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 like http://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 Goalpost http://learnonline.wordpress.com http://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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
