Leigh, I may be slow. I apologize because I certainly did not intend to ignore your suggestions. I had no idea anyone you were suggesting not to collaborate. I missed it all. I would be very grateful if you could explain what you mean by collaboration and why we don't need it. It may be that I misunderstood the rationale behind the wiki. I thought the whole point was to work together.
Thank you. Nellie Deutsch Doctoral Student Educational Leadership Curriculum and Instruction http://www.nelliemuller.com http://www.integrating-technology.com/pd http://www.building-relationship.com/education http://blendedlear.ning.com http://connecting-online.ning.com On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Leigh Blackall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Peter, Nellie I guess you're ignoring my suggestion that collaboration is > NOT what we need. At least not the sort we have been thinking of and looking > to measure... > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 4:18 PM, NELLIE DEUTSCH < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Peter, >> You said: Come to think of it, during my masters we never took any courses >> specifically targeted >> toward creating collaborative works. >> >> Well, during my masters, we did a lot of collaborative team work. We wrote >> papers together and even created a collaborative WebQuest. Even in my doc >> program we collaborate on projects. So why don't we decide to collaborate at >> WE? We can set an example for others. Not everyone is comfortable with >> sharing. I think the need has to be there. In the case of students, it is a >> grade. Any suggestions on how to encourage collaboration on WE? >> Warm wishes, >> Nellie Deutsch >> Doctoral Student >> Educational Leadership >> Curriculum and Instruction >> http://www.nelliemuller.com >> http://www.integrating-technology.com/pd >> http://www.building-relationship.com/education >> http://blendedlear.ning.com >> http://connecting-online.ning.com >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Leigh, >>> >>> A very wise observation. And you are correct, at an atomic level, we >>> have very little collaborative work on WE. The whole of WE is a >>> collaborative effort, yet all the individual lessons, materials, >>> modules, etc... are in general created by an individual and rarely >>> edited by another. So you are correct the collaborative editing >>> promise is not coming to be... Maybe the coming generation of >>> contributors will collaborate building upon the complete K12, higher >>> ed, tertiary, etc curriculum when it is available... who knows when >>> that will be... this could make sense given we are of at the start of >>> the whole free curriculum project being available online. We aren't >>> even close to having the basics available and well organized. So maybe >>> the promise of collaborative editing will happen when we are getting >>> closer to having the first complete set of curriculum available... Or >>> maybe the idea of collaboratively creating educational materials needs >>> to become a bigger part of teacher education... Come to think of it, >>> during my masters we never took any courses specifically targeted >>> toward creating collaborative works. I haven't yet come across any >>> materials that really get into teaching people to collaboratively >>> create materials... Maybe this is an OER that is well overdue... upon >>> a review of the recently published OER handbook (http:// >>> www.wikieducator.org/OER_Handbook/educator) there isn't a lot of >>> materials on encouraging collaboration... >>> >>> Just to think this whole thread started as a celebration of our >>> 300,000 visitor... >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> On Oct 30, 2:45 pm, "Leigh Blackall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > Alex said: >>> > >>> > Sorry if pushy here but have you >>> > >>> > > considered your approach could be perceived as an imposition itself? >>> > > Criticism is great, and I mean it, but what alternatives do you >>> suggest? >>> > > Ever thought TQF could ease many lives, e.g. qual recognition abroad, >>> which >>> > > can be a real nightmare? >>> > >>> > Yes, of course Alex, I have and do consider the question - often >>> reflecting >>> > on the many years I have spent encouraging (to put it lightly) teachers >>> to >>> > use socially networked media, and arguing for a specific type of >>> change, >>> > namely individual capability and independence, and networked practice. >>> The >>> > question I ask myself is how much my methods align with individuality, >>> and >>> > undermine those of us who value collectiveness. An age old dilemma >>> really - >>> > the individual and the state (and everything in between). >>> > >>> > As for the Transnational Qualification Framework. Anil, Peter and >>> myself >>> > have had interesting discussions about TQF on this list. I must say >>> again, I >>> > don't see TQF relating (yet) to the concerns I have about words to the >>> > effect of one curriculum (which is where this thread started from - >>> relating >>> > to the Wikipedia article about Wikieducator). TQF (if done well) should >>> be >>> > able to support many curricula including ones that have not formed yet, >>> and >>> > include any subject area. There was a little bit of concern back in the >>> > early TQF thread when someone started stating that some forms of >>> knowledge >>> > are "redundant" and should not be included in a TQF, and this is where >>> it >>> > starts to go wrong. But over all, the idea of developing an assessment >>> > framework that aids the strengthening of new knowledge, the easier >>> migration >>> > of people, and an exchange of ideas.. this is certainly something that >>> is >>> > attractive. But over stating that, or developing something that has an >>> > impact of people's ideas about curricula, or the establishment of new >>> forms >>> > of knowledge, or the squashing of old forms, this is something to watch >>> out >>> > for every step of the way. >>> > >>> > I'm not sure I agree with John Stampe's organising principles based on >>> his >>> > experience in software development. >>> > >>> > The thing is with software development or collaborative editing is that >>> > >>> > > there are trade-offs. You want a product (software, text, learning >>> tools, >>> > > etc.) that is open to new ideas, new features, and new approaches. >>> One the >>> > > other hand you need somebody (a "maintainer" in open software >>> circles) who >>> > > will maintain direction and purpose to the project. >>> > >>> > In my experience there has in fact been very very little actual >>> > collaborative editing on Wikieducator - and this is a good thing in >>> many >>> > ways. Yet we continue to refer to collaborative editing as one of the >>> key >>> > organising principles for Wikieducator. Instead, we have a networked >>> model. >>> > Again I would refer to the video of Stephen Downes articulating his >>> thoughts >>> > about the tension between groups and >>> > networks<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4126240905912531540 >>> >, >>> > where I sit more comfortably in the zone of networked participant, and >>> I >>> > think it is a more realistic organising principle for Wikieducator. The >>> > distribution and re-networking of information and communication is >>> different >>> > (I think) to software development. To use the software development >>> analogy >>> > that John has reintroduced: the information and communication >>> development >>> > (that we might just call content for now) exists in 100s of thousands >>> of >>> > "folks", and those "folks" are converged from time to time to form >>> nodes (as >>> > Maria explains). Those nodes build up and/or disappear. Very rarely >>> (never) >>> > do they converge to make one (although Maria desires it). It is kind of >>> the >>> > opposite to software development, and so far it is opposite to >>> Wikieducator. >>> > I myself have been following the collaborative editing promise and >>> software >>> > development analogy (sharing in Maria's desire for one thing), but >>> > increasingly I'm becoming more and more uncomfortable with it as I find >>> > myself centralising and struggling with grouped thinking and tradeoffs. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:12 AM, Chris Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> > > Your asking something different. Originally you were talking about >>> naming. >>> > > Disambiguation would probably be a good example of this. >>> > >>> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation >>> > >>> > > For a good example of multiple pages from different points of view >>> about >>> > > the same concept perhaps look at this page. >>> > >>> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_education >>> > >>> > > Or perhaps portals likehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_portal >>> > >>> > > Anyway, I should be in bed, I'll try to find more info tommorow if >>> your not >>> > > satisfied. >>> > >>> > > Warm Regards >>> > > Chris >>> > >>> > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Maria Droujkova < >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>> > >>> > >> Chris, >>> > >>> > >> Can you please point me in the direction of some good examples? I >>> want to >>> > >> see multiple pages from different points of view about the same >>> concept. >>> > >>> > >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:51 AM, Chris Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> Names stand for ideas, so there will be the one and the only page >>> about >>> > >>>> "constructivism" and "math" and "multiplication" in any wiki. >>> > >>> > >>> This is wrong, in an encyclopedia or dictionary this may be true. >>> > >>> > >>> Warm regards >>> > >>> Chris Harvey >>> > >>> chris.superuser.com.au >>> > >>> > >> -- >>> > >> Cheers, >>> > >> MariaD >>> > >>> > >> I write, 'In the beginning was the Deed!' - Goethe, Faust >>> > >>> > >> naturalmath.com: a sketch of a social math site >>> > >> groups.google.com/group/naturalmath: a mailing list about math >>> maker >>> > >> activities >>> > >>> > -- >>> > -- >>> > Leigh Blackall+64(0)21736539 >>> > skype - leigh_blackall >>> > SL - Leroy Goalposthttp://learnonline.wordpress.comhttp:// >>> www.wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > -- > Leigh Blackall > +64(0)21736539 > skype - leigh_blackall > SL - Leroy Goalpost > http://learnonline.wordpress.com > http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
