15 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2019
    1. Factors influencing engagement in informal learning activities This article describes features that encourage informal learning among teachers. Those are: initiative, self-efficacy, love of learning, interest in the profession, commitment to professional development, a nurturing personality, and an interesting personality. One noteworthy feature is that the factors they refer to are personal in nature. This article does appear to fill a unique niche among the collection that I have found so far. rating 5/5

  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. What is so important about being a human being in the traditional way that Huxley defines it? After all, what the human race is today is the product of an evolutionary process that has been going on for millions of years, one that with any luck will continue well into the future. There are no fixed human characteristics, except for a general capability to choose what we want to be, to modify ourselves in accordance with our desires. So who is to tell us that being human and having dignity means sticking with a set of emotional responses that are the accidental byproduct of our evolutionary history? There is no such thing as a biological family, no such thing as human nature or a “normal” human being, and even if there were, why should that be a guide for what is right and just?

      I think is so important way to have human being characteristics. For example, as the writer said every human being is unique, their race, personality, the way that human react. All of these characteristic is a way to define the difference between every human.

  4. Nov 2017
    1. important ScrumMaster characteristics.

      One must be (among others):

      • Knowledgeable
      • Questioning
      • Patient
      • Collaborative
      • Protective
      • Transparent
  5. Aug 2016
  6. Jun 2016
  7. screen.oxfordjournals.org screen.oxfordjournals.org
    1. author-function' is tiedto the legal and institutional systems that circumscribe, determine,and articulate the realm of discourses; it does not operate in auniform manner in all discourses, at all times, and in any givenculture; it is not defined by the spontaneous attribution of a textto its creator, but through a series of precise and complex pro-cedures; it does not refer, purely and simply, to an actual individualinsofar as it simultaneously gives rise to a variety of egos and to aseries of subjective positions that individuals of any class may

      Four characteristics of the "author-function":

      1. "the 'author-function' is tied to the legal and institutional systems that circumscribe, determine,and articulate the realm of discourses;"
      2. "it does not operate in a uniform manner in all discourses, at all times, and in any given culture";
      3. "it is not defined by the spontaneous attribution of a text to its creator, but through a series of precise and complex procedures";
      4. it does not refer, purely and simply, to an actual individual in so far as it simultaneously gives rise to a variety of egos and to aseries of subjective positions that individuals of any class may come to occupy"
  8. Dec 2015
    1. For them, attachments to abundant heat are indeliblyingrained across their skins, tastes and perceptions

      Do you think it's possible for them to re-adapt to lower temperatures and acquire a new set of preferences for different climate characteristics?

    2. An inquiry into the senses directs us beyondthe faculties of a subject to the transfers, exchanges and attachments that hinge abody to its environment’

      Are these attachments made by adaptation to what's initially provided? or are they being developed as the subject is creating their built environment?

  9. Sep 2015
    1. Architects continue to be fascinated with finding and describing parallels between symbolic structures and architectural forms.

      As mentioned by someone else in a previous comment, the red archway on Whittier College's campus is supposedly a "symbolic structure" and its architectural characteristics offer an interesting representation of something that looks flexible, but is in fact extremely rigid. What could be relatable to this?

  10. Jan 2014
    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?

    1. High performing teams have well-defined goals, systems of accountability, clear roles and responsibilities, and open communication.

      I feel these are good defining characteristics of high-performing teams.