Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

This article was very informative. Two things that stood out the most for me were: one - the table outlining the engagement, life of network, etc. of Cops, formal work groups, project teams, and informal networks, and two - when Wenger and Snyder said, "Communities of practice are emerging in companies that thrive on knowledge." I totally agree with this statement. Knowledge is power and power puts you on top, so it stands to reason that Cops thrive on knowledge gained. Great source.

This article from the Harvard Business Review provides a great overview for Communities of Practice and what they look like within the context of larger organizations. There is a great chart comparing CoP with other organizational groups and a good description of the hallmarks of effective CoPs.

If you think Communities of Practice or CoPs are just for education, you need to read this article. It gives great examples of non-education based CoPs, including CoPs used in the current business world. In fact, the history of CoPs is traced as far back as ancient Greece in this article. Since this article tends to focus on non-education CoPs, it gives a nice breakdown of how "teams" differ from CoPs. This concept can easily apply to the school setting since many grade levels use team/department approaches for working with students. Looking at the business examples, it's worth noting that CoPs do not just spontaneously start. They take great effort to form and develop.

This article from the Harvard Business Review discusses the use of CoPs in the business world. The author compares CoPs with more traditional group collaboration strategies pointing out the positives of Cops and how their use is changing business.

Wenger and Snyder examine communities of practice and their implementation in the business and private sectors not necessarily education centric. They provide case studies on the benefits of CoP's which show concrete production improvement demonstrating the CoPs effectiveness. The chart comparing CoP's to teams and informal networks is helpful to understanding the differences.

This article discusses communities of practice in a historical sense and provided me with some relevant background information. It also describes the several reasons that communities of practice are formed. Communities of practice, among other things, can be great for "maintaining connections with peers" or can be created for individuals to come together "in response to changes" surrounding them. I recommend this read.

While parts of this article were about ways to create and grow CoPs, I found much of this helpful when illustrating CoPs in real workplaces that formed to solve problems by sharing expertise, commonalities, and without disrupting upper-level management.

This article from Harvard Business Review explores CoPs which were fairly new to the business scene in 2000. Knowledge sharing, learning, and change were thought to be improved through CoPs, though the creation of CoPs is not a directive from management. CoPs are self created and have their own projects and leadership. The article shares a brief history of CoPs. Noted are the differences between informal networks, project teams, formal work groups, and CoPs - looking at their purpose, membership, bonds, and length of relationships. CoPs are recognized for improving company performance.

This article, by George Siemens, describes the learning theory of Connectivism. The article begins by discussing the need for a new learning theory for the Digital Age. The author identifies some significant trends in learning and then analyzes the limitation of prior learning theories such as behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism. The principles of Connectivism are described and it's implications are discussed.

I appreciated the perspective offered in this item. There seems to be serious discussion as to whether or not connectivism is theory in and of itself, or if it is a component of learning theories that are already well established. I loved the last line in which the author emphasized the ease of access we now have to information as a result of our connections. "When knowledge, however, is needed, but not known, the ability to plug into sources to meet the requirements becomes a vital skill. As knowledge continues to grow and evolve, access to what is needed is more important than what the learner currently possesses."

This article does an exceptional job of explaining traditional learning theories limitations in the modern world and highlighting the current need to understand connectivism. The article is summed up by stating that it isn't what you know today but what you are able to learn to do tomorrow. I found this article very direct and effective in understanding the current state of what's needed in the educational environment to prepare students for the work force.

This work looks at what Connectivism is, especially as an alternative to the learning theories of behavioralism, cognitivism, and constructivism. It holds that the advent and integration of technology has changed learning.

What is Connectivism? According to this article, it is a new learning theory that incorporates the constantly changing state of knowledge and the digital age. Technology is constantly updating, and they say your software is outdated within months of acquiring. According to this article, something similar can be said of knowledge acquisition. Because sources of information are changing and developing at a rapid rate, our knowledge gained has a half-life. One way to combat the "half-life of knowledge" is to stay connected (via the internet or other forms of digital networks), and view learning as a life-long process. In fact, most learning does not take place within a classroom; instead, it occurs in real-life, learner driven environments. Hence the rise of Connectivism as a viable (new) learning theory. People form connections. People use technology daily. Knowledge is constantly changing. Therefore, learning theory should also change and adapt.

Written by George Siemens, this article outlines the necessity of a new learning theory that addresses the impact of the Web 2.0. By explaining behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism, Siemens provides the argument for connectivism in the digital world. The article is a starting point for anyone who needs a working definition of connectivism or wants to compare it to other prominent learning theories. He presents the idea that "the pipe is more important than the content within the pipe."

What really struck me about this article was the idea that knowledge has a half-life. That is to say how long does it take before it's obsolete. According to this, knowledge now doubles every year and a half. The question becomes what do we do about that? I mentioned in the previous entry that our networks become our receptacles of knowledge. That's part of the solution that's introduced in more detail in this article. Below, you'll find a list of the principles of connectivism. It was a good refresher for me, so I included the definition plus the list: …Connectivism is driven by the understanding that decisions are based on rapidly altering foundations. New information is continually being acquired. The ability to draw distinctions between important and unimportant information is vital. The ability to recognize when new information alters the landscape based on decisions made yesterday is also critical. Principles of connectivism: ▪ Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions. ▪ Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources. ▪ Learning may reside in non-human appliances. ▪ Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known ▪ Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning. ▪ Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill. ▪ Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities. ▪ Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision.

An introduction to why behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism, though suitable theories for their time, are no longer suitable bases for learning and teaching.