Back in June, I read “Cult of the Amateur” and made the prediction that this book would set off a heated commentary from some of the visible supporters of educational blogging. The book did not generate the level of response that I expected. Perhaps the individuals I had expected to respond chose to ignore the book in the hopes the issues raised would go away. In October, I offered my own analysis, partly based on some positions I was familiar from social psychology. I think the book is still sitting in one of the piles on my desk, but I had pretty much forgotten the issue.
Out of the blue this week, I read a post from Andy Carvin bringing the topic back into focus. Andy offers a nice summary, links to others who have commented (perhaps I ignored these posts), AND links to a new blog – Why we like web 2.0 … promising a more positive and negative evaluation of web 2.0 apps and activities (we will see). So far, I do not see much pro and con type analysis.
It is the give and take on issues, including the value of “web 2.0” learning, I was encouraging in my analysis. As I argued in my earlier post (I should have titled it CNN or FOX), if we read more and more of the same arguments we are not necessarily improving our understanding, we are typically just radicalizing our positions. This is what I would call a digital literacy issue.
BTW, in my earlier posts on this topic, I note that the debate format may have some value. The example I offer is a debate hosted by The Economist. I see that the Economist has another currently active debate on the value of social networking in education. Funny how these convenient examples just pop up.
Blogged with Flock
