One of the big themes of Stephen Heppell's keynote was how important local knowledge was. This was not contrasted with an opposing force, ie. there was no mention of any important non local knowledge, hard to discover core knowledge that ought to be part of everyones education.
Another theme was the importance of connection (web2.0-ism). Anything is possible provided you are connected and can communicate and collaborate through the internet pipe. The role of the leader pales into insignificance.
Another theme was the cutting edge power of web2.0 apps, that the "digital natives" now swim in this stream and we need to adapt or become irrelevant
Some thing is very wrong here:
1) an important international expert arrives from overseas to tell us that local knowledge is the most important thing
2) We sit in lecture mode hearing that the lecture is no longer important
3) the limitations of web2.0 apps are not mentioned. There was no context either historical (computer science) or historical, about all the knowledge discovered before computers were invented
I don't get this "big picture"
Apparently, the source of inspiration for the VITTA conference "revolution" theme was Michael Wesch's video "The Machine is Us/ing Us"
Michael Wesch's youtube video was a big hit, which suffered from the same deficiency as those who make a playword out of "revolution" -- that revolution will happen by itself as an inexorable progression of technology and Moore's law. This view, also promoted by Ray Kurzweil, has been disputed, notably by Rodney Brooks. I wrote a blog about this some time ago, "the machine is not yet us"
I'm tired of web2.0 hype, its far from new and because I'm not looking forward to the next education ICT conference that once again will have web2.0 as the main theme and present it as a "revolution"
RBC models — the art of missing the point completely - from Lars Syll Vielleicht ist diese Grundperspektive der radikalen Trennung von Form und Gehalt hilfreich, einige zunächst überaus paradoxe Äußerungen v...
2 hours ago