I agree, let's collaborate! Let's create a storytelling portal and see where it goes... If you agree with the storytelling theme, let me know and I will get started...
Don't get me wrong, during my Masters there was a lot of collaboration. We collaborated on a lot of projects as small teams. I guess the point I was trying to make is that there wasn't any dedicated modules to building Web 2.0 collaborative teams in my Ed Masters... I believe that there are a lot of attributes to building collaboration within Web 2.0 technologies. Maybe I should start an outline and see where that goes... Cheers, Peter On Oct 30, 8:18 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 > Instructionhttp://www.nelliemuller.comhttp://www.integrating-technology.com/pdhttp://www.building-relationship.com/educationhttp://blendedlear.ning.comhttp://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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
