Leigh said: 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. ..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.
Leigh, As someone very new to Wikiducator, I need clarifications. I would like to understand a bit more about your concerns with "centralising and struggling with grouped thinking and tradeoffs". Can you provide specific examples. I would like to understand how you would like Wikieducator to go. Thank you. Nellie On Oct 30, 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 > Goalposthttp://learnonline.wordpress.comhttp://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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
