Forum: New literacies for the 21st Century

Re: Community of Practice

Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:57:05 CST

by Andrea Rankin.

I am also interested in what makes participation work or fail and have been reading a lot of literature around the topic as well as than going by personal experience. The literature seems to say that for a community to develop there have to be allotted roles, and facilitators, or trained personnel, who get the ball rolling.

Apart from that, it seems to be generally accepted that communities may not go on forever (Wenger talks about stages in CoPs). Therefore it seems likely that a community on the web will peak and trough. I looked at blogs, wikis and discussion groups for an assignment, and noticed as you have Martin, that the thriving discussion groups were around an interest or hobby, and people got something from their posts. For example a 4 wheel drive discussion group had hundreds of posts a day sometimes, and it was questions like how to fix a tyre or similar right through to arranging to meet someone on the highway, to telling a joke.

But I am still intrigued by how to get a community going in a group that is meant to need it (eg research students or external students - who are notoriously isolated so you think they would jump at an opportunity to connect).

Designing for sharing rather than distrust (the restaurant analogy)

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:48:59 CST

by Vivian Evans.

Hi All,

I found the seminar in Sydney quite thought provoking I especially related to the analogy of 'Designing a restaurant' and how distrust makes for a bad society. Jimmy proposed that we tend to design education with distrust ie What might go wrong and how we can prevent it? rather than having some background mechanisms to fix what might go wrong and put our trust in students. (Not a direct quote so I hope I have the intent correct)

Working with adult students of varying ages and backgrounds with Web 2 tools eg wikispaces, flickr, googlemaps etc without any 'rules' but with general discussion on risks/issues has worked successfully thus far.

In the workshop group at the seminar our group discussed how what individuals write/publish at some stage in their life may 'come back and bite them on the bum' later say when going for a job.

So background mechanisms for damage control is an important strategy to be aware of. I am curious to hear how others are managing working with students giving them freedom and trust and what background mechanisms do you fall upon.

There have been various groups that have developed guidelines perhaps we could bring some of these together?

Regards Vivian

(PS No one but me has used the flickr tag eduausem2007 I hope I have the correct tag)

Re: Wikipedia's detractors

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:21:15 CST

by Gemma Mayfield.

Hi Guys

I'm have just started my Bachelor in Library and Information Management by DE. One of the things that came through loud and clear from my lecturers on the residential school thing that I went to is that I was "not to reference to Wikipedia under any circumstances".

I am able to see and understand their point of view about the content being "unreliable" in an "academic sense" as the content is free to be changed by almost everyone. The thing that stumped me was the underlying meaning that we shouldn't use any of the information from Wikipedia at all. It just seemed alittle over the top to me. Most of the information on Wikipedia as far as I can tell, is good solid info. It doesn't make sense that I can't use this info because the person writing it might not have a PhD (but is probably working within a field that is extremely knowledge relevant to the topic)!!!

As forward and "modern thinking" as my uni is - they seem to be still of the belief that references within my assignments have to be from a "creditable and academic source". I follow what they say because I don't want to fail, but like other people have previously mentioned in some of the other threads for this topic - just maybe the nature of what was once deemed a "creditable source for information " (ie the academic level) is shifting and that shift involves the academic level's realisation that ALL information that EACH person has to contribute is "creditable" on differing levels, all information is important - not just the information that comes out of the mouth of a person wtih a PhD!

Re: Wikipedia's detractors

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 11:17:11 CST

by Brett Butterfield.

Interesting comments. Funnily enough this was in the Sydney paper here last week, seems to present the arguments as discussed here.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/facts-and-friction-wikipedias-quest-for-credibility/2007/04/21/1176697155451.html

I use Wikipedia all the time btw and I have no prob with using it with learners. I am rethinking lots of internet strategies at the moment though in trying to improve the learning connected with internet info access.

Re: Wikipedia's detractors

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 10:16:32 CST

by Mike Seyfang.

Yep as Jimmy said - 90% social engineering, 10% software engineering.
Really got me thinking.
Less is best.
Cure is actually easier than prevention with online communities: dont try to prevent all conceivable problems, solve the ones that actually arrive with minimal intervention.

Also like his title of 'community designer'.

Re: Wikipedia's detractors

Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:27:45 CST

by Kerry Johnson.

I attended the seminar today and Jimmy Wales made the point that no encyclopedia should be cited in an academic paper. The purpose of any encyclopedias is to offer an essentialised summary of a topic. Students should always dig deeper - whether they're using Britannica or Wikipedia.

He also made the point that Wikipedia is not so much a technological innovation as a social innovation -- due to the fact that it is the Wikipedia community that is largely responsible for regulating the content.

Re: Wikipedia's detractors

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:19:40 CST

by Karen Mann.

My concerns with Wikipaedia arise from the way I see students in high school use it. They do not use it in a collaborative way but rather as an easy way to find a simple answer to a question they have. This type of approach is not conducive to knowledge creation and in fact can have the opposite effect as students do not attempt to go beyond the basic understanding they have gained from reading a Wikipaedia entry.

While I am probably close to the high average age of those teachers you feel may impose downward pressure, I am actually an advocate of introducing Web 2.0 applications into teaching and learning. However I believe it is not possible to simply use such applications within existing pedagogies. As educators in the 21st century we must develop pedagogies that embrace these applications, utilising the strengths they offer for constructivist learning.

I am currently examining how these applications can be used in secondary HSIE as part of my Masters and would be interested in any examples of their successful (or not so successful) use.

Re: Wikipedia's detractors

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:52:38 CST

by Deanne Bullen.

.... and students would have a real and extended audience for the research and writing they were undertaking.

Re: Wikipedia's detractors

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:17:06 CST

by Mike Seyfang.

Disallow - no!

What if each history class from all schools did work to contribute information about their local area, every year. Not only would students gain insights into information literacy but the world would be much better off for their input. After a few years students would need to dig pretty deep to find new useful information to add.

Imagine the impact teachers could have by helping shape generations of history changers!

Fang - Mike Seyfang

Re: Wikipedia's detractors

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:31:25 CST

by Lindy Kemp.

There was an interesting discussion on Radio National on the Science show about Wikipedia. It's a transcript rather than a podcast but still worth a look: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2006/1612253.htm

Re: Community of Practice

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:26:59 CST

by Kerrie Smith.

I like that distinction between the personal and the collaborative Carol

Kerrie

Re: Community of Practice

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:57:55 CST

by Carole McCulloch.

Hello,

This discussion is a relevant one for me - I'm keen to explore the links between Communities of Practice (CoPs) and Web 2.0.

I especially like the idea of the use of wikis, blogs and eportfolios as platforms for new literacies. Each of these web 2.0 tools can be used effectively within a CoP and by individuals outside of the CoP. Note: a CoP in this context may have a webspace (eg. Moodle space) in which members share resources and discuss concepts, projects and personal learning journeys. They may do this by using discussion forums, uploading content or by linking to their wikis, blogs and eportfolios.

Wikis - the collaborative approach

In my experiences so far, with groups of practitioners who are networked together by common practices and interests, a wiki seems to be the most favoured web 2.0 tool for sharing objectives, resources, outcomes and reflections. Often the wiki is created and maintained by one person but enables contributions from many. I am attracted to the sophistication and customisability of layout, functionality and templates in the free wikis available, and now choose to share my knowledge in a few wiki spaces. Valuable insights, lessons learned and reflective practices can be combined in a wiki to provide a new knowledge bank from which viewers can extract what appeals to them.

I believe that there is enormous value in the creation of a wiki from the collaborative knowledge of a Community of Practice.

Blogs and eportfolios - the personal approach

My blogs and eportfolio tools provide me with a way of capturing, selecting and reflecting on my elearning experiences; some of which can be shared with others. These particular Web 2.0 tools provide a different approach to the development of new literacies for the users. They enable practitioners, teachers or learners to 'write' about their experiences in small bytes at defined milestones and over a period of time. The accumulated knowledge represented in their blogs and eportfolios are windows into their preparation, process and outcomes that document a journey in learning. In my opinion there is a huge potential for sharing such accumulated knowledge of individuals by publishing blogs and eportfolio components for members of the Community of Practice to view.

I am building my own knowledge about how such Web 2.0 tools are being implemented in teaching and learning and invite you to view the following spaces:

Hope to talk with you again soon.

Coach Carole

Re: Wikipedia's detractors

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:01:03 CST

by Jean Hollis.

Wikipedia detractors often say they doubt the validity of the information in it. Social Psychology has shown us that there will always be those more prepared to listen (and obey) information from a source perceived as being "authoritative" (doctors, politicians, academics, scientists, commercial encyclopedias etc) than they are their own peers or the general population. I don't think the rest of us have the time and resources to waste trying to convince detractors that there are those in the general population with passion for their topic who have a worthwhile contribution to make to global knowledge base.

Some time ago I wrote a short piece on the history and background of a little town in my community. It was listed on wikipedia by post code but it didn't have and entry. Now I don't have a Phd in local history. I have researched information from old maps and documents held in the library and talked with the locals who are passionate and proud of their town. I personally don't know of anyone who has the required qualifications to comment on the history of our town. Should what little there is known within my community be lost to public record because there is no academic available to validate the information? Should teachers disallow students from using this information when doing their own research?

Re: Wikipedia's detractors

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 21:46:06 CST

by Roland Gesthuizen.

Social networking on Wikipedia

It is interesting to reflect on the power of social networking to help people collaborate, cooperate and network online. The shift towards social sharing and information exchange will have a profound impact on our social culture. Yochai Benkler notes in his book that:

"We have an opportunity to change the way we create and exchange information, knowledge, and culture. By doing so, we can make the twentyfirst century one that offers individuals greater autonomy, political communities greater democracy, and societies greater opportunities for cultural self-reflection and human connection." link

Peer production is even challenging our tools and economies of information production.

Wikipedia allows users to view the history of changes to a web page. Although the people listed on this Xvidcap Wikipedia page did not know each other, they each contributed their knowledge and a picture to build up a knowledge resource that informs the public about the details of this open source software. Even the original software author jumped in to make a further contribution and some corrections.

Over a friendly coffee on December 2004, I gave a demonstration of Wikipedia to Nick, our school sports coach. He spotted a serious omission so we pooled our knowledge to start off a few scribbles to create a new Wikipedia page about Johnny Mullagh, an early Australian Indigenous cricket player. Over the past two years there have been dozens of additions including a photograph, battting statistics and a healthy debate about what flag to use.

Of course, this doesn't stop us from occasionally sitting down for the odd face-to-face chat over a coffee. If you do, BYO laptop

Wikipedia's detractors

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 21:05:25 CST

by Brett Butterfield.

Greetings,

Wondering what sort of opinions users of this forum have encountered in working with colleagues when the subject of Wikipedia comes up.

There is a fairly large group of sceptics ( encountered across a range of schools and places ) that concentrate on the perceived negatives of Wikipedia for example, characterised by the teacher who recounts his discovery of a vandalised page full of swearing, and another page where erroneous info had been added.

I suppose these obvious 'shortfalls' present as ideally attractive to detractors who may be looking for an excuse to write something off.

There was some sort of editorial or comment piece in the SMH ( and possibly other Fairfax papers ) last year some time that panned Wikkipedia for similar reasons; as a possible source of inaccuracy as a result of either negligence or vandalism. I knew a few executives who thought the article was gospel.

So, discussion points following:

Do others perceive a strong link - even if not espoused - between a person's theory of knowledge and their reaction to this social and collaborative knowledge source? Indeed, could such a reaction be a litmus test in itself?

Is education heading down a constructivist path? I have no way to answer this as my experience is not nearly wide enough, but I can see only tremendous assistance or benefit to the constructivist school of thought in the proliferation of social and networking knowledge collaboration sites and technologies that are born from the approaching ubiquity of access to 'the Net'. Will there still be ivory towers? Or is knowledge being devolved?

[ Interesting though: one sees parallels between the printing of the Bible in English and the established church's resistance to such a thought as it would place scripture into the hands of the commoner. Fancy people reading it for themselves! ]

Are all educators going to be converted at some point ( at gunpoint or otherwise ) to take these new methods up? Or is the gap between those who know and who don't just going to grow wider, as the possibilities for on-line collaboration increase?

Are the downward pressures ( those tending toward maintenance and conservation of existing practices; suggested relating in some part to the high average ages and experiences of many segemtns of the teaching force ) more powerful than the upward ( new teachers with new ideas, success or benefits offered by new technologies, state sanctioned or compulsory training etc )?

I suppose what I am asking is will education ever get its own YouTube: a site or concept that is so pervasive, so accessible, so immediate, so well timed that it just takes off? I wonder.

Like to read people's ideas.

Re: Community of Practice

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 20:26:09 CST

by Brett Butterfield.

I think I agree Martin.

Many of the projects I have tried personally have petered out at some stage - there is an initial excitement at learning a new skill or trying something new on line, but eventually these things seem to stall. Many of them die from sheer lack of feedback, for example.

I have had a blog or two going at some point but as far as I knew no one was reading. That isn't me crying not fair, but recounting the factors leading to its demise.

I wonder why?

I can think of a few ideas but can't quite do it justice right now I think.

Cheers

Brett

Community of Practice

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 18:15:29 CST

by Martin Pluss.

Hi all,

I have been doing some research on the concept of Community of Practice and seeing how it can be linked with Web 2.0.

Perhaps the use of web based technology (including wikis), as a means to bring together like minded communities, is a platform for new literacies.

What I have experienced in personal/hobby (with a collaborative wiki and blogs) and professional Web 2.0 usage (and the resultant communities) is that personal interest projects really get a community of practice going but the professional projects don't seem to have the same level of passion and involvement.

The former grows organically at a grassroots level while the latter relies on people trying to drag people into the community.

This is just my experience and happy to give more examples if the conversation gets going.

cheers Martin Pluss