Reflections
“Where is the Action in Virtual Communities of Practice?”
Christopher Lueg, Institute for Information, University Zurich
http://www-staff.it.uts.edu.au/~lueg/papers/commdcscw00.pdf
I have been intrigued by the hyped rhetoric and extraordinary claims for virtual communities of practice as a space/place in which great minds can come together and create magical new knowledge of limitless value to the “corporation” or the “university.” My own experience of them has been of a website to which I will go, IF it’s bookmarked and IF I have an assignment due. In the ordinary course of an information-packed day, I don’t just “drop-in” to the VCOP to see what’s happening.
I was intrigued by the title of Lueg’s article and will try to summarize its key points. Basically, informal learning, which occurs within an organization can be called a community of practice and is based on social participation. I am fortunate to work in a unit at a major research university where the learning is dynamic, constant, and stimulating. Lueg’s first main point is that a huge transfer problem exists when we try to transfer the characteristics of a situated learning community of practice to the virtual world, however dynamic and intuitive the “space” might be.
He then returns to the literature and identified some of the characteristics of a VCOP from Hildreth’s article in Journal of Knowledge Management:
1. Common set of interests to do something in common
2. Concerned with motivation
3. Self-generating
4. Self-selecting
5. Not necessarily co-located, but face-to-face meetings are valuable
Interestingly, he then examines a Usenet group, de.rec.bodyart. A starkly non-academic model!! But I think his concerns and his application of the Hildreth characteristics provide us with an honest way to examine VCOPs within the university context as a potentially richer way to explore a topic and to capture that knowledge in a re-usable form.
One obstacle that appears clearly before me is the problem of fragmented and divided attention. Where will I find the single hour of quiet thoughtfulness that will let me enter the VCOP space, read, ponder, and contribute? I’m working on it!!
“Technology and Human Issues in Reusing Learning Objects”
Betty Collis and Allard Strijker
http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/2004/4/
Highly relevant article from the special issue on the Educational Semantic
Web in
Journal of Interactive Media in Education (JIME).
The last few years of learning object development have focused, of necessity,
on meta-tagging and standard specifications. Now, the educators, the end users,
those who assist faculty in taking advantage of new learning opportunities
offered by technology, are looking carefully at pedagogy and at the human issues
which can impact effective use of digital repositories on a campus.
Impact of organizational setting
Collis and Strijker take a close look at the organizational settings of those
who create, label, and offer learning objects as well as on those who select
and use these digital resources.
They identify three organizational contexts with unique interpretations and
implementations of learning object systems:
University: “what is most persistent in the university model is the process
of knowledge production”
Corporate: needs identified within organization, based on competence-gap analyses
or profiling dictate source of learning objects and different delivery methods
Military: strict organization, hierarchical structure, and well-defined procedures
Their next theoretical/conceptual framework differentiates between learning
philosophies based on acquisition and those based on participation.
To round out their framing of the issues, they define the six stages in the
lifecycle of learning objects:
- Obtaining
- Labeling
- Offering
- Selecting
- Using
- Retaining
They examine each stage as it applies to the three organizational settings
as well as from both the technical and human perspectives.
Their key concerns are summarized in the Conclusion:
1. The process should not be over formalized
2. Intelligence and creativity are more important during the use process than
during the find and select processes. This intelligence and creativity will
come from humans outside the Semantic Web.
I highly recommend this article as a solid foundation for further explorations
into design, pedagogy, and the realities of reusing learning objects.
Reading
The Economist is always energizing and broadening because the perspective is so globally aware. For example, take this sentence:
Discussing the causes of a financing gap in a major western nation’s health care system, the article notes that these financial demands come “from an ageing population, more expensive medical technologies, and a culture of rampant consumption.”
I was immediately struck by how relevant the comment was to the ongoing discussion of America’s disastrously expensive health care system. But it’s France. And their model system, with its “shining bill of health” is close to bankruptcy.
The French system has served its population well for years but now must undergo major surgery. The American system is badly broken and there appears to be no political will to take the steps necessary to mend the system.
The Economist, May 15th, 2004
I just read a great article in the latest EduCause Review by Peter Smith, “Of Icebergs, Ships, and Arrogant Captains.”
“By itself, technology cannot save us.”
He describes the coming disaster if we don’t change in order to educate all Americans more effectively. The tools already exist, as well as a key convergence: the extraordinary capacity of technology, demographic forces, and new knowledge about learning. If we combine these three, we can ride their synergy to a new world of higher ed.
He uses Cal State University, Monterey Bay as an example, describing how they use an outcomes-based curriculum and require demonstration of technical literacy. He notes that they have successfully unbundled the traditional functions of the teaching and learning process.
When he looks into the future, he sees all learners carrying with them a “mobile transcripts,” one that is effectively assessment-based and reflects the reality of what the learner can do and learn.
I like the broad understanding he reveals about the potential of harnessing these powers (tech, demographic forces, cognitive science) and the potential cost if we don’t move and move quickly.
Definitely provocative.
I just read a great article in the latest EduCause Review by Peter Smith, “Of Icebergs, Ships, and Arrogant Captains.”
“By itself, technology cannot save us.”
He describes the coming disaster if we don’t change in order to educate all Americans more effectively. The tools already exist, as well as a key convergence: the extraordinary capacity of technology, demographic forces, and new knowledge about learning. If we combine these three, we can ride their synergy to a new world of higher ed.
He uses Cal State University, Monterey Bay as an example, describing how they use an outcomes-based curriculum and require demonstration of technical literacy. He notes that they have successfully unbundled the traditional functions of the teaching and learning process.
When he looks into the future, he sees all learners carrying with them a “mobile transcripts,” one that is effectively assessment-based and reflects the reality of what the learner can do and learn.
I like the broad understanding he reveals about the potential of harnessing these powers (tech, demographic forces, cognitive science) and the potential cost if we don’t move and move quickly.
Definitely provocative.
