Let's come straight to the point and share my own experience of last class activity.
Our task is to answer the following two questions and our original material is a paper which just includes a brief introduction of Semantic Web.
- 1. What is the definition of Semantic Web?
– 2. What are the possible applications of Semantic Web in Online
Social Networks?
Unfortunately,I have to admit that I have no idea of Semantic Web before this class activity so that my original level is 'ignorant'. Base on this condition,my epistemic aim in the individual activity is 'Minimally justified belief' and 'Knowledge' which means that I want to know is that what the author tends to show. And what's more,I try to justify both what I believe and what the author says is true.
When it comes to activity two,I have already have a brief concept of Semantic Web so that my epistemic aim changes to be 'understanding' and 'Knowledge construction / co-construction' because that I have achieve the lower level epistmic aim and it is naturally that people want to pursue higher level epismic aim in such situation. What's more, various congnition from other group members makes it's more possible to 'Grasp of explanatory connections and relations of a series of propositions ',which is the basic method and definition of 'Understanding'.
It is obvious that there exists many differences between individual and group epistemic congnition. Let's discuss such differences in term of five components in epistemic congnition.
Firstly,differences in 'epistemic aims' as well as 'structure of knowledge' has been shown above. Group members provide congnition in various perspectives which makes it is easier to pursue high level epistemic aim or build abundant structure of knowledge.
In term of 'Certainty, sources, and justification of knowledge' and 'Reliably and processes'components,group congnition also behaves better than individual congnition. Take my class activity experience as an example. During the individual congnition period,I can only justify whether th,e author intends to tell us is true by some certain methods which I am used to do. Forer example,searching on the Internet and make a contrast between different sources.
However,group congnition allows group members communicate with each other so that we can easily find our different opinions and searching for papers of related topics directly. It is obvious more efficient than individual work.What's more,when different group members search for related topics respectively,we will have a better chance to find different resources which can be used to synthesized and then produce a more comprehensive idea.
When I approach to a new problem individually,I prefer to grab key-words in reading materials to give a brief description of the problem at first and then search for papers of related area on Internet.So in my individual docx file,you can see some highlights of original definitions or key-words which are related to the two questions. However,in the group congnition period,I would like to read other members' opinions at first and try to find the differences so that in our group doxc file you can find that I comment on different opinions at first. After this first step,I would like to judge if such different opinions can combined together which means the differences generated because of different pespectives.
If so,combine it to achieve more comprehensive conginition of this topic and if not,which means that one of us should be wrong. It is obvious that we need to communicate with each other in this situation and search for evidence of our opinions respectively until both of us receive more precise congnition.
After reading your blog of the process of epistemic aims, I could empathize with the whole process. But from the last paragraph of your article, I have a question . As I know you are a lead of your team, so I want to know your behaviors and influence during the process of your team members get the precise congnition.
回复删除You're so honest to say that your epistemic aim is ignorant at first. I guess quite a few people haven't got the guts to admit it (including me). Anyway, I found it interesting that many people took more seriously in the class activity two. Is there some reason why?
回复删除I think you illustrate clearly that your change and difference in the two activities. I also believe that from the opinions of other members, we can generate overall and new ideas more effectively. Some questions proposed by the members can inspired us to think more. However, I want to ask how can you ensure the opinion of others are correct? Do you think occasionally it may lead to some misunderstanding?
回复删除In fact, I think most of us would perform like u do. Many of us would neglected the effect of teamwork for the epistemic cognition. At the beginning, our teammates just do individually and we just do not know what the semantic is and could not explain a word with it. However, after the team cooperation and exchange our thoughts, we find we could easily figure it out in a high efficiency. This realization also one the process of epistemic cognition.
回复删除