We are running our course of selfdirecting with web 2.0 tools vol. 2
This time we have ‘green’ master students, and our course is their first try at master level.
If last year developing the tool landscapes seemed to be moderately difficult, then this year a strange idea is duplicating itself in the web. Personal landscape means for them – ‘my collection of tools’, and not ‘my landscape of information flow’. So, from 23 students we have received around 15 ‘tool collection’ images. I think that the main paradigm shift in web 2.0 thinking is, is starting to see ‘my collection of separate tools’ as ‘my distributed landscape‘ where i can coordinate information flows. Here is a little paradigm shift on its way, but still at half way. Text is describing mostly of what one can do with this tool, which is affordances for this student for performing some actions.
One example can be seen from here
Archive for September, 2007
We are running our course of selfdirecting with web 2.0 tools vol. 2
Ideas from the ECTEL 07 presentation ‘A p2p framework for interacting with learning objects’ by Andrea Clematis et al.
I am using learning objects and i am recording my practices how i am using these objects.
And i will share my practices with my peers in the network who are using the objects as well.
Herman Maurer keynote
Tackling new problems in learning and elearning
He started his presentation with blaming plagiarism and the main message was not so much touching the topic of the keynote heading. But it was interesting in another way, bringing in the negative message about Google and Wikipedia.
We are in process by creating the reality by googling.
Plagiarism concerns: institutions, other organizations
From ‘papermills’: i would like to get a paper about web 2.0 teaching to send to the journal that has full rights 35 000 dollars was the offer (Maurer experiment)
Anti-plagiarism software: changes words with synonymes and the plagiarism detection tools will not find it out.
If we translate the paper from one language to another, it is plagiarized, but it cannot be detected.
I don’t care if the report is copied from another country, its nice if 20 000 euros was earned with 5 minutes by changing only few words.
We need international agreements what is allowed at data-mining.
Google is doing nothing illegal but it violates laws of data-mining.
Problems with Google and Wikipedia:
Google is invading privacy of persons and companies because of combined undertakings (Google earth etc.).
Google is the best detective agency in the world.
We are googling reality as Google and Wikipedia want to see it.
Companies can rank their information upwards, Google does interferred ranking.
Entries in Wikipedia in search engines: 200 random words from wikipedia, its strange enough that in google the wikipedia pages ranked among firts 10. It is proof that Google and Wikipedia do cooperation.
These two machines that many people consider reality are starting to change the googled reality.
Google can ruin the stock market.
My only hope is that Google is clever enough not to kill the cow they are milking.
They are using the knowledge in stock market, they probably realize that they should not go too far.
Antitrust against Google
Break-up between Google search engine and the other Google tools is needed so that there was no serious data-mining possible in economy with different google tools.
Problem in Wikipedia is keeping the information updated. It was better if from Wikipedia the link goes to the original site (of Herman Maurer webpage or Irakleon town page) rather than storing information in Wikipedia that is not new enough.
Difference between Wikipedias of countries.
You can cite only material that is stabile in time – thus you must not cite Wikipedia.
I have lots of criticism against wikipedia, i think it is too late to change the current version of Wikipedia. We probably need new start, but it may not happen.
The modern cellphones are getting close to what i think the future will look like. My basic concept is that we always will have computer with us, but not visible way (computers in the pocket, screens on the glasses).
Computer does powerful image processing, everything we want to be recorded can be sent to the computer.
Cameras and electronic compasses will be related with tools like Google Earth, knowing where we are and what information we need and create.
We are approaching towards collaboration and consulting society. The search engines are too much overloaded with cloned information. We need to specialize to smaller fields. We search from google some contacts and ask about real information.
There is usually 1-2 pearls in each research paper. I doubt is anyone reading the whole papers. What i consider is someone to open something like the ‘journal of pearls’.
Information retrieval is going to change. We want search engines that do find millions of entries and then produce certain 15 papers that are really relevant to our questions in mind.
In 20 years: continuous recording what we see, hear, make and we make it accessible to the friends
In 40 years continuous recording of total sensory experience of persons, it will be made (partially) accessible to friends.
‘Diary of senses’
Fastforward techniques will help to re-experience the past.
This will make it possible to experience something FOR THE OTHERS.
This means that mankind is developing without noticing common memory.
Everything suddenly becomes an experience we have already felt.
My notes from introduction about FP7 projects of technology enhanced learning by Patricia Manson (EU, head of cultural heritage and technology enhanced learning, Information society and media)
Past guides us to the future:
Implentation of what has been done in the past has not been easy.
Using eLearning ideas to change the world has not taken place.
eLearning has become mainstream not merely a research area.
New approaches in research.
Some principles for good FP7 projects:
acceptance of discontinuity (resources, standards, multidisciplinary work, no technology coctails)
incorporating under what conditions and how better learning outcomes could be achieved with elearning
Pedaogy and organizational change
Dialogue between communities and researchers must be strengthened
Outcomes: what we expect to achieve?
3-7 years market in short term
5-10 years market for longer term
Limited number of challenges
Digital libraries and technology enhanced learning
Responsive environments that should be motivating, embedded in business process, systems that are anchored in reals situations,
Support in the transformation of learning outcomes into valuable knowledge assets (use and reuse of knowledge)
Personalization of learning experiences (which must be well defined eg. what, why?)
Interdisciplinary approach between cognitive and technological
Longer term target outcomes:
adaptible and intuitive (capable of intuitive perception)
learning and cognition
learning and humans and machines
Clusters of project proposals:
Exploring elearning strengths and learning weaknesses
Personalization and adaptive learning, dynamic mentoring
Services based on high performance distributed computing infrastructures
Learning and knowledge: interaction between learning and knowledge management technologies
Learning and cognition: understanding human learning
In current FP7 proposals there was greater focus on responsive learning environments, not yet on intuitive systems
Strong continuity of FP6 research
Technologies in most proposals:
semantic technologies and ontologies (60-70 %)
Social software and tagging
Delivery of learning with PC and mobile
From one pedagogical scenario to mix and match of pedagogical scenarios
Personalization (COMING FROM FP6): problems what personalization means, FP6 was more about personalizing content
Individual relationship between pupils and teachers
Autonomy of the learner
Learning at workspace
Stronger emphasize on learning and creativity, the use of creativity in workspace
Constructive approach of learning science, adaptivity
Personalization and adaptivity
Infrastructures and LMS’s
Projects that were successuful
Theories and technologies of game-based learning, focusing on learning sciences
Embedding learning seamlessly in work process, where knowledge matures
Adaptivity and guidance, language technologies
How creativity can be better supported at workspaces
- why we need solutions
- no definition of problems
- no learning objectives
- better is rather to stick to one of the FP goals than to many
- technology pushed projects without learning and cognition
I was listening at ECTEL07 the presentation (see the proceedings) by Sebastian Kruk et al., which was very much technically supporting what we would like to do in the study of making school library 2.0 practically happen in one master study.
The main idea in the presentation was integrating blog (of the book), bookmarks and tags (of the teacher and the learners), and digital library work together in learning tasks.
Some environments for realising the idea, which i still need to test out: