Missing the point?

pendulum by sylvar

It has been about a month since Science published
Electronic Publication and the Narrowing of Science and Scholarship by James Evans. I’ve waited some time to comment because the results were somewhat nonintuitive, leading to some deeper thinking.

The results seem to indicate that greater access to online journals results in fewer citations. The reasons for this are causing some discussion. Part of what I wlll maintain is that papers from 15 years ago were loaded with references for two reasons that are no longer relevant today: to demonstrate how hard the author had worked to find relevant information and to help the reader in their searches for information.

Finding information today is too easy for there to be as great a need to include a multitude of similar references.

Many people feel the opposite, that the ease in finding references, via such sites as PubMed, would result in more papers being cited not less. Bench Marks has this to say:

Evans brings up a few possibilities to explain his data. First, that the better search capabilities online have led to a streamlining of the research process, that authors of papers are better able to eliminate unrelated material, that searching online rather than browsing print “facilitates avoidance of older and less relevant literature.” The online environment better enables consensus, “If online researchers can more easily find prevailing opinion, they are more likely to follow it, leading to more citations referencing fewer articles.” The danger here, as Evans points out, is that if consensus is so easily reached and so heavily reinforced, “Findings and ideas that do not become consensus quickly will be forgotten quickly.” And that’s worrisome–we need the outliers, the iconoclasts, those willing to challenge dogma. There’s also a great wealth in the past literature that may end up being ignored, forcing researchers to repeat experiments already done, to reinvent the wheel out of ignorance of papers more than a few years old. I know from experience on the book publishing side of things that getting people to read the classic literature of a field is difficult at best. The keenest scientific minds that I know are all well-versed in the histories of their fields, going back well into the 19th century in some fields. But for most of us, it’s hard to find the time to dig that deeply, and reading a review of a review of a review is easier and more efficient in the moment. But it’s less efficient in the big picture, as not knowing what’s already been proposed and examined can mean years of redundant work.

But this is true of journals stored in library stacks, before online editions. It was such a pain to use Index Medicus or a review article (reading a review article has always been the fastest way to get up to speed. It has nothing to do with being online or not) and find the articles that were really needed. So people would include every damn one they found that was relevant. The time spent finding the reference had to have some payoff.

Also, one would just reuse citations for procedures, adding on to those already used in previous papers. The time spent tracking down those references would be paid out by continuing usage, particularly in the Introduction and Materials & Methods sections. Many times, researchers would have 4 or 5 different articles all saying the similar things or using the same technique just to provide evidence of how hard they had worked to find them (“I had to find these damned articles on PCR generated mutagenesis and I am going to make sure I get maximum usage out of them.”)

There are other possible answers for the data that do not mean that Science and Scholarship are narrowing, at least not in a negative sense. A comment at LISNews leads to one possible reason – an artifact of how the publishing world has changed.
The comment takes us to a commentary of the Evans’ article.While this is behind the subscription wall, there is this relevant paragraph:

One possible explanation for the disparate results in older citations is that Evans’s findings reflect shorter publishing times. “Say I wrote a paper in 2007” that didn’t come out for a year, says Luis Amaral, a physicist working on complex systems at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, whose findings clash with Evans’s. “This paper with a date of 2008 is citing papers from 2005, 2006.” But if the journal publishes the paper the same year it was submitted, 2007, its citations will appear more recent.

[As an aside, when did it become Evans’s rather than Evans’? I’d have gotten points of from my English teacher for that. Yet a premier journal like Science now shows that I can use it that way.]

The commentary also mentions work that appears to lead to different conclusions:

Oddly, “our studies show the opposite,” says Carol Tenopir, an information scientist at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She and her statistician colleague Donald King of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, have surveyed thousands of scientists over the years for their scholarly reading habits. They found that scientists are reading older articles and reading more broadly–at least one article a year from 23 different journals, compared with 13 journals in the late 1970s. In legal research, too, “people are going further back,” says Dana Neac u, head of public services at Columbia University’s Law School Library in New York City, who has studied the question.

So scientists are reading more widely and more deeply. They just do not add that reading to their reference lists. Why? Part of it might be human nature. Since it is so much easier to find relevant papers, having a long list no longer demonstrates how hard one worked to find them. Citing 8 articles at a time no longer means much at all.

That is, stating “PCR has been used to create mutations in a gene sequence 23-32” no longer demonstrates the hard work put into gathering those references. It is so easy to find a reference that adding more than a few looks like overkill. That does not mean that the scientists are not reading all those other ones. They still appear to be, and are even reading more, they just may be including only the relevant ones in their citations.

Two others put the data into a different perspective. Bill Hooker at Open Reading Frame did more than most of us. He actually went exploring in the paper itself and added his own commentary. Let’s look at his response to examining older articles:

The first is that citing more and older references is somehow better — that bit about “anchor[ing] findings deeply intro past and present scholarship”. I don’t buy it. Anyone who wants to read deeply into the past of a field can follow the citation trail back from more recent references, and there’s no point cluttering up every paper with every single reference back to Aristotle. As you go further back there are more errors, mistaken models, lack of information, technical difficulties overcome in later work, and so on — and that’s how it’s supposed to work. I’m not saying that it’s not worth reading way back in the archives, or that you don’t sometimes find overlooked ideas or observations there, but I am saying that it’s not something you want to spend most of your time doing.

It is much harder work to determine how relevant a random 10 year old paper is than one published last month. In the vast majority of cases, particularly in a rapidly advancing field (say neuroscience) papers that old will be chock full of errors based on inadequate knowledge. This would diminish their usefulness as a reference. In general, new papers will be better to use. I would be curious for someone to examine reference patterns in papers published 15 years ago to see how many of the multitude of citations are actually relevant or even correct?

Finally, one reason to include a lot of references is to help your readers find the needed information without having to do the painful work of digging it out themselves. This is the main reason to include lots of citations.

When I started in research, a good review article was extremely valuable. I could use it to dig out the articles I needed. I loved papers with lots of references, since it made my life easier. This benefit is no longer quite as needed because other approaches are now available to find relevant papers in a much more rapid fashion than just a few years ago.

Bill discusses this, demonstrating that since it is so much easier to find relevant article today, this need to help the reader in THEIR searches is greatly diminshed.

OK, suppose you do show that — it’s only a bad thing if you assume that the authors who are citing fewer and more recent articles are somehow ignorant of the earlier work. They’re not: as I said, later work builds on earlier. Evans makes no attempt to demonstrate that there is a break in the citation trail — that these authors who are citing fewer and more recent articles are in any way missing something relevant. Rather, I’d say they’re simply citing what they need to get their point across, and leaving readers who want to cast a wider net to do that for themselves (which, of course, they can do much more rapidly and thoroughly now that they can do it online).

Finally, he really examines the data to see if they actually show what many other reports have encapsulated. What he finds is that the online access is not really equal. Much of it is still commercial and requires payment. He has this to say when examining the difference between commercial online content and Open Access (my emphasis):

What this suggests to me is that the driving force in Evans’ suggested “narrow[ing of] the range of findings and ideas built upon” is not online access per se but in fact commercial access, with its attendant question of who can afford to read what. Evans’ own data indicate that if the online access in question is free of charge, the apparent narrowing effect is significantly reduced or even reversed. Moreover, the commercially available corpus is and has always been much larger than the freely available body of knowledge (for instance, DOAJ currently lists around 3500 journals, approximately 10-15% of the total number of scholarly journals). This indicates that if all of the online access that went into Evans’ model had been free all along, the anti-narrowing effect of Open Access would be considerably amplified.

[See he uses the possessive of Evans the way I was taught. I wish that they would tell me when grammar rules change so I could keep up.]

It will take a lot more work to see if there really is a significant difference in the patterns between Open Access publications and commercial ones. But this give and take that Bill utilizes is exactly how Science progresses. Some data is presented, with a hypothesis. Others critique the hypothesis and do further experiments to determine which is correct. The conclusions from Evans’ paper are still too tentative, in my opinion, and Bill’s criticisms provide ample fodder for further examinations.

Finally, Deepak Singh at BBGM provides an interesting perspective. He gets into one of the main points that I think is rapidly changing much of how we do research. Finding information is so easy today that one can rapidly gather links. This means that even interested amateurs can find information they need, something that was almost impossible before the Web.

The authors fail to realize that for the majority of us, the non-specialists, the web is a treasure trove of knowledge that most either did not have access to before, or had to do too much work to get. Any knowledge that they have is better than what they would have had in the absence of all this information at our fingertips. Could the tools they have to become more efficient and deal with this information glut be improved? Of course, and so will our habits evolve as we learn to deal with information overload.

He further discusses the effects on himself and other researchers:

So what about those who make information their life. Creating it, parsing it, trying to glean additional information to it. As one of those, and having met and known many others, all I can say is that to say that the internet and all this information has made us shallower in our searching is completely off the mark. It’s easy enough to go from A –> B, but the fun part is going from A –> B –> C –> D or even A –> B –> C –> H, which is the fun part of online discovery. I would argue that in looking for citations we can now find citations of increased relevance, rather than rehashing ones that others do, and that’s only part of the story. We have the ability to discovery links through our online networks. It’s up to the user tho bring some diversity into those networks, and I would wager most of us do that.

So, even if there is something ‘bad’ about scientists having a more shallow set of citations in their publications, this is outweighed by the huge positive seen in easy access for non-scientists. They can now find information that used to be so hard to find that only experts ever read them. The citation list may be shorter but the diversity of the readers could be substantially enlarged.

Finally, Philip Davis at The Scholarly Kitchen may provide the best perspective. He also demonstrates how the Web can obliterate previous routes to disseminate information. After all the to-do about not going far enough back into the past for references, Philip provides not only a link (lets call it a citation) from a 1965 paper by Derek Price but also provides a quote:

I am tempted to conclude that a very large fraction of the alleged 35,000 journals now current must be reckoned as merely a distant background noise, and as far from central or strategic in any of the knitted strips from which the cloth of science is woven.

So even forty years ago it was recognized that most publications were just background noise. But, what Philip does next is very subtle, since he does not mention it. Follow his link to Price’s paper (which is available on the Web, entitled Networks of Scientific Papers). You can see the references Price had in his paper. a total of 11. But you can also see what papers have used Price’s paper as a reference. You can see that quite a few recent papers have used this forty year old paper as a reference. Seems like some people maintain quite a bit of depth in their citations!

And now, thanks to Philip, I will read an interesting paper I would never have read before. So perhaps there will be new avenues to find relevant papers that does not rely on following a reference list back in time. The Web provides new routes that short circuits this but are not seen if people only follow databases of article references.

In conclusion, the apparent shallownesss may only be an artifact of publishing changes, it may reflect a change in the needs of the authors and their readers, it may not correctly factor in differences in online publishing methods, it could be irrelevant and/or it could be flat out wrong. But it is certainly an important work because it will drive further investigations to tease out just what is going on.

It already has, just by following online conversations about it. And to think that these conversations would not have been accessible to many just 5 years ago. The openness displayed here is another of the tremendous advances of online publication.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Wikis – Tacit becomes explicit

 72 215964835 1B491D501C by Z0rk
The tacitness of wikis:
[Via Library clips]

Stewart Mader from Grow Your Wiki is guest posting on Wikinomics and his lastest post is on the effectiveness of wikis enabling tacit sharing.

Documents that are open and dynamic allow people to evolve the documents by direct editing or leaving comments…ie. people are sharing their experience and what they know can add to the richness of the document.

Right away I thought of the How-To Guides I’m writing for our Communities of Practice (CoP) at work.

Wikis are great for communal documents, such as How-to guides or protocols. As people gain expertise, they can provide comments, hints or questions that can make the document richer.

This way they can help me evolve the document, even though it’s finished. Well, that’s the idea, it’s never finished…I may miss a feature, and I can’t experience every context, so there’s stuff that happens when people use Communities that I may not know up front. eg. a new way to use blogs, a workaround (exception to procedure) page for Document Control as each client has different needs.

They may leave a comment about a feature of our CoPs where they have a workaround, or a use case.
eg. someone might say everyone in our team has a status blog, so when we go to a meeting we already know what everyone has been up to, our meetings are more about action.
Another person visiting the guide may see this and use this idea.
A simple comment box on a wiki has enabled the sharing and receiving of know-how by two people that don’t even know each other, plus this is perpetual as another person may come along and get value or an idea from reading the same comment. In fact another person may leave a comment back and say that they found it more manageable having one group blog for status. The original person my see this and comment back saying, that is a great idea, I didn’t know that was possible. Oops, that’s because I may have not put that fact in the guide, lucky that comments allow for others to help where the guide fails.
And as Stewart mentions I can go and refine the guide and leave a comment saying thanks.

Also, all of this interplay, this dialog, is also explicit, it is all time-stamped and it can be used to analyze how useful that particular document is. By making it explicit, a lot of metrics can be applied that will finally be able to measure what formally was invisible. This will not only be useful for the organization but also for the individual, say during performance reviews. Before, no one knew how important a protocol might be, especially if it was just stuffed into a binder in the lab. Now, anyone could look and see just how often that protocol was examined, and by whom..

In the end we have this explicit type deliverable that has to be formal and succinct as it has to cater to many audiences, and can’t be too explanatory (long), and try to cover every context possible, as people won’t bother reading it. But on top of this we have a layer of collective know-how and feedback via the comments which inturn we feed back into the document (via edit) some tacit know-how.

The point is having perpetually live documents (editing and comments) harnesses the collective wisdom, where people can share their know-how, and benefit the user experience as a whole. It’s a win win situation.

And, if a different document needs to be created for a different audience, the community will be there to help.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Accessible databases

Trendspotting: Molecular profiling data resources:
[Via business|bytes|genes|molecules]

This image was generated in an academic instit...Image via WikipediaLet us say you are a researcher and are doing a gene expression study on some tissue. Today, the chances are that you will run some microarrays and look at the expression profile and then try and correlate the expression profiles of a number of samples with associated data.

Fast forward a few years. I am convinced that a lot of such data will be available via search engines or data portals. Already you are beginning to see a number of commercial and public engines come to life (NextBio, Oncomine, etc). Earlier this week I read an announcement (sub reqd) by the NCI to create a Cancer Molecular Analysis Portal, which will integrate data sets from the Cancer Genome Atlas project and other cancer genomics studies.

The key here is that we already have a body of work using microarrays and other molecular profiling systems, and in many cases, people are just repeating experiments which someone, somewhere has already carried out. Unless there is something inherently proprietary in those studies (e.g specific dose-response studies), there is no reason to repeat that experiment, especially for technologies that are relatively stable and don’t have too much cross-platform/cross-lab variation (one of the goals of the MAQC projects has been to understand these variations). The second key, and to an extent perhaps even more important, is how these data are made available. Personally, I really like the NextBio interface. Will the business model work? I am not sure, but definitely the idea and concept make a lot of sense.


There is a lot of work being repeated over and over again because access to the data is not easily available. This is one of the big changes that will take place over the next few years, as the same principles that make PubMed or GenBank so useful start permeating all databases.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Filtering after publication

 32 96723190 5E04F9Ccf2 by aslakr
Public Rambling: Post-publication journals:
[Via Public Rambling]

With the increase in the number of journals and articles being published every year and the possibility of having an even larger set of “gray literature” available online we face the challenge of filtering out those bits of information that are relevant for us.

Let us define as “perceived impact” this subjective measure of importance that some bit of information holds for us as scientists. This information is typically an article but it could be applied later to pre-prints and database entries in general.

So begins a nice essay looking at possible ways to filter articles AfTER publication on the Web, rather than BEFORE publication, which is what happens now with most journals.

No real answer except the idea that leveraging all the eyes on the web could accomplish a lot of this. RSS can be used to rapidly identify articles. Links to the PDFs plus any comments I may have can be quickly placed on my personal blog.

I can then come back later, when I have more time and spend it with the articles I have shown some interest in. If I am a good filter of articles, others can subscribe to my newsfeed, leveraging my abilities without having to do the filtering themselves.

Perhaps something could be done with a similar process. It would not replace other approaches but serve as an adjunct.

It’s a thought.

Technorati Tags: , ,

It’s about people

 Wikipedia Commons 7 7B Alphonse Karr
15 tips for successful knowledge sharing:
[Via Knowledge Jolt with Jack]

Lucas McDonnell has a list of 15 tips for successful knowledge sharing. Reading through them, I couldn’t help think of the Carnegie tips from How to Win Friends and Influence People.  In both cases, the general principle is to listen more than you talk and let people have interesting ideas – no matter who really owns them.
Here is Lucas’ list (check the source for his comments):

  1. Share failures as well as successes.
  2. Don’t oversell your own work.
  3. Ask questions about others’ work.
  4. Ask before borrowing.
  5. Give credit where it’s due.
  6. Be genuine, avoid ‘networking’.
  7. Don’t just connect with those doing identical work.
  8. Be prepared to provide documentation.
  9. Talk to people you already know as well.
  10. Take lots of notes.
  11. Take the first the step.
  12. Learn more than you teach.
  13. Be patient and listen.
  14. Talk to people about talking to people.
  15. Expect the best from people.

A very nice list, demonstrating the social aspects of knowledge flow. It does not happen in a vacuum. These are not new points as shown below:

And here are Carnegie’s 21 elements from HwWFaIP (courtesy of this page and listed in many other places as the summary of the book):

  1. Don’t criticize, condemn or complain.
  2. Give honest and sincere appreciation.
  3. Arouse in the other person an eager want.
  4. Become genuinely interested in other people.
  5. Smile.
  6. Remember that a person’s name is to that person the sweetest and most important sound in any language.
  7. Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves.
  8. Talk in terms of the other person’s interests.
  9. Make the other person feel important – and do it sincerely.
  10. The only way to get the best of an argument is to avoid it.
  11. Show respect for the other person’s opinions. Never say, “You’re wrong.”
  12. If you are wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically.
  13. Begin in a friendly way.
  14. Get the other person saying “yes, yes” immediately.
  15. Let the other person do a great deal of the talking.
  16. Let the other person feel that the idea is his or hers.
  17. Try honestly to see things from the other person’s point of view.
  18. Be sympathetic with the other person’s ideas and desires.
  19. Appeal to the nobler motives.
  20. Dramatize your ideas.
  21. Throw down a challenge.

Online knowledge sharing will only be effective if it follows similar core elements. Web 2,0 is about human conversations, not IT tools. The tools are important based on how they further these core elements.

Online sharing still happens between people, through human social networks. The same tips that further healthy human communication face-to-face, as exemplified by Carnegie’s list, are just a helpful with Web 2.0. What Carnegie wrote in 1936 for Depression era audiences is just a relevant today for online communities. plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose (from 1849)

that forget this will not have successful online experiences.

Technorati Tags: ,

Nice collaboration tips

 25 95202050 C9Dfa19Db2 by thomas_sly

Robertson: Ten tips for succeeding at collaboration:

[Via Knowledge Jolt with Jack]

James Robertson of StepTwo posted his slides for a recent presentation entitled, Ten tips for succeeding at collaboration (with audio). Along with the tips, he includes some background around the ideas he presents. Nice.

Always nice to see presentations using newer technology like Slideshare. Being able to also hear a presentation rather than just see them is another huge bonus.

Here are the enumerated tips (in American English :-). And a few of my thoughts sprinkled through.
Get ahead of the curve. “Thousands of uncoordinated wikis and blogs in your company is anti-knowledge-sharing.”
Recognize when collaboration will work. In James’ talk, he gives two key criteria: A sense of purpose and a Clear sense of community. And he talks through several examples of using these criteria.
Understand where collaboration fits in. Internet need not be in conflict with the Intranet, as the purposes are different between the outside world and the internal world.
Establish a portfolio of tools. One tool will NOT unite them all.
Identify an owner of collaboration. Not sure who should be the “collaboration czar” or where it should fit.
Define boundaries and relationships.
Establish policies and support.
Start by ‘gardening.’ x
Focus on business needs. “Pilot in an area that people care about.” Don’t bother piloting in IT or in the KM team. They aren’t normal people!
Don’t forget it’s all about the people! Of course! But I hope we can say this with a bit of a smile, as it seems a cliche. Just like “It’s not about the tools.”

A very nice list and a fun presentation. The important thing is to focus on a specific area, a specific need, and some specific people. Once they find the usefulness of collaboration, it will spread to others who will use it.

While the people are important, the tools are also. The key is to make sure the tools fit the group of people, not the other wat around. You would not give someone a screwdriver to hammer a nail. Same thing here.

But recognize that not every needs to collaborate, at least initially.

Technorati Tags: ,

Multi-level experience

 122 405446783 A88C63Ce0C by laffy4k
Cameron Neylon and the full web2.0 experience:
[Via OpenWetWare]

Earlier today fellow OWW blogger Cameron Neylon gave a talk at the Institutional Web Managers Workshop in Aberdeen and did so, not only for those present at the venue, but also to anyone with internet access.

Cameron set out to stream the talk via webcast, have updates via FriendFeed and also microblogging via Twitter.

The presentation was viewed by quite a few folks and many participated on FriendFeed. Cameron even stated that he noticed 20 new followers on his twitter account!

Giving talks can be stressful as is, so this requires some congratulating for the effort. Great work Cameron!

It is very likely that presentations in the near future will not only be in-person and streamed on the web, but also include much larger back channels using FriendFeed and Twitter.

There will not only be a way to enlarge the audience, but all these conversations can be examined in order to get a much better idea of how the presentation went and what effect any new data will have on other investigations.

Presentations will not simply be monologs anymore but will have be just a part of the overall conversation. This means scientific information travels farther, faster, with greater vetting by peers than ever before.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Open Access Textbooks

flat earth by SoftPIX_Techie
Interview with Flat World Knowledge:
[Via Open Access News]

Dian Schaffhauser, Textbook Publishing in a Flat World, Campus Technology, August 6, 2008. (Thanks to Garrett Eastman.) An interview with Eric Frank, co-founder of OA textbook publisher Flat World Knowledge.

See also our past posts on FWK.

The idea of an Open Access textbook publisher seems foolhardy at first blush. But Flat Earth has a plan that just might be viable.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

More about education

creativity by nattu
[Via eLearn Magazine]

No matter what one does for a living, everyone today needs good online research skills. According to Jane John, past president of the Association of Independent Information Professionals, the key is to first clearly define what it is you need to know. In this interview John also explains what specific skills teachers and students need to navigate our ever-growing sea of information, and how leaving time for reflection can help illuminate the real meaning and value of that information.

Some discussion of the approaches students will take, including the importance of synthesis. Current education spends a lot of time on analysis, breaking things down into simple easily remembered bits.

Web 2.0 promotes synthesis. Being able to bring facts together in order to create knowledge will be important aspects of future learning.

Technorati Tags: ,

Schools and Creativity

school room by Conspirator

Do Schools Kill Creativity? A Comical Inquest at TED:
[Via HarvardBusiness.org]

If you think of yourself as someone who understands creativity, this is an essential talk by Ken Robinson, from the TED Conference. He calls into question the antiquated teaching models we have in the Western world, and asks many great questions about creative thinking and the business world.

Key quotes from Mr. Robinson:

“My contention is that creativity is as important as literacy and should be treated with the same status.”

“They’re [children] not frightened of being wrong. I don’t mean to say being wrong is the same as being creative. What we do know is if you’re not prepared to be wrong, you won’t come up with anything original. And by the time most children get to be adults most children have lost that capacity.”

It’s a funny, enlightening and well reasoned 20 minutes. Highly recommended.

Video: Do schools kill creativity, Ken Robinson, TED

Ahh. Education. Always good for some nice discussion. This is a very entertaining talk, though.

Most schools do drive out creativity in many students but I think they also force some students to become more creative, in order to get around the roadblocks presented by schools.

Just as patents/copyrights put barriers in the way of innovators, requiring them to find a new way forward , so too can public education.

However, these students would probably be creative no matter what, while the vast majority will have creativity pushed out of them. It is a real waste. This is one reason I expect public education to see vast changes.

The following represents a model of the approaches that may be taken using Web 2.0 tools. It is really simplification of what is possible. The question is how fast this model in some form is adopted.

Working together to solve problems in a collaborative fashion results in faster innovation cycles. This will be true in school also. Ones that use Web 2.0 approaches to teach will find that their students are more creative and better able to solve difficult problems. This will be superior for solving the complex problems seen today than the 19th century approaches we use today.

This is not about teaching a curriculum that will solve all our problems. This has been attempted for the last 150 years. This is about changing the basic manner in which we teach children.

It will be less authoritarian, with less of a stern headmaster using a top-down approach and more of a collaborative approach. Rote memorization of things like what year an event happened will not be as important, since this will be too easy to find online. But understanding the results of an event, how it changed the world, will be among the important skills that will be taught.

In a Web 2.0 world, finding information is easy. Using it to create knowledge is more rapidly facilitated by working in groups.

And because Web 2.0 tools make explicit many things that are usually hidden in today’s approaches, it will be possible to tease out data such as each person’s contribution. Those that try to freeload on the backs of their group can be more easily identified and dealt with.

I do not expect it to be Nirvana but schools that adopt more of the approaches, particularly with older students, will find they are more successful at meeting many of the metrics being used today, at least the ones examining creativity and innovation.

Technorati Tags: ,