in reply to Designing conversational learning environments with personal Webpublishing practices and technologies

Thanks for the link, I think I enjoy that topic.

I say "think" because I only got this far into it:

  1. Current methods of learning are bad mmkay.
  2. People are sheep.
  3. 8 paragraphs of redundant filler.
  4. We need a new approach.

I find it a little odd that a paper on the topic takes such a dry, academic approach. Of the people who read this node, I'd bet less than 5% clicked through, and not one of those people actually read the entire essay.

A summary of the article (in less redundant terms) would be of excellent use. Knowledge, no matter how insightful, is of very limited use if it cannot be transmitted efficiently. Props to the author for getting started on it though :)

  • Comment on Re: Designing conversational learning environments with personal Webpublishing practices and technologies

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Designing conversational learning environments with personal Webpublishing practices and technologies
by zby (Vicar) on Jul 12, 2003 at 21:42 UTC
    I thought I would do some summary after some thinking about it for some time - but now I realize I can't do it. It was too vague. Here are some thoughts I've extracted from it (when I write it now they seems quite obvious):
    1. learning is more fundamental then teaching, today's education is mostly about teaching, we need to explore learning more
    2. learning as conversational process (quite obvious model - feedback corrects our assumptions)
    3. webpublishing as a conversational tool (feedback from readers), externalization of the learning process gives feedback about the process, i.e. on the meta level
[reply]

      Thanks.

[reply]
Re: Re: Designing conversational learning environments with personal Webpublishing practices and technologies
by Anonymous Monk on Jul 12, 2003 at 12:12 UTC

    Thanks for taking the time to actually read through my stuff.

    The "dry, academic approach" of the paper is easily explained. If you want to engage in dialogue with your academic peers (and supervisors... in my case) via writing you normally try to use the code of your trade, don't you? Especially if you try to express some thoughts and concepts that deviate from the mainstream in particular ways. So... I guess it is all about purpose.

    I certainly agree that writing for a more diverse audience would require a different approach... and that there is still a lot of room for improvement in my English writing skills.

    I strongly disagree that any knowledge can be "transmitted" efficiently...

    A sort of summary of the article is available in form of a presentation that I did at the BlogTalk conference. (http://static.cognitivearchitects.com/gems/Seblogging/ConversationalLearningTool.ppt)

    I would also be happy to answer further questions or reply to your comments over at http://seblogging.cognitivearchitects.com/discuss/msgReader$964

    Greetings
    Sebastian

[reply]
      Thanks for taking the time to actually read through my stuff.

      Sorry, I can't read all of everything ever written. Sometimes I have to set priorities and evaluate essays before I read them in entirety.

      The "dry, academic approach" of the paper is easily explained.

      You'll have to forgive me here, I was never much of a fan of said approach in any context. Different target audiences I guess, but nevertheless I think it would have been made much more useful to this site's visitors if a summary in a different form had been provided (which is obviously not required from you, but rather from the poster).

      I strongly disagree that any knowledge can be "transmitted" efficiently...

      All depends on your definition of efficiency and the mode of transmission. I think we have plenty of room to improve :).

      Anyways, sorry if the first post sounded like a flame, it was meant to be constructive. Thanks for making the article and presentation available :)

[reply]

In Section Perl News