Networked Learning and Personal Network Profile
I read this in Will Richardson' Weblogg-ed entry on "Networked Learning Practice"
"The more I consider it, the more I find myself moving away from a frame of social networking towards one of networked learning (which is obviously social by nature). More toward the literacies of networked learning."-http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/network-learning-practice/#comments
Since I have not attended to his presentation, I am not sure if what I have in my mind matches his. However, it does remind me of one of the research I have thought about doing: "My Network Technology Profile" or something like that. Researchers who study social network study only one network and study each person or message as a node and is interested in the connection between the nodes. However, we know that each person (many at least) have more than one network. For example me, I use wenxuecity, blogger, facebook, msn, skype, and many others. My presence and role in each network is different. The many facets of my usage of these network (when i use it, why i use, how i use it...) combine to form my network profile. By looking into several such person in depth (imagine an ethnography type study and even a longtitudinal study), we can see pattern and trend, and might be in a better position to understand how learners use technology to fulfil their social and learning needs. In this way, we might not get hasty conclusion that student A is not leanring because he is not discussin much in OnCourse. Who knows. He may study else where and is an active participant! Maybe as a teacher, we can also undertand out student's network profile and then see what we can do in our class--how the network we mean them to participate can be merged into their current network profile.
WR gives a link to Stephen Downes' blog entry on The Personal Network Effect (http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/11/personal-network-effect.html) about how to evaluate the value of network to personal learning. I catch the following which is of interest to me:
"It is therefore tempting to suggest that ...the value of the network is increased the more connections a person has to the network. This isn't the case. Each connection produces value to the person. But the realtive utility of the connection - that is, its value compared to the value that has already ben received elsewhere - decreases after a certain point has been reached.The reason for this is that value is derived from semantic relevance."
Stephen further states that semantic relevance is "the result of a combination of factors" including, whether the information is new to the receiver, salient to the receiver, timely, utile, cognate, true, trusted, and contiguous.
I love these eight fators. I think they can be used in online discussion for students to evaluate the message posted by their peers.
"The more I consider it, the more I find myself moving away from a frame of social networking towards one of networked learning (which is obviously social by nature). More toward the literacies of networked learning."-http://weblogg-ed.com/2007/network-learning-practice/#comments
Since I have not attended to his presentation, I am not sure if what I have in my mind matches his. However, it does remind me of one of the research I have thought about doing: "My Network Technology Profile" or something like that. Researchers who study social network study only one network and study each person or message as a node and is interested in the connection between the nodes. However, we know that each person (many at least) have more than one network. For example me, I use wenxuecity, blogger, facebook, msn, skype, and many others. My presence and role in each network is different. The many facets of my usage of these network (when i use it, why i use, how i use it...) combine to form my network profile. By looking into several such person in depth (imagine an ethnography type study and even a longtitudinal study), we can see pattern and trend, and might be in a better position to understand how learners use technology to fulfil their social and learning needs. In this way, we might not get hasty conclusion that student A is not leanring because he is not discussin much in OnCourse. Who knows. He may study else where and is an active participant! Maybe as a teacher, we can also undertand out student's network profile and then see what we can do in our class--how the network we mean them to participate can be merged into their current network profile.
WR gives a link to Stephen Downes' blog entry on The Personal Network Effect (http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/11/personal-network-effect.html) about how to evaluate the value of network to personal learning. I catch the following which is of interest to me:
"It is therefore tempting to suggest that ...the value of the network is increased the more connections a person has to the network. This isn't the case. Each connection produces value to the person. But the realtive utility of the connection - that is, its value compared to the value that has already ben received elsewhere - decreases after a certain point has been reached.The reason for this is that value is derived from semantic relevance."
Stephen further states that semantic relevance is "the result of a combination of factors" including, whether the information is new to the receiver, salient to the receiver, timely, utile, cognate, true, trusted, and contiguous.
I love these eight fators. I think they can be used in online discussion for students to evaluate the message posted by their peers.
Comments