7 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2019
    1. The cutting edge of informal learning: makers, mobile, and more. This article discusses the features of informal learning and also discuss how it can be 'meaningful' and engaging. Constructivism and constructionism are mentioned though not at length. This may be useful given the limited resources I have but it is not one of the more impressive journal articles I have seen. rating 3/3

  2. Nov 2017
    1. Rather than framing everything at the course level, we should be deploying these technologies for the individual.26

      Obvious question: what about groups, communities, networks, and other supra-individual entities apart from the course/cohort model?

  3. Apr 2017
    1. Fisher, Matthew. 2012. “Authority, Interoperability, and Digital Medieval Scholarship.” Literature Compass 9 (12): 955–64. doi:10.1111/lic3.12018.

      /home/dan/.mozilla/firefox/rwihx4ee.default/zotero/storage/PHS4P7D6/Fisher - 2012 - Authority, Interoperability, and Digital Medieval .pdf

  4. Sep 2016
    1. who will (and will not) control and define the learning process, who will (and will not) profit from the ways that learning processes are enacted, who will (and will not) have access to science and scholarship and the infrastructure necessary for creating it, who will (and will not) participate in the design of curriculum and assessment and learning spaces, who will (and will not) profit from the benefits of science and artistry, and who will (and will not) have opportunities to attend schools and colleges.

      Several (though not all) of these questions relate to the core sociological one: Who Decides? The list sounds, in part, like a call for deeper and more nuanced “stakeholders” thinking than the typical case study. The apparent focus (at least with parenthetical mentions of those excluded) is on the limits of inclusion. From this, we could already be thinking about community-building, especially in view of a strong Community of Practice.

  5. Jun 2016
    1. what the Waddington-Lewis example shows (among other things) is that merit, rather than being a quality that can be identified independently of professional or institutional conditions, is a product of those conditions; and, moreover, since those conditions are not stable but change con- tinually, the shape of what will be recognized as meritorious is always in the process of changing too. So that while it is true that as critics we write with the goal of living up to a standard (of worth, illumi- nation, etc.) it is a standard that had been made not in eternity by God or by Aristotle but in the profes- sion by the men and women who have preceded us; and in the act of trying to live up to it, we are also, and necessarily, refashioning

      merit is fashioned by communal practice

  6. Apr 2016
    1. choose to invite Hypothesis annotators by embedding our client.

      And even setting things up so that thoughtful commentary is specifically encouraged. The tool may be part of it but the key difference, in my own personal experience, is about the first few interactions. When @RemiHolden invites annotations to his blogposts about annotations, he does so in the context of a burgeoning community of practice around open annotations for pedagogy. Much closer to the climate science case and, interestingly, quite close to the very memos and Requests for Comments at the origin of the Internet.

  7. Dec 2015