![[spacer]](/schemes/blue/line.gif){kind=small}
|
HW 18 by Huda Khan. Sarah Kim-Warren. Scott Zweig. William Beachley. Jun Chen. 1. what did you find 1.1. interesting about the article? This article points out some similar ideas to the previous article, "The Road Ahead for Knowledge Management". It is true that we have so much information available to us, but it is an incredibly hard task to find information that is relevant and useful for a given task. However, we hope that not everyone believes the same about the "Social creativity" comment because without experts, each domain suffers from lack of improvements. The article was a good wrap-up article for the course. It discussed many of the issues that we've been talking about such as active learning methods, the need for more collaboration in classes, moving away from a passive, consumer culture, DODE's, and social capital. I also like that the article talked about the foundations for this class. The only difference seemed to be the technology employed for collaboration among peers and the course topics. 1.2. not interesting about the article? N/A. Some ideas of collaboration (i.e. sharing knowledge during testing time) don't work very well in lower level college classes, but we do not think there is a better solution than the current system. 2. what do you consider the main message of the article? Traditional KM systems have a limitation of supporting a complicated and intensive knowledge-based task because they are created and maintained by a small subset of people. Correctly implemented and used KW systems can support people in many different domains because users from different domains participate in creating new knowledge and deriving solutions from the existing ones. 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. There are two things about the swiki website that we can relate to our course. We can post, edit, and read any documents that are available to us, but when the swiki server is down there is not enough support for the website. Secondly, each page must be titled differently. If not, the later document that is titled the same will overwrite the old one. 4. analyze the Swiki as a computational environment to support KM. 4.1. strength and Anyone who has access to the swiki site can easily add, edit, and delete pages. 4.2. weakness There is no backup plan when the swiki server is down and it can be difficult to search. The Swiki does not force any particular organization strategy which I guess is a strength and a weakness. It enables a user to organize information in different ways than in a threaded forum or bulletin board, but there is no standard for the organization and everyone organizes things a little bit differently. The Swiki can quicky become chaotic and the right information more difficult to find. |
