45 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2019
    1. Supporting Personalised Learning Frequently mentioned throughout the interviews was the goal of allowing learners to explore their personal interests, culture and social context through assessment. Several participants sought to design assessment that allowed learners to tap into these aspects of their personal lives. Where learners could exercise choice and pursue projects of personal interest, a greater sense of ownership was observed. James commented that “they love the idea that they are in control of what they do”, when given more choice around assessment. Other participants suggested it was possible to have learners working on projects that could benefit their personal lives or professional trajectories as part of formal coursework. In her final assignment, Olivia provides the learners “absolute free reign in terms of what kind of a thing they produced.” Learners use their creative interests to develop resources for the course, as Olivia reflects “some opted for essays still, but other students created digital timelines, infographics, podcasts, comic books, videos.” Personalisation of assessment was suggested to allow learners to represent and situate themselves authentically and creatively through their work.

      Giving learners more autonomy in their learning is a great pedagogical principle, and in the context of the article focusing on learning design, I can see how this fits with "open" as it does require that the course design needs to be more "open" as in flexible to allow for this kind of learner autonomy. There is overlap here between authentic learning and open pedagogy.

  2. Apr 2019
    1. Two commonly used change strategies are clearly not effective: developing and testing “best practice” curricular materials and then making these materials available to other faculty and “top‐down” policy‐making meant to influence instructional practices.

      Would this be predicted by the Cynefin framework? Teaching problems are rarely obvious enough for "best" practices; "better" practices may be the best we can hope for.

  3. Mar 2019
    1. teachthought This particular page is entitled '20 simple assessment strategies you can use every day' but the reason it is listed here is because the page itself serves as a jumping off point for reviewing or learning about many educational theories and principles. This site may have been designed for K-12 teachers - I am not sure, but it is quite usable for those who teach adults. This is a place to come if you are interested in browsing - not if you have a specific thing you need at the moment. Rating 3/5

  4. Feb 2019
  5. Jan 2019
    1. onstrains and enables

      Is discourse seen as enforcing "hard" or "soft" boundaries? A hard boundary might be something outside of which all sense is lost, like "stars function mustard." A soft boundary might be something forbidden by custom, decorum, etc., like complaining about your spouse to a person who very recently lost their spouse in an accident.

    2. summary,

      super helpful summary. Commenting just to tag it.

    1. Inevitably, what I find reaffirms aspects of writing pedagogy I’m familiar with while giving me fresh ways to express it to the new audiences with whom I’m working.

      Teaching writing in STEM disciplines is beneficial for the students and the teacher.

  6. Nov 2018
    1. The paradox of resistance: critique, neoliberalism, and the limits of performativity

      I found this post from Sherri Spelic's post, "A Convention In My Mind.

    2. Relatedly, given the level of agreement among academics about the general direction of these changes, engagement with developing long-term, sustainable alternatives to exploitative modes of knowledge production has been surprisingly scattered.

      Alternative practices to exploitative knowledge production have not kept up with critiques.

  7. Sep 2018
    1. Unit 5 (Adding new article) Values and Practices and the Benefits (and challenges) Joung, Kyoung Hee, and Jennifer Rowley. “Scholarly Communication and Open Access: Perspectives from Korea.” Learned Publishing 30.4 (2017): 259–267. Web. This detailed article is a fantastic introduction to the South Korean scholarly publishing industry and its gradual shift to a Creative Commons licensed open access. Joung and Rowley describe a distinct tradition of scholarly publishing in Korea, most of which is in the not-for-profit sphere. While most Korean published journals make their articles freely available upon publication either at journal or society Web sites or at one of the vigorous government or research institute supported open repositories, the articles have not been technically open access in the sense that they can be shared and reused. Authors have as a rule retained control of their copyrights although this is changing as more authors seek to publish in prestigious international for-profit journals. The Korean government is committed to raising the profile of Korean research and development and it seeks to do this through CC licensed open access. The medical repository KoreaMed Synapse requires all journals in its repository to be open access with CC licensing. Similarly, OAK, the repository managed by the National Library of Korea, requires all papers deposited to be CC licensed. This tends to be true for the major national repositories. Joung and Rowley describe the different journal models and the ways in which they are moving to a sustainable CC OA.

  8. Aug 2018
    1. Numerous studies have suggested an association  between exclusionary discipline  practices and an array of serious educational, economic and social problems, including school avoidance and diminished educational engagement; decreased academic achievement; increased behavior problems; increased likelihood of dropping out; substance abuse; and involvement with juvenile justice systems. All of these problems are costly to the victims and to our society. They drive up the public costs associated with the aftermath of violence, substance abuse counseling, unemployment or underemployment, policing and the justice system, and much, much more.
  9. Jul 2018
    1. When we meet up, it’s not like, here’s my proprietary curriculum that you guys can buy from me. We’re realizing that we’ll all do better if we share parts of what we do, rather than trying hold on to these little pieces and sell it or charge for it. There’s other ways that us working together can help us find funding in other places and stay alive, and also be more relevant to the young people that we work with, which is really important.
  10. Jan 2018
    1. The frequent assessment of the use of standardized leading practices and processes

      How can I monitor and evaluate the use of our project management processes and practices for better project performance?

  11. Nov 2017
    1. This is certainly how the debate about licensing has played out.

      In fact, Rory McGreal adamantly argues that CC-BY-NC material is too restrictive to be called “OER”. We had a short exchange about this. In Quebec’s Cégep system, NC was the rule for reasons which are probably easy to understand. So the focus is on licenses, in this scene, not on practices. Hence the whole thing about Open Textbooks. Often made me wonder if any of these people had compared textbook-based teaching to any of the other modalities. In my teaching, textbooks are a problem, even when they’re open. Sure, some of those problems can be solved when you have access to the code and can produce your own textbook from that. That’s the typical solution offered in the GitHub sphere:

      Just Fork It!

      But the core problem remains: if you’re teaching with a textbook, you may not really be building knowledge with learners.

      (Should probably move this here.)

  12. Jul 2017
    1. (It's usually a mistake to pass back the concrete type of an error rather than error, for reasons discussed in the Go FAQ, but it's the right thing to do here because ServeHTTP is the only place that sees the value and uses its contents.)

      Good clarifying comment on when to pass back the concrete type of an error.

  13. May 2017
    1. group discussion

      Link to Lewis et al (2006) Lesson Study, Afflerbach et al (2008) modeling and explaining

  14. Jan 2017
    1. Component classes should be lean. They don't fetch data from the server, validate user input, or log directly to the console. They delegate such tasks to services.

      A really good point! Lean-ness is something to strive for.

  15. Oct 2016
  16. Jul 2016
    1. Page 6

      Computer-assisted research in the humanities, by contrast to the Cartesian story and traditional humanities practices, has almost always been collaborative. This is due to the variety of skills needed to implement digital humanities projects. It is also linked to the relationship between the practices of interpretation in the development of the tools of interpretation, be the tools for analyzing text or digital editions. Anyone who has used tools forged by another person is in collaboration, even if one isn't personally influencing the provider of the tools. The need to collaborate, though acknowledged in various ways, has been a professional hindrance, as anyone who submits a curriculum vitae for promotion listing nothing but co-authored papers knows.

    1. Page 223

      This is Borgman discussing the role of priority in the humanities

      cultural and historical events can be reinterpreted repeatedly. Prizes are based on the best interpretation rather than on the first claim to a finding.

    2. Page 219

      Humanities scholars integrate and aggregate data from many sources. They need tools and services to analyze digital data, as others do the sciences and social sciences, but also tools that assist them interpretation and contemplation.

    3. Page 215

      Borgman discussing the half-life of citations and humanities :

      while the half-life of literature is considered to be the longest in humanities, the large comparative study discussed earlier found the shortest citation age of an average article in humanities…. [another study] also found that the usage of history articles was much more concentrated in recent publications and was the usage of articles in economics or mathematics (the three fields studied). A close inspection revealed that the use of history articles was widely scattered across countries, without the clustering around classic articles from the other two fields. Although history can be considered within the humanities or the social sciences, comparisons between these findings do reinforce others conclusions that humanists’ may read current journal articles to keep up with their fields, but rely more heavily for their research on sources not covered by journal indexes. The findings also amplify concerns about the validity of citation studies of journal literature in humanities, given the reliance on monographic and archival sources. In sum, the humanities draw on the longest literature time span of any of the disciplines, and yet have the least amount of their scholarly literature online. So far, they are the discipline most poorly served by the publications component of the content later.

    4. Page 214

      Literature in the Humanities goes out-of-print long before it goes out of date, so efforts to make older, out-of-copyright books available greatly benefit these fields.

    5. Page 214

      Borgman notes that the bibliographic coverage of journal literature is shallow in the humanities. The ISI Arts and humanity citation Index only goes back to 1975. In Sciences it goes back to 1900. In the social sciences it goes back to 1956. Also SCOPUS does not include the humanities.

      What is interesting about this is that the humanities are the least cumulative of all the disciplines in the sense that they do not build on previous knowledge so much as we examine previous thought.

    6. Page 203

      Citation age of an average article is longest in the social sciences.

  17. Jun 2016
  18. screen.oxfordjournals.org screen.oxfordjournals.org
    1. ficially,then, the initiation of discursive practices appears similar to thefounding of any scientific endeavour, but I believe there is a funda-/ mental difference

      How initiators of discursive practices are different from founders of scientific schools or disciplines.

    2. other hand, Marx and Freud, as'initiators of discursive practices', not only made possible a certainnumber of analogies that could be adopted by future texts, but,as importantly, they also made possible a certain number of dif-ferences. They cleared a space for the introduction of elementsother than their own, which, nevertheless, remain within the fieldof discourse they initiated. In saying that Freud founded psycho-analysis, we do not simply mean that the concept of libido or thetechniques of dream analysis reappear in the writings of KarlAbraham or Melanie Klein, but that he made possible a certainnumber of differences with respect to his books, concepts, andhypotheses, which all arise out of psychoanalytic discourse.

      How Freud and Marx shift the paradigm: "not only made possible a certain number of analogies that could be adopted by future texts, but, as importantly, they also made possible a certain number of differences."

      I don't find the "differences" part convincingly expressed, but I think he means that they created domain-boundaries: not just, "here's the id, you can use it" but also "hey, we can analyse dreams."

    3. The distinctive contribution of these authors is that they pro-duced not only their own work, but the possibility and the rulesof formation of other texts. In this sense, their role differs entirelyfrom that of a novelist, for example, who is basically never morethan the author of his own text. Freud is not simply the author ofThe Interpretation of Dreams or of Wit and its Relation to theUnconscious and Marx is not simply the author of the CommunistManifesto or Capital: they both established the endless possibilityof discourse. Obviously, an easy objection can be made. The authorof a novel may be responsible for more than his own text; if heacquires some 'importance' in the literary world, his influence canhave significant ramifications. To take a very simple example, onecould say that Ann Radcliffe did not simply write The Mysteriesof Udolpho and a few other novels, but also made possible theappearance of Gothic Romances at the beginning of the nine-teenth century. To this extent, her function as an author exceedsthe limits of her work. However, this objection can be answeredby the fact that the possibilities disclosed by the initiators of dis-cursive practices (using the examples of Marx and Freud, whomI believe to be the first and the most important) are significantlydifferent from those suggested by novelists. The novels of AnnRadcliffe put into circulation a certain number of resemblances andanalogies patterned on her work - various characteristic signs,figures, relationships, and structures that could be integrated intoother books. In short, to say that Ann Radcliffe created the GothicRomance means that there are certain elements common to herworks and to the nineteenth-century Gothic romance: the heroineruined by her own innocence, the secret fortress that functions as

      Really useful passage to compare to Kuhn. This is basically an argument about paradigm shifters and normal science as applied to literature.

    4. I believe that the nineteenth century in Europe produced asingular type of author who should not be confused with 'great'literary authors, or the authors of canonical religious texts, andthe founders of sciences. Somewhat arbitrarily, we might call them'initiators of discursive practices'.

      Has another category: people like Marx and Freud (and I'd say Darwin) who constructed theories that are productive in other works as well. These are "initiators or discursive practices."

      This ties in well with Kuhn's paradigms.

    5. alue of a text by ascertaining the holiness of its author. In

      prove the value of a text by asserting the holiness of its author.

      This is ironically what T&P committees do.

    1. ights (1, 3, 5) are summed to(a) estimate each individual’s overall contribution, whichcan range from 1–35 (735 being the maximum possiblescore), and (b) determine the sequence in which coauthors’names are listed on the resultant publication.

      Insanely detailed matrix: function by contribution level

    2. To date, more than 500 journals have adopted theICMJE’s (1997) principles of authorship as laid out in the5th edition of theUniform Requirements for ManuscriptsSubmitted to Biomedical Journals(Klein, 1999; Stern,2000). According to these concrete guidelines, candidateauthors must satisfy three conditions. They must make:“. . . substantial contributions to (a) conception and design,or analysis and interpretation of data; and to (b) drafting thearticle or revising it critically for important intellectualcontent; and on (c) final approval of the version to bepublished.” Laudable though these guidelines are, it is un-likely that they will solve the problem. A study by Hoen etal. (1998) in the Netherlands found that authors and theircoauthors did not always agree with one another’s assess-ments that the ICMJE criteria had been met. In the UK,Bhopal et al.’s (1997) survey of medical researchers dis-covered that, although most respondents concurred with thethree criteria (more than 80% in each case), a majority(62%) did not feel that all three conditions should have to besatisfied to warrant author status. F

      problems with the ICMJE's author definition

    3. Rennie, Yank, andEmanuel (1997) that the distinction between the two modesof credit allocation is inherently artificial. Consequently,they have argued for explicit description of all individualcontributions as a means of eliminating ambiguity. Such aproposal would remove both authorship and acknowledg-ment from the frame, a really quite significant break withscholarly publishing tradition. This alternative amounts to aradical model of authorship attribution in contrast to thestandard model

      Rennie, Yank, and Emanuel 1997 argue that acknowledgements and authorship can't be disentangled.

    4. The explosion of coauthorship naturally raises the ques-tion why authorial surplus could not be accommodated inthe acknowledgment sections that accompany the great ma-jority of scientific articles.

      Why can't explosion of coauthors be contained in acknowledgements?

      [[because "authorship" (in the sense of writing) is simply not important enough to be an above the fold thing

    5. eceiving credit under false pretenses,are cause for grave concern (Anderson, 1991).

      on receiving credit under false pretences

    6. Under the standard model, the rights and responsibilitiesof authorship are clearly apprehended by all parties: authors,editors, referees, and readers. In appending my name to thisarticle I am nailing my colors to mast; if the article attractscritical approval, is discussed, quoted, and, in due course,cited in the scholarly literature, I shall be happy to bank thesymbolic capital which accrues to me as author and origi-nator. If the paper is challenged because of exiguity oftheoretical, historical, or empirical heft, I shall simply haveto face the music: there are no coauthors to help deflectcriticism. Likewise, if I am challenged for drawing toosparingly, selectively, or generously on the ideas and workof others, I understand the possible consequences. However,I have chosen not to hide behind the cloak of anonymity, orbypass the rigors of peer review by posting a version of thispaper on my Web site; rather, I want to publicize my ideasamong my peers, and the best way to do that, and signify mytrustworthiness, is to pursue publication in an accreditedforum. As a serial author, I am fully cognizant of the rightsand responsibilities of authorship. I understand the norms ofscholarly publishing, and I am aware of the sanctions thatmay be invoked if infractions occur. Should the argumentsin this paper prove flawed, no one but myself is to blame,and that includes those whom I have named in the acknowl-edgments section. If the paper attracts attention, I shall behappy to bask in the glow.

      Great discussion of why scientists/scholars author and what they accept and risk as a result

    7. n the realm of periodical publications,the sovereignty of the standard model is being most hotlycontested in biomedical research fields, where intense levelsof professional collaboration and coauthorship are common-place (Croll, 1984; Rennie & Flanagin, 1994; Rennie, Yank,& Emanuel, 1997; Rennie & Yank, 1998; King, 2000).Proposals for reform, which seek to retire the concept ofauthorship and replace it with a scheme for the allocation ofspecific, task- or job-related credits (e.g., Squires, 1996;Smith, 1997) are not only being debated by editors andothers, but are being adopted by leading scientific journal

      On how credit and authorship is being debated in medical publishing (with bibliography)

    8. ncidentally, parallel,though not quite so dramatic, growth has been observed inthe number of individuals being formally acknowledged inscholarly journals for their multifarious contributions: whathas become known as subauthorship collaboration (Patel,1973; Heffner, 1979, 1981; Cronin, 1995, Cronin,2001)—an important, if underappreciated, indicator of in-formal scientific collaboration

      on underappreciated nature of acknowledgements

    9. s Rennie and Flanagin(1994) remind us, there is no standard method for determin-ing order, nor any universalistic criteria for conferring au-thorship status:

      bibliography on authorship practices

    10. lphabetization through weightedlisting to reverse seniority (e.g., Spiegel & Keith-Spiegel,1970; Riesenberg & Lundberg, 1990).

      bibliography on authorship ranking and practices

  19. Feb 2014
    1. For example, imagine you are annotating the second page of a New York Times article. You probably want to see your annotation when you are looking at the article later as a single page, right? Or perhaps you've annotated the HTML for a PLOS ONE article. Wouldn't you like to see those annotations when you are looking at the PDF version of the same article? If annotations were only associated with the URL you happened to be looking at in your browser then the scenarios above would not work, because the documents being annotated all have different URLs.

      Publisher Best Practices is a great idea that I would like to see codified in the authoring and publishing tools to make the practices commonplace by default.

      I would like to mix PBP with other techniques, though, for richer connection between source and rendering-- I have some source mapping ideas that make it possible to keep annotations linked even as the original source is edited over time.

  20. Jan 2014
    1. This primer describes a few fundamental data management practices that will enable you to develop a data management plan, as well as how to effectively create, organize, manage, describe, preserve and share data

      Data management practices:

      • create
      • organize
      • manage
      • describe
      • preserve
      • share
    1. data practices of researchers – data accessibility, discovery, re-use, preservation and, particularly, data sharing
      • data accessibility
      • discovery
      • re-use
      • preservation
      • data sharing