Skip to main content

Home/ #Rhizo15/ Group items tagged knowledge

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Vanessa Vaile

Ethics and soft boundaries between Facebook groups  and other web services | ... - 0 views

  • exchange of information between open and closed spaces
  • Facebook groups can be open, closed or secret, the meanings of these being laid out in the Facebook help
  • the ‘closed’ space of Facebook, only visible to one of the 1.3 billion members of Facebook
  • ...36 more annotations...
  • Facebook is not completely open from the outside but doesn’t seem very closed
  • anyone who has the link to an open Facebook group post or comment, can share it inside or outside Facebook, and it can be opened by any Facebook (not just group) member.
  • participants who are not Facebook members are excluded from sight of posts in the Facebook group, whilst a very large number of Facebook members who have never heard of rhizo14 could check it out if you sent them the link
  • Ethical dilemmas
  • How do we behave around here?
  • The rhizo14 MOOC offers no explicit written norms, behavioural or otherwise, and the strapline for the FB group is “An attempt to create a feed for Rhizomatic Learning posts from around the web.”
  • a number of people (significantly less than the full 240 ish membership) regard the group as a semi-private backchannel
  • The implicit norms on lurking in the FB group are to some extent discernible, but the norms on other behaviours sometimes seem to be taken as read by some active members of the group.
  • Teachers and moderators can model ethical behaviour, and communities usually engage with norm-building online where misunderstanding is not uncommon. Overt moderation and norm-building activities have been generally absent from rhizo14 in general and the FB group in particular
  • What does sharing mean within and beyond the rhizo14 community?
  • A lot of sharing goes on at rhizo14, and there is a sense that openness is a value of rhizo14. The remix culture has been very evident in rhizo14, and creativity and remix
  • Communities of Practice literature and others have identified the importance of the boundary in the propagation of knowledge.  The facility for stuff and people to cross boundaries presents great opportunities, but with these come tricky questions of how we share and what we do with what is shared
  • A great set of ‘rules’ that has helped sharing is Creative Commons Licenses, not always enforceable but signifying intent in a sharing and use context
  • A dilemma presented by research data sharing is current at rhizo14 FB group, and raises, for me at any rate, some very interesting issues about how we do Open Research
  • the issue of ethics of use of open/closed data for research purposes in rhizo14 at the time it became clear that a group doing auto-ethnography, and a group of which I am a part were both doing research around rhizo14
  • The data arrangements
  • my wish not to be quoted was incompatible with the publicy of the document
  • Discussion of Agency
  • sharing our ethical stance with others can help our moral agency within a network of human and technical agents.  I am not thinking of a set of rules but rather our expectations and ethical stance that we could share with other moral agents
  • ome participants seem to assume there is a ‘common decency’ approach to the use of ‘open’ information
  • unwarranted assumption of community
  • technology as ‘moral agent’ where permissions and constraints on agency can be coded into a system
  • hard rules, hard boundaries can be explained in help pages and observed in action
  • rules can be overcome by human agency.
  • Some Tentative Conclusions
  • An important element of the digital moral agent’s backpack to complement their ethical literacy is the digital literacy of having an active understanding of the ethical and other implications of using a digital space/service for communication
  • benefits in clarifying use of information, utterances, multimedia in practice
  • the more open the use and sharing of information, the more important it is to clarify how we expect that information to be used
  • unclear use in the above extract from Help of the words
  • I would have benefited from a clearer statement of expectations and behaviours in rhizo14
  • discussion on how we behave around rhizo14
  • digital literacies are a moving target
  • communication in open spaces is tricky, we need flexible repair strategies
  • state our expectations and promote discussion of expectations within a group  as starting point, then we may be able to minimise but not eliminate problems
  • the issue of who can use the information in the auto-ethnography
  • “when you engage online in equally public settings such as on someone’s Facebook Wall, the conversation is public by default, private through effort.” (boyd, danah. 2010. “Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity.” SXSW. Austin, Texas, March 13).
  •  
    "As part of a MOOC on rhizomatic learning that performs itself in many different spaces (Facebook, P2PU, G+, Twitter and others), I am a member of an 'open' Facebook group.  It is endlessly fascinating, and has given me a lot of scope for reflection about back channels and the exchange of information between open and closed spaces. Of course, I say that as if a space could be categorised as open or closed:  it's often a lot more complicated than that, acted out by technical aspects of the space and by the agency of the people who interact there. Facebook groups can be open, closed or secret, the meanings of these being laid out in the Facebook help."
  •  
    "As part of a MOOC on rhizomatic learning that performs itself in many different spaces (Facebook, P2PU, G+, Twitter and others), I am a member of an 'open' Facebook group.  It is endlessly fascinating, and has given me a lot of scope for reflection about back channels and the exchange of information between open and closed spaces. Of course, I say that as if a space could be categorised as open or closed:  it's often a lot more complicated than that, acted out by technical aspects of the space and by the agency of the people who interact there. Facebook groups can be open, closed or secret, the meanings of these being laid out in the Facebook help."
Scott Johnson

Theoretical foundations of learning environments first ed / edited by David H. Jonassen... - 2 views

  •  
    Second Edition (2012) available from Routledge Preface This book is about the learning theories that provide the foundation for the design and development of open-ended learning environments (defined in Chap. 1). During the 1990s, we have witnessed a convergence of learning theories never before encountered. These contemporary learning theories are based on substantively different ontologies and epistemologies than were traditional objectivist foundations for instructional design. This book is intended to provide an introduction to the theoretical foundations for these new learning environments for instructional designers, curriculum specialists, mathematics and science educators, learning psychologists, and anyone else interested in the theoretical state of the art. Edited April 8/14 by Scott J. Dropped the chapter list and replaced with a sample from the section on self-directed learners: Self-Directed Learning and Self-Regulation Theory Chapter 11 Learning Communities: Theoretical Foundations for Making Connections Janette R. Hill "As indicated throughout this chapter, learning is "strongly influenced by setting, social interaction, and individual beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes" (Dierking, 1991, p.4). This is particularly important to keep in mind while turning attention to the individual within the learning community. While there is often a focus on the collective that is the learning community, individuals are the foundation that enable the community to form. Two theories can help guide our understanding of how to support learners within the context of a learning community: self-regulated and self-directed learning. Self-regulation encompasses a variety of individual characteristics, including self-efficacy, motivation and metacognitive skills. Each characteristic has been studied to various extents (see, for example, Lim & Kim, 2003; Oliver & Shaw, 2003; Song & Hill, 2009), with the majority of the studies indicating that all
Scott Johnson

Toward Reflective Conversations: An Advising Approach that Promotes Self-Authorship - 1 views

  •  
    List of reflective questions about the educational experience to help students find themselves in the conscious role of student / partner in their education. >"Jane Pizzolato writes that "if students were self-authored, they would be more likely to choose majors that were appropriate and interesting to them, engage in critical thinking about their choices, and develop healthy relationships with diverse others" (2008, 19). Becoming self-authored requires transformational learning that helps students "learn to negotiate and act on [their] own purposes, values, feelings, and meanings rather than those [they] have uncritically assimilated from others" (Mezirow 2000, 8)."< Additional information http://www.liberalarts.wabash.edu/ And here: http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2013/March-April%202013/wabash_full.html
  •  
    There has been a model for this in Empire State College for 40 years. Individuals design their own degree programs with a mentor and are able to apply for credit for life experience. It has worked extremely well for the majority of the people who have obtained their bachelor's degrees in this manner The model was initially developed by Ernest Boyer: http://iwansyahril.blogspot.com/2010/12/reflection-on-ernest-l-boyers-article.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_College the scholarship of the educator and the integration of knowledge and practice are important: http://www.esc.edu/media/ocgr/publications-presentations/Boyer-Revisited-3-21-2011.pdf note the section on Mentoring and Uneasy Scholarliness in the previous document
Vanessa Vaile

The literature on CAE (Collaborative Autoethnography) Reflecting Allowed | Reflecting A... - 0 views

  • collaborative autoethnography
  • Mainly this article (Geist-Martin et al) and this book (Chang&nbsp;et al)
  • plans to read this open access book on (non-collaborative) autoethnography
  • ...78 more annotations...
  • open access article by Ellis et al on autoethnography&nbsp;(only skimmed it)
  • Disclaimer: I’m not a methodological purist, I’m an omnivore &amp; a quilt-maker. I don’t even think ethnography believes in methodological purity; the researcher is the instrument even more so if it’s auto
  • So what was MY question?
  • how are people experiencing rhizo14?
  • I am interested in sub-topics of making connections and building community]
  • Why am I interested?
  • I would like to understand how other experienced this MOOC
  • it’s important to note the diverse ways in which the course was perceived by different people
  • I’m interested in what didn’t work. But I am also interested in what&nbsp;did work, and for&nbsp;whom.
  • this knowledge to help influence future designers of connected courses by highlighting the participant experience
  • it will always be partial
  • Geist-Martin et al cite Ellis (2004, p. 30) on autoethnography, and it captures how I feel about this approach
  • “The goal is to practice an artful, poetic, and empathic social science in which readers can keep in their minds and feel in their bodies the complexities of concrete moments of lived experience”
  • collaborative autoethnography rejects the traditional approach of disembodied academic research
  • came out of Chang et al is that there are three broad types of autoethnography
  • the type that emphasizes&nbsp;the auto (closer to autobiography, more narrative)
  • OR&nbsp;a type&nbsp;that focuses on the ethnography part (more analytical, relating one’s own experiences to the wider culture)
  • but any AE contains elements of both
  • I *think* in #rhizo14 we’re attempting something closer to the latter, but what we have at the moment is closer to the former.
  • the practice needs to move beyond mere storytelling in order to be research
  • Autoethnography needs to “use personal stories as windows to the world, through which we interpret how their selves are connected to their sociocultural contexts and how the contexts give meanings to their experiences and perspectives” (Chang et al, p. 18-19).
  • Geist-Martin et al’s &amp; Chang et al’s critiques of their own process – here are some parts I wanted to highlight:
  • They looked for themes across their stories
  • They helped each other clarify certain aspects of each other’s stories
  • They critiqued and recognized ways in which their stories reproduced cultural stereotypes
  • They struggled with how to “cut” parts of their stories in order to make this paper
  • They mention how social activities they participated in, in each other’s lives, influenced how they wrote together
  • They talk about community-building that occurs&nbsp;because of the collaboration on the autoethnography itself
  • They raise ethical issues about how personal narratives actually refer to people outside the narrative itself and the ethics of such story-telling that will get published and scrutinized
  • Clearly, doing autoethnography collaboratively is meant to diversify the viewpoints on a topic, making the interpretation richer and more complex than just one person’s autoethnography. It also, of course, makes it more complicated to do. Easier to start than to finish
  • Chang et al mention 4 key dimensions of CAE:
  • Self-focused
  • Context-conscious
  • Researcher-visible
  • Critically dialogic
  • the more “critically dialogic” &nbsp;work is, the more it tends towards an analytic/ethnographic rather than evocative/biographical type of research
  • it makes sense to &nbsp;do evocative research on emotionally sensitive topics, where over-analyzing it might actually lose the essence of what is being researched
  • for tales of abuse, illness, etc., but not for #rhizo14 which is less of an emotionally taxing thing to talk about
  • Some more stuff about CAE:
  • Alternation between solo and group work
  • This part in Chang et al made me laugh because of its vagueness:
  • Chang et al call it an “iterative process”), there’s data collection at the beginning (which can keep happening as gaps are found via group negotiation); there’s data analysis and interpretation (where we seem to be at – and I think that might raise areas of gaps to go find data about or to re-write our narratives about – will explain later); and of course writing.
  • what matters is that I can basically do whatever I want, call it CAE, and set my own criteria for rigor I’m only half-kidding.
  • CAE as an emerging research practice should not be limited to a particular approach or style of representation
  • The authors suggest the following benefits of CAE &nbsp;(p. 25):
  • collective exploration of researcher subjectivity
  • power-sharing among researcher-participants
  • efficiency an enrichment in the research process
  • deeper learning about self and other
  • community-building
  • this quote (p. 26):
  • “CAE offers us a scholarly space to hold up mirrors to each other in communal self-interrogation and to explore our subjectivity in the company of one another”
  • this quote (p. 28):
  • “This kind of collaborative meaning-making requires that each team members be willing to be vulnerable and open with co-researchers in order to enable the deeper analysis and interrogation that enriches the final product”
  • the challenges of CAE:
  • Risk of incomplete trust to lead to premature consensus-building that compromises the data
  • Apparently quite difficult to do at a distance because of degree of closeness needed
  • Interdependency of research efforts
  • Mutlivocality can make each researcher influenced by the voices of others
  • Team effort
  • Ethics &amp; confidentiality (this prob deserves a post on its own, but I’ll just give it a section here for now)
  • Ethics
  • Authors ask if CAE needs to go through IRB? Ours went through IRB. Not sure if they really understood the extent of what we were doing, but they approved it.
  • The biggest ethical issue I see is that when only indirectly reference others, we may be broaching on their confidentiality
  • We also need to be clear on who gets &nbsp;access to the data after we write our “report”, and how they can use it
  • We as individual autoethnographers also need to recognize the need to protect ourselves – how much are we revealing about ourselves and is it OK that all of that becomes open to public scrutiny as we publish it?
  • The incident over the use of our data during #et4online by Jen Ross and Amy Collier was a case in point – it is not that simple.
  • Ch 5 of that book about the data analysis side of things
  • emerging coding approach
  • I’ll just come back to one MAIN point that’s running through my mind (well, points, plural, but they are all related):
  • Can we get multiple autoethnogs out of this
  • How do we incorporate &nbsp;the views of people who wrote narratives in the autoethnog but who are not part of the team currently analyzing the data?
  • CAE implies that only the authors’ stories are told. Now the authors could react to stuff that happened by and with other people, but there are ethical issues in getting to deep with that
  • Can we use some of the other data in the narratives DIFFERENTLY? So not as autoethnog, but as narratives
  • The inherent “connectdness” of it all makes it almost paralyzing to imagine how we can tell our own stories (6-7 of us) without either implicating others, or needing to reference others
  • I usually do ethnography by using any and all data I can; this would mean referencing public blogs, etc.
  • I keep circling back to the same thing, right? There&nbsp;power&nbsp;questions, there are questions of who can tell whose story? There are multiple “others” in the “we” of autoethnography, and what do we do by telling&nbsp;our story and leaving out&nbsp;theirs?
  • What about the people who didn’t even blog visibly or at all, and so have no easy “trace” to find even if we wanted to incorporate their views?
Vanessa Vaile

Reading Writing Responding: PLN, a Verb or a Noun? - 1 views

  • +Alec Couros' simple suggestion made during an interview with the +Ed Tech Crew&nbsp;that&nbsp;everything can be a resource online.
  • So often we limit ourselves by seeing PLN's as something made - contained and organised - rather than something continually evolving, changing growing and adapting.
  • s I have suggested previously,&nbsp; PLN's often form themselves organically. PLN's are rhizomic. There is no central root system. There is only one connection leading to another.
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • everyone in our lives has a point of knowledge to share, if recognised
  • Solutions for today can so often be found in adapting and extending ideas from the past.
  • A part of this is limiting ourselves by failing to recognise the connections in our lives and what they may have to offer.
  • One way in which we restrict these connections is by deciding what it is we want to know, before we have even asked the question.
  • Sometimes the best answers I get from my PLN are from those who I didn't expect.
  • everyone does have an opinion and something to add to the discussion. In my view, education is much better from incorporating wider range of voices and perspectives
  • post about mandated technology in schools. Guhlin calls for a infinite plurality
  • rather than collective uniformity, where everyone does this or uses that
  • a plurality of diversity that builds relationships among diverse partners to achieve common goals
  • plurality in regards to PLN, it is about capturing a range of perspectives
  • a PLN is that it is not something that we build, rather a PLN is something that we grow and nurture.
  • There are a number of ways in which a PLN can be nurtured. This includes engaging in dialogue, posting comments, as well as sharing ideas and resources.
  • the most important thing that we can do, whether it be in person or online,&nbsp;is to listen and simply be there
  • Connecting is a Mindset, not just a Thing Done
  • How are you sharing this with others?
  • In the end, you don't measure the success of a blog by the amount of hits it gets
  • Being connected is a mindset, a way of being and a way of doing, not something static, that is a thing done and complete
  •  
    "everything can be a resource online. By approaching resources in this way, our understanding moves away from being an actual object, lets say a textbook, to a resource as being a way of seeing something. In this sense, a resource stops being a noun, something named, ordered and categorised, and instead becomes a verb, a way of approaching something, interpreting it, questioning it. In much the same way, PLNs can be thought of in much the same way. "
‹ Previous 21 - 25 of 25
Showing 20 items per page