10 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2019
  2. Nov 2018
    1. Instructional Design Strategies for Intensive Online Courses: An Objectivist-Constructivist Blended Approach

      This was an excellent article Chen (2007) in defining and laying out how a blended learning approach of objectivist and constructivist instructional strategies work well in online instruction and the use of an actual online course as a study example.

      RATING: 4/5 (rating based upon a score system 1 to 5, 1= lowest 5=highest in terms of content, veracity, easiness of use etc.)

    1. Distance Education Trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration

      This article explores the interaction of student based learner-centered used of technology tools such as wikis, blogs and podcasts as new and emerging technology tools. With distance learning programs becoming more and more popular, software applications such as Writeboard, InstaCol and Imeem may become less of the software of choice. The article looks closely at the influence of technology and outcomes.

      RATING: 4/5 (rating based upon a score system 1 to 5, 1= lowest 5=highest in terms of content, veracity, easiness of use etc.)

  3. Sep 2018
    1. Not only is the notion that OER-sustainability is the responsibility of the end-user pragmatically unnecessary, it also places barriers to adoption that will inhibit rather than encourage future use.

      This is certainly true. It reminds me of the early historical growth of the Catholic church. Paul of Tarses came in and relaxed the dietary restrictions and the need for circumcision which effectively lowered the barrier for entry into the church. One needn't be a Jew to be a follower of Jesus; this helped early growth tremendously.

  4. Jul 2018
  5. Jan 2018
  6. Jan 2014
    1. Less than half (45%) of the respondents are satisfied with their ability to integrate data from disparate sources to address research questions

      The most important take-away I see in this whole section on reasons for not making data electronically available is not mentioned here directly!

      Here are the raw numbers for I am satisfied with my ability to integrate data from disparate sources to address research questions:

      • 156 (12.2%) Agree Strongly
      • 419 (32.7%) Agree Somewhat
      • 363 (28.3%) Neither Agree nor Disagree
      • 275 (21.5%) Disagree Somewhat
      • 069 (05.4%) Disagree Strongly

      Of the people who are not satisfied in some way, how many of those think current data sharing mechanisms are sufficient for their needs?

      Of the ~5% of people who are strongly dissatisfied, how many of those are willing to spend time, energy, and money on new sharing mechanisms, especially ones that are not yet proven? If they are willing to do so, then what measurable result or impact will the new mechanism have over the status quo?

      Who feel that current sharing mechanisms stand in the way of publications, tenure, promotion, or being cited?

      Of those who are dissatisfied, how many have existing investment in infrastructure versus those who are new and will be investing versus those who cannot invest in old or new?

      10 years ago how would you have convinced someone they need an iPad or Android smartphone?

    2. Policies and procedures sometimes serve as an active rather than passive barrier to data sharing. Campbell et al. (2003) reported that government agencies often have strict policies about secrecy for some publicly funded research. In a survey of 79 technology transfer officers in American universities, 93% reported that their institution had a formal policy that required researchers to file an invention disclosure before seeking to commercialize research results. About one-half of the participants reported institutional policies that prohibited the dissemination of biomaterials without a material transfer agreement, which have become so complex and demanding that they inhibit sharing [15].

      Policies and procedures are barriers, but there are many more barriers beyond that which get in the way first.

    1. Journals and sponsors want you to share your data

      What is the sharing standard? What are the consequences of not sharing? What is the enforcement mechanism?

      There are three primary sharing mechanisms I can think of today: email, usb stick, and dropbox (née ftp).

      The dropbox option is supplanting ftp which comes from another era, but still satisfies an important niche for larger data sets and/or higher-volume or anonymous traffic.

      Dropbox, email and usb are all easily accessible parts of the day-to-day consumer workflow; they are all trivial to set up without institutional support or, importantly, permission.

      An email account is already provisioned by default for everyone or, if the institutional email offerings are not sufficient, a person may easily set up a 3rd-party email account with no permission or hassle.

      Data management alternatives to these three options will have slow or no adoption until the barriers to access and use are as low as email; the cost of entry needs to be no more than *a web browser, an email address, and no special permission required".

    1. This suggests that peer production will thrive where projects have three characteristi cs

      If thriving is a metric (is it measurable? too subjective?) of success then the 3 characteristics it must have are:

      • modularity: divisible into components
      • granularity: fine-grained modularity
      • integrability: low-cost integration of contributions

      I don't dispute that these characteristics are needed, but they are too general to be helpful, so I propose that we look at these three characteristics through the lens of the type of contributor we are seeking to motivate.

      How do these characteristics inform what we should focus on to remove barriers to collaboration for each of these contributor-types?

      Below I've made up a rough list of lenses. Maybe you have links or references that have already made these classifications better than I have... if so, share them!

      Roughly here are the classifications of the types of relationships to open source projects that I commonly see:

      • core developers: either hired by a company, foundation, or some entity to work on the project. These people care most about integrability.

      • ecosystem contributors: someone either self-motivated or who receives a reward via some mechanism outside the institution that funds the core developers (e.g. reputation, portfolio for future job prospects, tools and platforms that support a consulting business, etc). These people care most about modularity.

      • feature-driven contributors: The project is useful out-of-the-box for these people and rather than build their own tool from scratch they see that it is possible for the tool to work they way they want by merely contributing code or at least a feature-request based on their idea. These people care most about granularity.

      The above lenses fit the characteristics outlined in the article, but below are other contributor-types that don't directly care about these characteristics.

      • the funder: a company, foundation, crowd, or some other funding body that directly funds the core developers to work on the project for hire.

      • consumer contributors: This class of people might not even be aware that they are contributors, but simply using the project returns direct benefits through logs and other instrumented uses of the tool to generate data that can be used to improve the project.

      • knowledge-driven contributors: These contributors are most likely closest to the ecosystem contributors, maybe even a sub-species of those, that contribute to documentation and learning the system; they may be less-skilled at coding, but still serve a valuable part of the community even if they are not committing to the core code base.

      • failure-driven contributors: A primary source of bug reports and may also be any one of the other lenses.

      What other lenses might be useful to look through? What characteristics are we missing? How can we reduce barriers to contribution for each of these contributor types?

      I feel that there are plenty of motivations... but what barriers exist and what motivations are sufficient for enough people to be willing to surmount those barriers? I think it may be easier to focus on the barriers to make contributing less painful for the already-convinced, than to think about the motivators for those needing to be convinced-- I think the consumer contributors are some of the very best suited to convince the unconvinced; our job should be to remove the barriers for people at each stage of community we are trying to build.

      A note to the awesome folks at Hypothes.is who are reading our consumer contributions... given the current state of the hypothes.is project, what class of contributors are you most in need of?