Respond to Daina and Meridith to discuss knowledge creation!

This post is part of the Atlas book group discussing the Knowledge Thread.

Respond to Daina and Meridith to discuss knowledge creation!

I’m Daina and I’m Meredith! In this thread we want you to create your
own knowledge tool to help your understand what it means to understand
knowledge creation! Use this video as your starting point! So what we
want you to do is build off each others sentences for the next 2 days
to create a story and on Wednesday and Thursday we will discuss what
we’ve created!

Here’s an example “a cat walks into a store” next person “the cat
bought some beer”!

Have fun!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Matthew Gunby

    “It is very intimidating to be the first to enter onto this quest”

  • Anonymous

    It is not as intimidating to be second!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1375860084 Daina Rose

    Buy the water guns and open up the library property to a water gun battle.

    • Matthew Gunby

      The least soaked librarian wins… or loses dependent on how you gauge such things.

  • Meredith Levine

    yes water guns because every librarian has to be equipped with at least one!

  • Anonymous

    Ok so because we didn’t make much of a story, what does that mean for the idea that we create knowledge? What do you guys think of the idea that we were unable to create a story without more prompt than a sentence or two. Do we need documents/ document-like objects to get us started?

  • Jillian Healy

    I love the idea for this forum; and I definitely understand what you were aiming at!  I’ve played plenty of successful ’Fill in the next sentence’ games that did create knowledge.  I feel that those games created knowledge because they were the collaboration of many people’s varied thoughts/ideas which when combined, created something entirely new and unique.  That story creation would never have otherwise been made because it is the combination of many people’s ideals, instead of just one.  I feel that the setup of this website may have contributed to the lack of a significant story creation…I found it quite confusing to try to follow the conversation line chronologically, which makes for understanding a story even more challenging.  I would be curious though to see what we could come up with if this were attempted in with everyone in the same physical setting.  I bet the results would be quite different!   -Jillian

    • Matthew Gunby

      I definitely concur that this might have been more successful if it were synchronous versus asynchronous.  This is not to say that you cannot create knowledge in this type of discussion, and I could also see documents helping.  In either case, you are creating  a space to fill rather than trying to mutually create something in a vacuum. 

  • Ben Chartoff

    Since we had four “mini” threads, our group had an
    interesting opportunity to observe how conversations evolve (how appropriate to
    the chapter!) from four different seed values.

     

    The conversation theory discussion thread started off with
    some interesting comments on the “hard” theories in the chapter, but really
    took off when the discussion shifted towards the means by which library patrons
    can give feedback, and how libraries should respond to the feedback.

     

    The discussion on knowledge creation didn’t go as far as we
    wanted but it definitely sparked a conversation on such an abstract thought! We
    wanted to create a conversation by adding on to what the previous person had
    said, making this creation totally up to the person! The last comment was
    “Especially when you’re unsure of what the quest is….. water guns?”
    Yes the “quest” we created was about water guns but we wanted people
    to create a story which it sort of did! Knowledge creation is not just taking
    artifacts for what they are worth, but by putting them to use and creating a
    better understanding or something completely different, which we tried to
    accomplish here.

     

    While the app challenge was purely theoretical and fun
    exercise, it did reveal something very interesting.  Most apps tend to be seen as technical applications, not
    social ones.  However, almost all
    of the apps in one way or another helped connect the community with others,
    whether directly like the book club app and the community events one or indirectly
    like the reading recommendation one that’s generated by a librarian (not
    statistics).  The apps did not
    replace the librarian; instead they helped further involve the library in
    people’s lives.

     

    The scapes conversation didn’t develop far at all (there was
    only one comment, an astute criticism, which we hoped might lead to a spirited
    debate—it did not). We have three possible explanations for the low response rate
    1.) the scapes section of the book was a mix of theory and practical
    applications—respondents who were interested in hard theory responded to the
    conversation theory thread, respondents interested in practice replied to the
    app challenge, so scapes got lost in the middle 2.) not everyone may have read
    the section on scapes, and therefore could not respond (we don’t have any
    preexisting knowledge of scapes to write about) or 3.) the first post disagreed
    with the textbook, and other participants may have been unwilling to enter into
    an argument or even a disagreement.

     

    Thanks for your responses, everyone, we really enjoyed
    facilitating this conversation!