Play — the capacity to experiment with your surroundings as a form of problem-solvingPerformance — the ability to adopt alternative identities for the purpose of improvisation and discoverySimulation — the ability to interpret and construct dynamic models of real world processesAppropriation — the ability to meaningfully sample and remix media contentMultitasking — the ability to scan one’s environment and shift focus as needed to salient details.Distributed Cognition — the ability to interact meaningfully with tools that expand mental capacitiesCollective Intelligence — the ability to pool knowledge and compare notes with others toward a common goalJudgment — the ability to evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information sourcesTransmedia Navigation — the ability to follow the flow of stories and information across multiple modalitiesNetworking — the ability to search for, synthesize, and disseminate informationNegotiation — the ability to travel across diverse communities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative norms.”
Abstract: This study explores the effect on discussion quality of adding a feedback mechanism that presents users with an aggregate peer rating of the usefulness of the participant's contributions in online, asynchronous discussion. Participants in the study groups were able to specify the degree to which they thought any posted comment was useful to the discussion. Individuals were regularly presented with feedback (aggregated and anonymous) summarizing peers' assessment of the usefulness of their contribution, along with a summary of how the individuals rated their peers. Results indicate that continuous, anonymous, aggregated feedback had no effect on either the students' or the instructors' perception of discussion quality. This is kind of a show-stopper. It's just one study but when you look at the results there appears to be no effect whatsoever from peers giving feedback about the usefulness of discussion posts, nor any perceived improvement in the quality of the discussions as evaluated by faculty. It looks like we'll need to begin looking carefully at just what kinds of feedback will really make a difference. Following up on Corinna's earlier post http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/03/twitters_potential_as_microfee.html about the effectiveness of short immediate feedback being more effective than lengthier feedback that actually hinders performance. The trick will be to figure out just what kinds of feedback will actually work in embedded situations. It's interesting that an assessment of utility wasn't useful...?
