Skip to main content

Home/ change11/ Group items tagged collaboration

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Lone Guldbrandt Tønnesen

Learnlets » The 7 c's of natural learning - 2 views

blog.learnlets.com/?p=1203

Clark Quinn learning #change11

shared by Lone Guldbrandt Tønnesen on 20 Dec 11 - Cached
  • Yesterday I talked about the seeding, feeding, and weeding necessary to develop a self-sustaining network
  • Choose: we are self-service learners.  We follow what interests us, what is meaningful to us, what we know is important. Commit: we take ownership for the outcomes.  We work until we’ve gotten out of it what we need. Crash: our commitment means we make mistakes, and learn from them. Create: we design, we build, we are active in our learning. Copy: we mimic others, looking to their performances for guidance. Converse: we talk with others. We ask questions, offer opinions, debate positions. Collaborate: we work together. We build together, evaluate what we’re doing, and take turns adding value.
  • With this list of things we do, we need to find ways to support them, across both formal and informal learning. 
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • In formal learning, we should be presenting meaningful and authentic tasks, and asking learners to solve them, ideally collaboratively.
  • While individual is better than none, collaborative allows opportunity for meaning negotiation.  We need to allow failure, and support learning from it. We need to be able to ask questions, and make decisions and see the consequences.
  • I think there are 8 elements!! I miss Collate, this is not the same as Choose, it is about organising anbd structuring what we learn, (constructing our emergent uderstanding) as opposed to the selection of a direction.
  • However, real learning involves research, design, problem-solving, creativity, innovation, experimentation, etc
  • the intersection of 1) self-organized learning and 2) online collaboration is what I consider should be a primary focus of organizational learning professionals
  • Common web 2.0 practice is to link back to what has been copied, a form of collaboration or perhaps cooperation.
  • in informal learning, we need to create ways for people to develop their understandings, work together, to put out opinions and get feedback, ask for help, and find people to use as models.  By using tools like blogs for recording and sharing personal learning and information updates, wikis to collaborate, discussion forums to converse, and blogs and microblogs to track what others think are important, we provide ways to naturally learn together.
  • informal learning is NOT, by definition, manageable
  • just trying to raise awareness that what we typically do formally is not well aligned with how people really learn, and that supporting some of these activities is the key to unlocking organizational innovation.
  • but instead to provide a conducive environment and encourage them
anonymous

Beyond Competence: It's the Journey to Mastery That Counts - 5 views

www.learningsolutionsmag.com/...journey-to-mastery-that-counts

competence mastery marc j. rosenberg

shared by anonymous on 26 Jun 12 - No Cached
  • all learners, at all levels, collaborate; but how they do it, the degree to which they do it, and the relative importance of the collaboration shifts with their increasing know-how. Bottom line: as people move up the mastery ladder and their capabilities grow, predominant learning strategies change.
  • as learners become more competent and experienced, and especially as they approach master/expert levels, learning embraces much more of a “pull” strategy, where learners take what they need from the repositories of knowledge, tools, and advice available to them. How they navigate these resources is increasingly a decision they make.
  • . Putting too little structure on entry-level learners may make learning more difficult, confusing, and demoralizing for them.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • Putting too much structure on advanced-level learners may make learning boring, frustrating, inefficient, and off-target for them.
  • anonymous on 26 Jun 12
     
    as people strive to move up the ladder they get better at their jobs. As they do, they exhibit increasing performance fluency, agility, and ability to share knowledge. Fluency refers to the smoothness with which they perform their jobs. The lack of hesitancy and the ease at which they perform tasks all improve as workers move up the mastery ladder. Agility, the ability to adapt and react to new situations, to "shift on the fly" based on new information, also increases as people go through the four phases. And as people get more expertise and experience, they become better at sharing it with others through collaboration, coaching, mentoring, and teaching.
anonymous

To Really Drive Enterprise 2.0 Forward We Need A Behaviour Change - 3 views

www.danpontefract.com/?p=1475

design dan pontefract #fslt12

shared by anonymous on 24 May 12 - No Cached
  • The ROI of Enterprise 2.0 / Social Anything is not how much did it cost to deploy the technology; it’s what gains have we seen in productivity, employee engagement and customer satisfaction as a result of new collaborative behaviours that are aided and propelled by Enterprise 2.0 / Social Anything technologies.
  • They forget adoption occurs only when people behave in a way that allows collaboration to manifest across an organization.
  • The HR / Learning Professionals are having massive difficulty adjusting to a world with Enterprise 2.0 / Social Anything technologies, but they can’t get in front of it in time to actually establish the behaviours for an organization … even if they knew what behaviours to depict in the first place.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • The technologists are happy discussing Enterprise 2.0 / Social Anything features, gizmo’s and futuristic trends … but they forget about the behaviours that are needed to actually make the software more effective in the first place.
  • Whether using new or traditional technologies, the key to digital transformation is re-envisioning and driving change in how the company operates. That’s a management and people challenge, not just a technology one.
  • Dropping Enterprise 2.0 / Social Anything tools into the company theater is not going to guarantee your employees/leaders are collaborating and it’s certainly not going to drive reciprocity.
  • it’s the behavior of people that has to change in parallel with the deployment of any Enterprise 2.0 / Social Anything technology.
Lone Guldbrandt Tønnesen

Stanford's open courses raise questions about true value of elite education | Inside Hi... - 4 views

www.insidehighered.com/...out-true-value-elite-education

Change11 stanford courses MOOC

shared by Lone Guldbrandt Tønnesen on 15 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • Search form |  Follow us: Get Daily E-mail Thursday, December 15, 2011 Home NewsAssessment and Accountability Health Professions Retirement Issues Students and Violence Surveys Technology Adjuncts Admissions Books and Publishing Community Colleges Diversity For-Profit Higher Ed International Religious Colleges Student Aid and Loans Teaching and Learning ViewsIntellectual Affairs The Devil's Workshop Technology Blog UAlma Mater College Ready Writing menu-3276 menu-path-taxonomy-term-835 od
  • This made Stanford the latest of a handful of elite American universities to pull back the curtain on their vaunted courses, joining the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s OpenCourseWare project, Yale University’s Open Yale Courses and the University of California at Berkeley’s Webcast.Berkeley, among others. The difference with the Stanford experiment is that students are not only able to view the course materials and tune into recorded lectures for CS221: Introduction to Artificial Intelligence; they are also invited to take in-class quizzes, submit homework assignments, and gather for virtual office hours with the course’s two rock star instructors — Peter Norvig, a research executive at Google who used to build robots for NASA, and Sebastian Thrun, a professor of computer science at Stanford who also works for Google, designing cars that drive themselves. (M.I.T., Yale and Berkeley simply make the course materials freely available, without offering the opportunity to interact with the professors or submit assignments to be graded.)
  • MOOCs question the value of teaching as an economic value point.”
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Based on the success of Norvig and Thrun’s experiment, the university’s computer science department is planning to broadcast eight additional courses for free in the spring, most focusing on high-level concepts that require participants already to have a pretty good command of math and science.
  • It raises the question: Whose certification matters, for what purposes?
  • For one, the professors can only evaluate non-enrolled students via assessments that can be graded automatically.
  • it can be difficult to assess skills without being able to administer project-based assignments
  • With a player like Stanford doing something like this, they’re bringing attention to the possibilities of the Web for expanding open education
Lone Guldbrandt Tønnesen

Authentic Learning ~ #change11 - 5 views

change.mooc.ca/501

Change11 Jan Herrington learning

shared by Lone Guldbrandt Tønnesen on 14 Dec 11 - No Cached
  • We know that people learn best by being actively and collaboratively involved in learning but in universities, we continue to use lectures and other one-way, vessel filling, sage-on-stage, methods to tell students what they need to know
  • An authentic learning approach enables educators to design tasks and assessments that are based on the kinds of activities that are performed in the so called ‘real world’.
  • An authentic learning pedagogy focuses on students collaboratively creating genuine products that are polished and professional, and that are shared and published.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • realistic
  • think in the same ways as professionals
  • Technology-based cognitive tools
  • the creation of real products and artefacts, and are more worthy of the investment of time and effort in higher education than decontextualised exercises and tasks.
  • The creation of genuine sharable products ensures that authentic learning is in a position to capitalize on the participatory culture afforded by social media.
  • our model to guide your design: http://web.me.com/janherrington/AuthenticLearning/
Rob Parsons

A Pedagogy of Abundance : The Digital Scholar: How Technology Is Transforming Scholarly... - 0 views

www.bloomsburyacademic.com/...-9781849666275-chapter-008.xml

scholarship

shared by Rob Parsons on 09 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • If we use this perspective to examine education we can consider how education may shift as a result of abundance. Traditionally in education expertise is analogous to talent in the music industry – it is the core element of scarcity in the model. In any one subject there are relatively few experts (compared with the level of knowledge in the general population). Learners represent the ‘demand’ in this model, so when access to the experts is via physical interaction, for example, by means of a lecture, then the model of supply and demand necessitates that the learners come to the place where the experts are located. It also makes sense to group these experts together, around other costly resources such as books and laboratories. The modern university is in this sense a solution to the economics of scarcity.
  • As a result, a ‘pedagogy of scarcity’ developed, which is based around a one-to- many model to make the best use of the scarce resource (the expert). This is embodied in the lecture, which despite its detractors is still a very efficient means of conveying certain types of learning content. An instructivist pedagogy then can be seen as a direct consequence of the demands of scarcity.
  • It may be that we do not require new pedagogies to accommodate these assumptions as Conole (2008) points out: Recent thinking in learning theory has shifted to emphasise the benefit of social and situated learning as opposed to behaviourist, outcomes-based, individual learning. What is striking is that a mapping to the technologies shows that recent trends in the use of technologies, the shift from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 echoes this; Web 2.0 tools very much emphasise the collective and the network.
    • Rob Parsons
      Rob Parsons on 09 Oct 11
       
      Though i think it is true that students learn collaboratively, and always have done, they don't act as if they do (any more than teachers act as if they do, and quite often less). Perhaps our students still come from experiences that value authority and, whatever is said, do not value constructivism and collaboration.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Any pedagogy of abundance would then, I suggest, be based on the following assumptions:
  • Jonassen (1991) describes it thus: Constructivism … claims that reality is constructed by the knower based upon mental activity. Humans are perceivers and interpreters who construct their own reality through engaging in those mental activities … What the mind produces are mental models that explain to the knower what he or she has perceived … We all conceive of the external reality somewhat differently, based on our unique set of experiences with the world.
  • Given that it has a loose definition, it is hard to pin down a constructivist approach exactly. Mayer (2004) suggests that such discovery-based approaches are less effective than guided ones, arguing that the ‘debate about discovery has been replayed many times in education but each time, the evidence has favoured a guided approach to learning’.
    • Rob Parsons
      Rob Parsons on 09 Oct 11
       
      Interesting, because my immediate reaction was that there's no contradiction between guided learning and constructivism. Just don't expect that your students will always go where you guide them.
  • When Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006) claim, with some justification, that ‘the epistemology of a discipline should not be confused with a pedagogy for teaching/learning it’ that only highlights that the epistemology of a discipline is now being constructed by all, so learning how to participate in this is as significant as learning the subject matter of the discipline itself.
  • However, the number of successful open source communities is relatively small compared with the number of unsuccessful ones, and thus the rather tenuous success factors for generating and sustaining an effective community may prove to be a barrier across all subject areas. Where they thrive, however, it offers a significant model which higher education can learn much from in terms of motivation and retention (Meiszner 2010).
  • Abundance does not apply to all aspects of learning; indeed the opposite may be true, for example, an individual's attention is not abundant and is time limited. The abundance of content puts increasing pressure on this scarce resource, and so finding effective ways of dealing with this may be the key element in any pedagogy. However, I would contend that the abundance of content and connections is as fundamental shift in education as any we are likely to encounter, and there has, to date, been little attempt to really place this at the centre of a model of teaching.
    • Rob Parsons
      Rob Parsons on 09 Oct 11
       
      Agreed. Great conclusion. At the moment, if I had to single out one key point Martin makes, it is this.
Yukon syl

GLOBE: Home - 0 views

classic.globe.gov

collective knowledge connected science escience

shared by Yukon syl on 06 Oct 11 - Cached
  • Yukon syl on 06 Oct 11
     
    The Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) program is a worldwide hands-on, primary and secondary school-based science and education program. GLOBE's vision promotes and supports students, teachers and scientists to collaborate on inquiry-based investigations of the environment and the Earth system
  • Yukon syl on 06 Oct 11
     
    this is a good example of connected knowledge building and certainly of collective knowledge. What's unique about this is the explicit involvement of children around the world.
tim mcnamara

1.1. Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaph... - 9 views

reusability.org/...wiley.doc

learningobjects delicious-1011 #change11

shared by tim mcnamara on 12 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • The purpose of this chapter is to introduce an instructional technology concept known commonly as the “learning object.” First a review of the literature is presented as groundwork for a working definition of the term “learning object.” A brief discussion of instructional design theory is followed by an attempt to connect the learning objects approach to existing instructional design theory, and the general lack of such connective efforts is contrasted with the financial and technical activity generated by the learning objects notion.
  • What is a learning object?
  • An instructional technology called “learning objects” (LTSC, 2000a) currently leads other candidates for the position of technology of choice in the next generation of instructional design, development, and delivery, due to its potential for reusability, generativity, adaptability, and scalability (Hodgins, 2000; Urdan & Weggen, 2000; Gibbons, Nelson, & Richards, 2000).
  • ...48 more annotations...
  • grounded in the object-oriented paradigm of computer science.
  • build small (relative to the size of an entire course) instructional components that can be reused a number of times in different learning contexts
  • Moreover, those who incorporate learning objects can collaborate on and benefit immediately from new versions. These are significant differences between learning objects and other instructional media that have existed previously.
  • Supporting the notion of small, reusable chunks of instructional media, Reigeluth and Nelson (1997) suggest that when teachers first gain access to instructional materials, they often break the materials down into their constituent parts.
  • if instructors received instructional resources as individual components, this initial step of decomposition could be bypassed
  • The Learning Technology Standards Committee chose the term “learning objects” (possibly from Wayne Hodgins’ 1994 use of the term in the title of the CedMA working group called “Learning Architectures, API’s, and Learning Objects”)
  • provided a working definition
  • Learning Objects are defined here as any entity, digital or non-digital, which can be used, re-used or referenced during technology supported learning. Examples of technology-supported learning include computer-based training systems, interactive learning environments, intelligent computer-aided instruction systems, distance learning systems, and collaborative learning environments. Examples of Learning Objects include multimedia content, instructional content, learning objectives, instructional software and software tools, and persons, organizations, or events referenced during technology supported learning (LOM, 2000).
  • The proliferation of definitions for the term “learning object” makes communication confusing and difficult.
  • It would seem that there are almost as many definitions of the term as there are people employing it.
  • In addition to the various definitions of the term “learning object,” other terms that imply the general intention to take an object-oriented approach to computer-assisted instruction confuse the issue further.
  • Depressingly, while each of these is something different, they all conform to the Learning Technology Standards Committee’s  “learning object” definition. An in depth discussion of the precise meanings of each of these terms would not add to the main point of this discussion: the field is still struggling to come to grips with the question, “What is a learning object?”
  • At the same time, the creation of yet another term only seems to add to the confusion. While the creation of a satisfactory definition of the term learning object will probably consume the better part of the author’s career, a working definition must be presented before the discussion can proceed.
  • Therefore, this chapter will define a learning object as “any digital resource that can be reused to support learning.”
  • This definition includes anything that can be delivered across the network on demand, be it large or small.
  • This definition of learning object, “any digital resource that can be reused to support learning,” is proposed for two reasons.
  • The definition adopted for this chapter emphasizes the purposeful use (by either an instructional designer, an instructor, or a student) of these objects to support learning
  • Second, the proposed definition is based on the LTSC definition (and defines a proper subset of learning objects as defined by the LTSC), making issues of compatibility of learning object as defined within this chapter and learning object as defined by the LTSC explicit
  • With that compatibility made explicit, the proposed definition differs from the LTSC definition in two important ways.
  • First, the definition explicitly rejects non-digital
  • The definition also drops the phrase "technology supported" which is now implicit, because all learning objects are digital.
  • Second, the phrase "to support" has been substituted in place of "during" in the LTSC definition. Use of an object "during" learning doesn't connect its use to learning
  • First, the definition is sufficiently narrow to define a reasonably homogeneous set of things: reusable digital resources. At the same time, the definition is broad enough to include the estimated 15 terabytes of information available on the publicly accessible Internet (Internet Newsroom, 1999).
  • Armed with a working definition of the term learning object, the discussion of the instructional use of learning objects can proceed.
  • Instructional design theory and learning objects
  • Reigeluth
  • [I]nstructional design theories are design oriented, they describe methods of instruction and the situations in which those methods should be used, the methods can be broken into simpler component methods, and the methods are probabilistic. (p. 7).s11 {margin-left:0; line-height:2.400000; text-indent:36;}
  • Because the very definition of “theory” in some fields is “descriptive,” design theories are commonly confused with other types of theories that they are not, including learning theory and curriculum theory (Reigeluth, 1999a).
  • The following discussion takes a step in this direction, by recasting two of the largest issues in the learning objects area – combination and granularity – in instructional design terms
  • Combination
  • there is astonishingly little conversation around the instructional design implications of learning objects.
  • item (d) in the Learning Objects Metadata Working Group’s PAR (LOM, 2000) reads as follows:
  • To enable computer agents to automatically and dynamically compose personalized lessons for an individual learner
  • at this point a brief discussion of metadata, the focus of the Learning Object Metadata Working Group’s efforts, is necessary.
  • Metadata, literally “data about data,” is descriptive information about a resource
  • he Learning Objects Metadata Working Group is working to create metadata for learning objects (such as Title, Author, Version, Format, etc.) so that people and computers will be able to find objects by searching
  • ​The problem with 7(d) arose when people began to actually consider what it meant for a computer to “automatically and dynamically compose personalized lessons.”
  • his meant taking individual learning objects and combining them in a way that made instructional sense, or in instructional design terminology, “sequencing” the learning objects.
  • The problem was that no instructional design information was included in the metadata specified by the current version of the Learning Objects Metadata Working Group standard.
  • ​The lack of instructional design discussion at this standards-setting level of conversation about learning objects is disturbing, because it might indicate a trend.
  • Once technology or software that does not support an instructionally-grounded approach to learning object sequencing is completed and shipped to the average teacher, why would he or she respond any differently
  • Wiley (1999) called this “the new CAI – ‘Clip Art Instruction’” (p. 6).
  • Discussion of the problem of combining learning objects in terms of “sequencing” leads to another connection between learning objects and instructional design theory.
  • Granularity
  • The most difficult problem facing the designers of learning objects is that of “granularity” (Wiley, et al., 1999).
  • How big should a learning object be?
  • Reuse is the core of the learning object notion, as generativity, adaptivity, and other –ivities are all facilitated by the property of reuse.
  • designating every individual graphic and paragraph of text within a curriculum a “learning object” can be prohibitively expensive
  • tim mcnamara on 12 Oct 11
     
    Chapter 1
anonymous

Microsoft's View of the Future Workplace is Brilliant, Here's Why - Forbes - 5 views

www.forbes.com/...2

design literacy #fslt12

shared by anonymous on 28 May 12 - No Cached
  • ethical leaders will rebalance the work environment to support greater collaboration, serendipitous encounters, informal knowledge flows and more profit
roland legrand

"a few ideas ..." (Visions of Students Today) - YouTube - 0 views

www.youtube.com/watch

education web2.0 students technology culture collaboration

shared by roland legrand on 24 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • roland legrand on 24 Jan 12
     
    a newer video facilitated by the anthropologist mike wesch, visions of students today
roland legrand

A Portal to Media Literacy - YouTube - 1 views

www.youtube.com/watch

education web2.0 students technology culture collaboration

shared by roland legrand on 24 Jan 12 - Cached
  • roland legrand on 24 Jan 12
     
    This video from anthropologist Michael Wesch is from 2008 and gives a deep insight into teaching, learning, media. 
roland legrand

Using Technology Successfully in the Classroom - YouTube - 1 views

www.youtube.com/watch

education web2.0 students technology culture collaboration

shared by roland legrand on 24 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • roland legrand on 24 Jan 12
     
    Anthropologist Michael Wesch about his experiments with new media in the classroom. 
Lone Guldbrandt Tønnesen

mooc - rheingold - 3 views

mooc.wikispaces.com/rheingold

change11 rheingold

shared by Lone Guldbrandt Tønnesen on 04 Jan 12 - No Cached
  • It isn’t possible or practical to try to control the quality of content and conversation that people publish online -- if it had been possible, there would be no web, no YouTube, no Wikipedia today -- but I contend that it is possible to increase the proportion of the population who know something about what they are doing when they consume or create digital culture.
  • Although the word “literacy” traditionally refers to the skill of encoding and decoding messages or programs in some medium, the kind of literacy required in a world of mass collaboration necessarily involves a social element as well as a personal skill
  • Social media literacies combine the skills of coding and decoding digital media with the social skills necessarily to use online tools in concert with others
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • We will look at facets of each of these five literacies and engage in learning activities that can both increase our own competencies and provide public useful public goods
1 - 20 of 26 Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page