Comments on: Article for ITTE Newsletter http://petebradshaw.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/article-for-itte-newsletter/ Some thoughts about the notion of validity of assessment when applied to ICT in secondary schools Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:41:08 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Stephen Powell http://petebradshaw.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/article-for-itte-newsletter/#comment-64 Stephen Powell Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:44:52 +0000 http://petebradshaw.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/article-for-itte-newsletter/#comment-64 I think I have read, although I can't remember where, that research has shown Wikipedia to have fewer errors than Encyclopaedia Britannica. I suppose it also partly depends upon the distinction between fact, interpretation, and opinion and the safe answer is to use multiple sources - which, arguably, Wikepedia already is... Is this an issue of epistemology? I think I have read, although I can’t remember where, that research has shown Wikipedia to have fewer errors than Encyclopaedia Britannica. I suppose it also partly depends upon the distinction between fact, interpretation, and opinion and the safe answer is to use multiple sources – which, arguably, Wikepedia already is… Is this an issue of epistemology?

]]> By: petebradshaw http://petebradshaw.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/article-for-itte-newsletter/#comment-63 petebradshaw Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:41:30 +0000 http://petebradshaw.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/article-for-itte-newsletter/#comment-63 Thanks Stephen. I might have to digest 'ontologically relativistic dependen(cy)' quite slowly ;-) Also... is Wikipedia a suitable source for a definition, or does that itself depend on the authors' viewpoint. Thanks Stephen. I might have to digest ‘ontologically relativistic dependen(cy)’ quite slowly ;-)

Also… is Wikipedia a suitable source for a definition, or does that itself depend on the authors’ viewpoint.

]]> By: Stephen Powell http://petebradshaw.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/article-for-itte-newsletter/#comment-61 Stephen Powell Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:59:50 +0000 http://petebradshaw.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/article-for-itte-newsletter/#comment-61 Hi Pete. For me, the beauty of this approach is that it is the antithesis of what many researchers are trying to develop as the semantic web http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web. What I mean is that your approach is ontologically relativistic dependent upon the authors you identify making connections that mean something to them not necessarily according to any pre-determined schema or categorisation. This offers the increased opportunity new understanding built upon the 'friction' of competing ideas and knowledge – Wenger’s boundary interactions. Thanks for the inspiration - my PhD is still a target!:^) Hi Pete. For me, the beauty of this approach is that it is the antithesis of what many researchers are trying to develop as the semantic web http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web. What I mean is that your approach is ontologically relativistic dependent upon the authors you identify making connections that mean something to them not necessarily according to any pre-determined schema or categorisation. This offers the increased opportunity new understanding built upon the ‘friction’ of competing ideas and knowledge – Wenger’s boundary interactions.

Thanks for the inspiration – my PhD is still a target!:^)

]]>