.gif){kind=small}
1. what did you find
1.1. interesting about the article?I found it interesting that is article placed in perspective how the conglomeration of information can also hinder us. Not having information might affect our learning, but having too much information available can also hinder. There is definitely a need for some sort of knowledge management system that can help us to better deal with vast amounts of information. 1.2. not interesting about the article?I found the article interesting. 2. what do you consider the main message of the article?I believe that the main message of the article was to propose a change in how we approach the knowledge management problem. That we should extend current systems to provide a collaborative system that allows for a lot of people to work on. They state that current KMS are created and maintained by a small group of people, and it should allow for more people to contribute to the system. 3. there is a section in the article ?courses-as-seeds? analyzing an earlier course from a KM perspective. Please analyze briefly our course in a similar fashion against the framework and claims made in the article.Our course uses Swiki to provide one repository for work and communication done in class. Under this assumption, it is good because we are able to compare work and even get ideas from others. One problem is that it is Assignment driven for most of the time. That is, we have not gotten to the point where we are motivated to share other information that is not assignment driven. Also there is an issue of structure than can be double edge, in one hand there is none and that affects how things are done. But in the other hand there is none! So we are not forced to follow a structure and we can impose one ourselves. 4. analyze the
4.1. strength and of the Swiki as a computational environment to support KM.I think the strength of Swiki is the ability to have a single point of repository data. By this means, we are able to share documents, write comments and in many cases work in assignments in a collaborative manner. Also, I believe that having editing privilege over all documents allows for collaborative production (but one most be careful not to override others people's work). I think there are tools in Swiki that can provide better editing and collaborative work, but I was not inclined to spend time learning this tools, rather trying to get work done and have a verbal communication with my group members in order to do collaboration. 4.2. weakness of the Swiki as a computational environment to support KM.One big weakness of Swiki is availability. There were two occasions where Swiki was down and I couldn't access it in order to submit papers. This was frustrating, because I couldn't access the question for an assignment in order to do my work. I kept on thinking that I should've printed out the question so that I could work on my own. But then this was defeating the purpose of working on Swiki. So I good recommendation would be to find a way to make Swiki more robust and available (i.e. no down-time or a very small down-time). |
