Summary: I would like to see some explicit discussion amongst research-oriented and instruction-oriented "personal web publishing" theorists and practitioners. The topic: knowledge development strategies for individuals and groups. To jump the gun a bit:
- In order to accelerate an individual's learning provide, and train to use, two pieces of software, in addition to general web access software: a weblog and a content management system like Omnioutliner Pro. (Assuming s/he is already proficient with general productivity and web access software).
- Once individual already has above skills, fold in use of wiki software in a group learning format.
(The group learning format can be in a "face-to-face plus online", aka "hybrid", setting (e.g., coworkers at same site who also work and communicate on line) or it can be done purely online. In either case, this step also requires skill development in the social arena--accepting and generating praise, accepting and generating constructive criticisms, listening and feedback skill, generally. Also involved: extemporaneous extrapolation and explaining "on the fly" (The extrapolater will not have had chance to practice saying this "new-to-her" idea.)
It occurs to me, as it has to numerous others (see others in links section... follow their link trails for a good starter set of thinkers), that the same relationship between inputs, processes and outputs can be variously labelled weblogging, journal writing, learning, research, 'my job', etc. depending on the context. Whatever the context, the inputs, processes and outputs remain the same and effective knowledge development and organization strategies remain the same. I believe that collaborative research & development (as supported by weblog & wiki -see below) is prepared for by training . The training would be not only in subject matter but in "learning to learn"** via the acceleration enabled by personal web publishing.
For your inspection, a summary of two writings: first work done by Seb Fiedler and Priya Sharma on training to learn via the use of personal webpublishing tools and the second a summary of my entry concerning the conduct of team research also using personal webpublishing tools.
-----------
What are personal webpublishing tools? Examples are group and individual weblogs and wiki's. Software details vary slightly between the two projects; the primary difference between the two is that one focuses on the generic process with secondary attention to subject matter (the topics are chosen individually but are within a discipline). In the research process suggested below the topics are distinct subpieces of a general research topic. A general problem has been partitioned into researchable parts and handed to researchers who are knowledgeable in the general area and in the use of the personal webpublishing approach to learning/research acceleration.
See what you think.
Seb Fiedler's Personal WebPublishing as a Reflective Conversational Tool for Self-Organized Learning (for BlogTalk1 11/03).
At the time of publication he and Priya Sharma were together running a special topics class which were aimed at enhancing self-managed learning projects at Pennsylvania State University. Because there was the
opportunity/requirement for face-to-face interactions with teacher and among students--the authors have been classified this as a hybrid learning environment.
Project Notes (please see illustration in final section of paper (link above is a .pdf of that paper)).
- Project Roles
- Learning Environment Designer: Sets up of the technological architecture. (Used
Userland's Frontier/Manila package: "The backbone of our conversational learning
environment is a cluster of independent sites that are visually and functionally
interlinked.
A course log functions as the publishing space for the Learning Coach and
the
Learning Environment Manager. … Project owners can comment on items that are published
there and open up independent discussion topics if they feel the need. … The project
logs
offer a similar set up like the course log. Project owners can create and publish log
items, story pages, pictures and files (e.g., .pdfs). Initially they can only edit two
additional interface elements [ useful links and an about page in which scope, intention etc. of project is presented]
- Learning Environment Manager: Monitors the ongoing use of the Webpublishing spaces,
comments on technical features and procedures, assists participants when there are
questions or problems, alters the system interface when the need arises, works out bugs
and technical problems when and if they occur.
- Learning Coach: the following are the actions commonly taken by the learning coach:
- negotiates needs and purposes,
- helps to define a manageable scope for project,
- facilitates conversational exchanges among the participants,
- introduces and suggests resources,
- comments on the task-focused activities and negotiates criteria for evaluation,
- coaches and counsels as needed,
- creates opportunities for face-to-face meetings,
- augments, highlights, models and fees back good practice
- scaffolds (breaks final skill set into steps as needed) by providing mini-
interventions and assignments to trigger inner and outer conversations.
- Learning Project Owners: "spend most of their time working on their particular learning
projects, documenting their meaning making process through the externalization of thoughts,
observations and questions, chunks of newly constructed meanings, reflections, and so
forth. In addition they provide feedback and commentary to each other through face-to-face
encounters and their personal Webpublishing spaces."
------
My Group Knowledge-Making Paper (full reference here) (illustration and process description):
Most research group endeavors have a life cycle--preceding from formation and ending with either a mature knowledge product or a partial version of the planned-for knowledge product, (or, in the extreme worst case, nothing that was intended nor even any unintended side product that has value). The within-group processes I describe below are aimed somewhere in the middle of the life of the research group.
At the base of the diagram you will see 5 R-S pairs. Those represent 5 researcher pairings with a research(knowledge-making) "situation". Each has researcher's assignment has two aspects: first is to "getting a good answer" to a research question and second is to make it accessible, via explanation, to other members of the research team.
Each researcher's notes, problems, results and explanations are detailed in her/his respective wiki. As part of participating in the research team each researcher comments upon, offer suggestions for, evaluate, etc. , the work of two other team members--via the evaluated member's wiki. Those processes are signified signified by the dashed arrows from each researcher to two other team members' wiki documents (those documents are W1, W2, W3, etc.). Such cross-communication can help to assure that the researcher will be developing her/his findings and explanations in ways that are compatible with the larger knowledge question which all are addressing with their particular research projects.
There is one other (the sixth) team member: the Reporter/Coordinator(RC). S/he will also be reading/evaluating the wiki's from the perspective of the larger knowledge-making situation of which the separate researcher situations are each distinct parts. S/he will also be reading from the perspective of an explication of the total product to a public.
In the early project stages the research coodinator/reporter documents impresssions of progress in the in-house summary document which is the group wiki (GW).
For non-group members summary snippets are issued via the group weblog (GWL); its purpose is to document progress and/or to justify solicitations of material support from a suprasystem or from a granting agency. Informational support might come via weblog comments from collaborating groups in a larger enterprise (e.g., a containing suprasystem) or from the broader public made up of knowledge consumers and competing research enterprises. Any responses from those outside sources will be fed back into the group wiki as a means of challenging/updating within-group work.
A last observation: the dashed line surrounding the group is meant to indicate that the boundary is voluntary. All members voluntarily limit their communications to fit within the bounds of the research mission. This self-limitation will occur for some portion of their time as dictated by their interests and the commitment made to the group. In the best of research groups this self-limitation is in fact empowerment. (See my entry about knowledge-making in bounded groups)
[Note 1: I have expanded the number of tools used to two: wiki and weblog. When a publication is to show it's edit history and to allow text intrusions ranging from paragraph level editing by multiple editors to page-level comments, I've chosen a wiki. When the document itself is to remain intact but is be accessible to attached commentary and for linking, I've chosen a weblog. It is possible to follow the design using weblogs alone (replace all wikis with weblogs).The wiki, however, affords a far more nuanced set of possibilities.]
[Note 2: Larger knowledge-making enterprises could be approached by using the illustrated group design as a module and by adding necessary organizationalinfrastructure and process]
[Note 3: If we replace the researcher and group wiki's with in house circulation of a weekly progress update--- on paper, and if we replace the group weblog with newsletter publications and/or journal articles -- again, on paper , then we still have a "plan". How much better off are we , at this level of analysis, because we HAVE inserted Wiki and Weblog?]
RELATED LINKS
- Seb Fiedler's Papers at his site.
- Denham Gray's entry (3/05) on the social character of Personal Learning. See , also, his link (via Ton) to a free course on action research and evaluation.
- Ton Zylstra's Series of Entries(12/03) on Actionable Sense
- Seb Paquet's Article (10/03) Exploring Relation of Weblogging to Research
- Seb Paquet's wondering (9/03) about how long it takes for students to get comfortable with weblogging
- Dave Pollard's (7/03) Detailed Analysis of Blog Flow Sequence
- Related Entries from Spike Hall:
- Entry (12/03) showing a research process as it might follow weblog-based networking -- responding to ideas of Ton Zylstra
- One of my entries on Learning to Learn Learning to Learn ---high proven payoff
- Notes extending Dave Pollard's weblogging flow ideas into research
- Definition of Klogs (10/02) (knowledge logs): thoughts and processes involved
- The Bounded Group Knowledge-Making Hypothesis, (12/02)including a restatement of two earlier hypotheses. This thinking led to my proposal of the group research model pictured above. Details of the hypothesis are below.
First, the basic klog hypothesis: a comparison of otherwise equivalent initial learning 'problems' will show that klogging of knowledge acquisition [with no other supports, not even the news reader] will result in faster and more comprehensive knowledge acquisiton than a nonreflective participation in a quest for the same knowledge.
Second, the augmented klog hypothesis: comparison of otherwise equivalent initial learning 'problems' will show that the klog augmented by news aggregators, automatic google searches (such as googleIt applied to title) and commentary from readers of klog entries (as in 'further reading' [see above]) will demonstrate significantly enhanced speed and comprehensiveness of development when compared to results of the pure klog approach.
- Lilia Efimova's Thoughts about Weblogs and Wiki's (6/04)
*Comparability is necessary across sets; the sets need to be of equivalent psychological stature. By way of illustration, "20 single syllable french nouns versus an earlier, altogether different, set of 20 single syllable French nouns". 20 addition problems versus 20 ice skating manuvers wont do. :o]
**When we get into the realm of 'Learning to Learn' (aka deuterolearning, metalearning) our discussion is particularly called for because, or so it seems to me, discussion of various levels of learning as if they were one will undermine our collective ability to construct effective systems (If we assume that all food is the same won't we be able to think out how to mix, prepare, cook and present in efficient and esthetic ways?
Using the broadest designations Bateson (Towards an Ecology of Mind) listed at least three levels of learning:
- learning,
- learning to learn (i.e., demonstrating altered knowledge of learning such that greater speed and efficiency is clearly demonstrated in situation 2 as opposed the otherwise comparable* situation 1 , and
- "learning to 'learn to learn': acquiring the more or less independent ability to generate learning strategies.
[Technorati learning, learning-to-learn, research, knowledge-making]
