Comments on: I. Overview

By: Trevor Shaw

Trevor Shaw — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 03:10:27 +0000

It is also naive to assume that all (or even a majority) of students who were born after a certain date will shun more traditional methods of instruction. My experience has been that in project based, constructivist learning environments, the project must be created very carefully so as not to be seen as a contrived environment with a pre-determined outcome. Students need a variety of learning activities including some that are teacher centric to help to build the scaffolding and scope of reference needed to enable them to be successful on more peer-to-peer related projects. When they are employed, constructivist projects must be designed to be authentic, meaningful, and have a purpose that is clear to the student.

By: shawt

shawt — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 02:54:06 +0000

But in America, this is how we elect leaders…

By: shawt

shawt — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 02:49:39 +0000

Interesting to read the Zagat’s model here. I just heard a talk by Sir Ken Robinson at NAIS where he used a metaphor for educational quality about two methods of maintaining quality in restaurants: Standardization (i.e. McDonalds) and Generalized standards tailored to individualized / localized needs and tastes (i.e. Zagats).

By: Cathy Davidson

Cathy Davidson — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:21:57 +0000

I really like this sequence of comments. Thank you very much for such a thoughtful conversation. The drop-out rate issue needs to be separated out carefully. I don’t think we have decided yet how much, for example, NCLB will be part of this project. (I am writing another where I think it will be quite central, but that is more about learning and cognition and not on institutional transformation.) Thanks very much.

By: Cathy Davidson

Cathy Davidson — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:34:58 +0000

This is a very important question and one thing that we are thinking about is an appendix with the precise legal details of reforming HASTAC as a 501c3 which would have made it more like a “real” institution rather than a virtual one. What compiling such a document did was made evident the many, many ways and levels in which this “virtual institution” is supported by actual ones. Such things as health insurance for those on grants. The virtual institution could not exist without the support of extremely stable institutions, including grant agencies. The distinction we need to make is between “voluntary” and “cost free.” And what is gained and what is lost by an actual institutional identity and membership? Those are the issues that your good question helps to elucidate and we are grappling with on many different levels.

By: Anne Balsamo

Anne Balsamo — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 05:38:04 +0000

There are costs to participating in HASTAC activities….these are born locally, either by the supporting institution (i.e., Duke, UCI, Berkeley) or by the individuals themselves, rather than centrally as would be the case for a professional organization (through the payment of dues from distributed participants). Although i would say that the costs are more socialist than organizations. From each according to their means….

But the costs are real, and unevenly distributed, as is the anxiety about covering the costs.

By: wheat

wheat — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:22:17 +0000

College learning, even in lecture format classes, is not uni-directional. Well defined assignments can encourage peer-to-peer learning contexts as well as opportunities for self-directed learning. Open-ended assignments (e.g. essays, etc.) provide the opportunity for creative, research-based, learning.

By: wheat

wheat — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:16:12 +0000

I think you have to be careful here not to equate social valuing of the “merit and worth of products and ideas” with peer-review of the same. Some social networks (e.g. Digg.com) provide ways for users to vote on content, and these tools are useful in gaging the popularity of a concept within that culture, but they are no replacement for peer-review, if only because there’s no guarantee that the contributors and the voters are peers in any meaningful sense of the word.

Academic publishing may (and will probably have to) find ways to use these technologies, but their implementation of them will differ from the current popularity context that is web-based ranking.

By: Kevin Guidry

Kevin Guidry — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 06:32:30 +0000

Grid computing is typically not associated at all with Web 2.0. One is a methodology typically used in high performance scientific computing and the other is a loose term describing applications on the World Wide Web. In fact, grid computing has nothing to do with the Web.

I know it’s hip and buzzword-worthy but I’d recommend dropping the grid computing reference completely. I’d also recommend you consider dropping the Web 2.0 references and simply reference examples of recently developed technologies as you already do. Web 2.0 is ill-defined and contested by some people. So it’s imprecise and may lose, confuse, or alienate some of your readers. Your text should (and does) stand on its own merits.

By: Kevin Guidry

Kevin Guidry — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 06:27:03 +0000

“We urge that we” is cumbersome. How about “We must” or “We should?”