Your feedback invited
sparker
amongst many of my colleagues over the past week at the Learnscope and
ICVET events I attended.
>From this I started to think how can one facilitate not only the shared
knowledge, but also the shared thoughts, views and expressions with
each other online to reach a wider audience.
* How do you encourage participants (students teachers) at all
levels to want to participate and express themselves within an open
network?
* How do you quickly seek resolution and overcome differences of
opinion elevating a conversation to have meaning focus and relevance?
* How do you quickly generate agreed solutions to specific
questions/problems?
* How when and why should you moderate contributions to a group?
Feedback
For me gaining understanding of the answers to these questions is tied
to guidelines on moderation and particpant's rights and responsibilites
within a network In this context I would like to know have you formed
facilitated or are a member of an education network :
* What charter, manifesto, guidelines does the network refer to?
* How important is it for an individual to formally agree and
adhere to the group standards before participating in group?
* What moderation strategies do you employ?
* When where and why would the network be moderated?
* Who has the right to moderate? What are their responsibilites?
* What are the moderation steps?
* What is the groups collective responsibility to individual
members?
* What communication strategies are most effective for facilitating
generation of knowledge and understanding?
* Does a networked learning environment always need to be open?
Answers to these questions form the basis for the success or failure of
implemementing a networked learning model within public education.
You might like to do a blog post or share with the
networkedlearnigrights group. You also might like to ask other
questions of the group. Looking forward to gaining the collective
insight.
PS. In this context, you may be interested in the life based learning
paper published at the icvet powerhouse conference on Friday. A
fantastic direction for VTE don't you think?...
http://www.icvet.tafensw.edu.au/resources/life_based_learning.htm
sparker
Work in progress, feedback invited.
Leigh Blackall
I posted this to the discussion page of the entry after attempting to add edits that reflected my position in all this... I only got so far before I realised we are certainly heading in opposite directions :(
I started editing, then found that I fundamentally disagree with too many points you have added there. I think you should change the name over arching this effort of yours so that it is localised to your teacher connect project, and so that it does not confuse the meaning of networked learning. These are guidelines for the teacher connect project - not for networked learning, not simply because they refer specifically to TAFE - but for many other reasons.
If you wish to retain the reference to networked learning then I think you should make it clearer that these guidelines are not intended for networked learning practices outside your context - such as the broader definition still evolving in the wikipedia.
I'm quite alarmed by the 9 points you have there so far Steven, and apart from letting go of classroom teacher thinking, you need to do two things.
1. You need to read carefully your own organisation's policies and proceedures, and use language consistent with that. Suggest DEST not NSWDET.
2. You also need to read the policies of wikispaces at the very least and map distinctions between your org's and wikispaces as a guide towards an example for your guidelines.
Regards
Leigh
http://teacherconnect.wikispaces.com/Networked+Learning+Guidelines
Work in progress, feedback invited.
--
Leigh Blackall
+6421736539
skype - leigh_blackall
http://leighblackall.wikispaces.org/
sparker
scope of the project of a networked environments is beyond the confines
of TAFE.
This is a work in progress for the teacherconnect project and by no
means meant to be advocated as definitive networked learning meaning. I
really want to have multiple perspectives and input in this process and
will be informed by yours and others input into the evolving construct
of the networked learning model.
By opening this to feedback one expects disagreement and criticism, I
do hope to get further input from others and yourself...
I agree on the your refernce to dropping the classroom reference
changing the reference to 'society'
'the use of blogs is an extension of a multicultural society.
Therefore, any speech that is considered inappropriate in society is
inappropriate on a blog. This includes swearing, racist, sexist or
discriminatory remarks and personal attacks.'
Also agree with you and have removed
'Note: To be able to sign this waiver form the member must be a over 18
years of age. If a member is not 18, a written agreement from the
member's parents must be obtained.' as does not sit right with me.
However I do think that there has to be an agreement on adhering to
a networks guidelines before taking on the responsibilities of
administering a network, whatever that mechanism would be...
Like and agree on this moderation process in reference to the
guidelines.
If a post or comment does not comply with the lead educational
organisations policies, or these Network Learning Guidelines (below),
or if any member of the group finds a post problematic or offensive in
any way, they have the right and/or responsibility to alert the group
and seek to discuss the issue. Action such as post deletion, or editing
should be taken only if agreement is found with the group members who
participate in discussing the issue. It is generally more beneficial to
capture a discussion around an issue, where everyone has the
opportunity to contribute their thinking and help expand and/or balance
the item, than it is to quickly delete an item and risk disrupting the
trust and other politics within the group. Through careful and
sensitive moderation and facilitation a possible "learning moment" can
be made out of an otherwise disruptive event. The only exception to
this guideline is if the contribution has clearly been made by a "bot"
otherwise known as spam - or mass distributed content.
Will as you suggest review wikispaces guidelines with the NL
guidelines. Am interested to know what further aspects you disagree
with. Value yours and others input.
Steven