[...] When considering the future of books very often the focus also is on public engagement, education and development in learning and gaming. They seem [...]

[...] When considering the future of books very often the focus also is on public engagement, education and development in learning and gaming. They seem [...]

[...] – including Tony Bates’ review. The book was collaboratively/openly developed via a website. Practicing what they preach. I believe what I’m referencing (Davidson and Golberg, 2009) is [...]

[...] it fruitful to view the new, digital affordances that Davidson and Goldberg zero-in on in their Future of Learning Institutions as enabling Collinsian interaction-at-a-distance.  The scholars- lonely or not (see the Conclusion [...]

[...] Advanced Collaboratory aka HASTAChttp://hastac.org) have posted a draft of a paper entitled “The Future of Learning Institutions in a Digital Age.” The paper will evolve through online collaboration and conversations, and will be published [...]

I hope that with the progress of digital learning technology, we may also learn to direct content by values in a more honest way. I think learning keywords and themes will need to focus on specific value in a transparent way. Every learning means should in fact be concerned as to where it is taking the learner more in terms of value-taking than in terms of mere information and elaborate and complex content poles.

Special thanks to all who are adding url’s about new kinds of classes, new kinds of institutions that YOU are involved with. We intend in the final document to include an annotated hyperlink interactive bibliography, our “Hall of Fame,” for these kinds of courses. We’re also thinking of a “Hall of Shame” for kneejerk responses by institutions to the worst kind of media hype or commercialization which makes institutions even more resistant to change. Universities that expect their faculty members to put all their courseware (syllabi, reading lists, and so forth) on line but then refuse to stand by their faculty who wish to use commercial materials for educational “fair use” are way up on my list for the “Hall of Shame.” Some of our most media-savvy and hyper-commercialized research universities (no names yet, but there will be later) go on that list.

TWO POINTS
1) Re: sec.24 HASTAC has two equally important audiences,with different needs. The first audience consists of scholars and potential scholars who have or can acquire “technological, scientific, & engineering” skills. They need a support network where they can find a community that can critique their projects, inform them of related work occurring in their fields(s), and at best locate potential collaborators. (research)
HASTAC has a second audience of academics and academics-in-training who do not have the skills to advance or create technical, scientific, & engineering tools in a particular area, but who are comfortable with the existing tools (blogging, distributed applications such as Google Maps). They are eager to incorporate these tools into college and general education. This audience needs user-friendly “how-to” directions with varied successful examples, online help sources, and discussion boards for solutions to problems.
2) Re FOOTNOTE 18 nos. 1-4
Can we call the HASTAC project “INSTITUTIONS 2.0″? after the Web 2.0 idea of “distributed applications”?
The type of institution we are discussing is distributed rather than a single physical location; it has no search committees, no official requirements for tenure.
-Pat

[...] Affordance.info (France): vers un changement de paradigme de la production de la diffusion et de la consommation des connaissances dans les université Ne pas manquer le lien vers l’article en anglais á la source de ce questionnement: “The Future of Learning Institution in a Digital Age“. [...]

Just completed (jan. 06, 3 week interim) teach field research/ethnography in Second Life to Multimedia undergraduates at Bradley University, Peoria, IL. Good example of new delivery platforms and techniques.

you can read my wrap up about the class (or any of the 3 articles leading up to it) at
http://www.nmc.org/sl/author/edlam/
http://www.nmc.org/sl/2007/01/24/summary/

You can have a look at the student blogs and final papers at
http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/490/bloglinks.html

class syllabus and links
http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/490/mm490.html

Press about the course
http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/slstuff.html

I recently (Jan. 06, 3 week interim) used Second Life as a platform for teaching field research methods/ethnography to Multimedia undergraduates at BradleyUniversity in Peoria, IL. You can learn about the project as an example of alternative methods for course delivery, etc. :

you can read my wrap up about the class (or any of the 3 articles leading up to it) at
http://www.nmc.org/sl/author/edlam/
http://www.nmc.org/sl/2007/01/24/summary/

You can have a look at the student blogs and final papers at
http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/490/bloglinks.html

class syllabus and links
http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/490/mm490.html

Press about the course
http://slane.bradley.edu/com/faculty/lamoureux/website2/slstuff.html

I am excited to see this topic opened for discussion in this way. In my opinion, it is an extremely important question.

In my opinion, the evolution of institutions is well under way. What I mean by that is that new types of ‘institutions’ are being created and re-created on a daily basis. Information exchange is evolving more rapidly than the changes can be documented. Only the creators and adopters of new ‘institutions’ can hope to influence (but not control) its direction. The vast majority of these new means of information exchange are unregulated. This fact makes these institutions extremely popular, and contributes greatly to the speed at which they can evolve.

As for institutions such as schools, colleges and universities, the situation is far different. Colleges and universitiies must decide how to adapt to the new world in which they find themselves. One valid approach is to remain more-or-less what they are. There is a distinction, after all, between FORMAL instruction and INFORMAL learning. A provider of formal instruction claims to hold the keys to information and techniques that have been vetted by stakeholders in various fields of study. Within a formal educational setting, a distinction is maintained between correct and incorrect information at any given time in any given field, and the providers of formal instruction take great pains to pass on only what is correct. To the extent that professionally vetted information has value to our culture, formal instruction can and should continue to be made available.

The distinction between formal and informal instruction begs the question of what the transfer of information from expert to novice should look like. It is of little consequence whether students read words or paper, read words on screen, or interact with games or simulations. What matters is that it is the instructors responsibility to control the student learning, and to vouch for the quality and validity of the result. It is not an easy thing to adopt informal modes of communication, such as wikis or games, while still controlling the content of what is learned. This is a difficult dilemma, especially if and when students begin to reject, ignore or forget information that comes to them ‘from on high’.

It can be argued that the fundamental goal of formal instruction must change. Rather than passing carved-in-stone information to students, we must teach them how to obtain up-to-the-minute information on an as-needed basis. While I agree with the latter goal whole-heartedly, I also believe that there will continue to be value in transferring pre-packaged bodies of information and ways of thinking from one generation of professionals to the next. These need not be rigid, but they must not be so flexible as to lose integrity. This is the line we find ourselves treading.

[...] It is the title of an online draft of a MacArthur Foundation Occasional Paper on Digital Media and Learning, posted by Cathy Davidson and David Theo Goldberg. They are requesting comments, but actually going a step farther by presenting it as the start of a piece of collaborative writing. I know them from the intensive seminar on new ways of think about and with technology that I took this summer though UCHRI. I think they are making a very genuine effort to think in new ways, and that what they are doing connects with what we are doing. Anyone can comment individually of course, or we could collaboratively draft some feedback if there’s group interest. [...]

We welcome all comments! And are especially interested in finding out about innovative models existing now and that can be expanded in the future.