Search results: 69

It seems as if Wave itself is going to end as a standalone tool; though some aspects are going to be included in other tools.

(We'd just started having some ideas for next academic year when it became part of Educational Apps ... glad that it didn't stop part way through the year!)

Rather than get all wordy Emma and I thought we would get visual for this seminar summary.

I grabbed a few of the Wordle images Emma posted at Picasa and posted them in a summary wiki. I also added a few links to Many Eyes visualizations of our discussion.

I thanked Emma personally but I'd like to also to thank her publicly for facilitating the Tools for Collaborating Online seminar. Thanks Emma! approve And thanks everyone for your participation! We appreciate all the time and energy everyone invested in making sense of the tools in order to talk about them.

(This might be a little confusing because a different Emma is facilitating the current seminar on Culturally Diverse Learners! See you there!)
I've been rather busy these last few weeks, but still intend to summarise at some point.
In the interim, I've used a combination of an export to Google Docs tool & Wordle to create Wordles of the discussions we've had in wave. They're in the relevant waves, or you can see them all at Picasa

I've asked Sylvia if there's a similar tool to allow me to dump complete discussions from Moodle into a document that I can then dump to Wordle.

Edited to add:
I've just tried with the RSS feed for the whole of this discussion, but I think that it's only showing the most recent x posts.

Emma Duke-Williams wrote:

... I intend to try to collate useful posts / URLs / etc to a single document.

So, what do you want to see in that document? (19 March 2010, 07:58 AM)

Thanks for doing this whole seminar, Emma, and thanks for asking what we'd like to see in a summation.

If there's one thing I'd like to see in that, it would be a synopsis of emerging or recurring visions of avenues and opportunities for collaboration.

Oops, that's four, isn't it;-)?

Cheers, Paul

The following search terms occur only in the HTML markup of this message: forumid:1841

It does now! Excellent suggestion, Paul. I got started with Diigo a couple years ago then abandoned it in favour of Delicious. I tried the group option back then for an online conference but it didn't fit our needs. But it looks like the group feature has really advanced since then! This could really be a big step forward in our efforts to create outcome resources for SCoPE seminars. approve

So... here's what I did this morning.
  1. Created Diigo group for SCoPE
  2. Used advanced search to find posts to this seminar that include links (searched on http://)
  3. Installed Diigo toolbar
  4. Bookmarked resources mentioned in this seminar (not all but got a start on it!)
  5. Part way through the process I had the idea to copy over the "show this post in context" link on the forum post where the resource is mentioned. That way we have context for why and where the resource was mentioned.
I can see how gathering our resources during our seminars could easily become a regular practice in SCoPE. And as Paul mentions, there are more possibilities: "collection, discussion, follow-up exploration, and collective annotation"

The Diigo toolbar is really well designed so it makes bookmarking during a seminar a snap. Thanks so much for the idea, Paul! I hope everyone will join the Diigo group and help to gather the resources that emerge during our participation in seminars.
Every time you encounter one of the juicy links that people pepper posts with here in the SCoPE Moodle, like the pointer to Clint's blog post about facilitating discussion through networked learning outside a closed discussion forum (,16 March 2010), don't you wonder whether setting up a SCoPE group in Diigo would facilitate collection, discussion, follow-up exploration, and collective annotation of those links?
Hey, Sylvia! Thanks for pointing out the upcoming Sloan Consortium seminar (Mar 31). Am I not mistaken in thinking that the three facilitators of that seminar intend to wrap it up in just 90 minutes? Maybe that explains in part why two out of three objectives for participants to achieve seem process rather than outcome oriented.

Participants will:
• Examine the top twelve Web 2.0 tools in Google Wave[;]
• Explore how Google Wave enables sound pedagogy through interaction and collaboration[; and]
• Learn how to incorporate Google Wave into teaching[.]
(Introduction to Google Wave in Education, Event Summary, ¶1).

The third sounds remarkably ambitious for 90 minutes, doesn't it?

I realize that the remarks above may regard pedagogy, more than tools (as do remarks below), but I'd just followed a link Sylvia had set in Google Wave leading back to Nick's post here in SCoPE, which suggests:

Having to reply is not constricting, it is a basic element of human dialogue to reply TO someone, and that is why so many of the tools we use are linear. Linear helps. (Tools for Collaborating Online: March 1-19, 2010; Tools; 5 March 2010, 05:48 PM)

So, since the Sloan seminar came up on this Tools thread, and to keep a long search for a better place to reflect on the objectives above short, I decided to reply here. I disagree with suggestions that discussions in either Moodle or Wave are linear. That is, beyond the typed output level on a finished (and timed out) post. Most discussion records are hierarchical threads (though in Moodle you can display them as a flat list [and in Wave maybe Sylvia has seen my typing;-)]).

However, I'm concerned that, in the absence of available options to start new threads, which Sandy assesses as, "Pretty constricting" Thursday, 4 March 2010, 05:33 PM), or to make new waves, which is hard to imagine; haphazard threading of posts may become the norm, especially in dis-engaged groups of learners whom educators coerce into participation in online forums, which harks back to my question for Emma about VLEs (15 March 2010, 10:15 PM).

I'd like to close this post with a crumb of food for thought: If learners feel confined, constricted, or coerced online, what does that say about tools we choose for them to use, and the environments in which we expect them to interact with those tools and collaborate with one another?

First off, I'd like to note that Ordnance Survey maps sound remarkably similar to USGS topological maps for the US, the basis for maps you can load onto hand-held GPS devices often used for back-country or wilderness travel. However, you still need to be able to read such maps to get around. The ones in cars orient themselves, and read to you; some in Japan even show three dimensional views of city buildings and streets, overlaid with bright arrow paths indicating which lane to be in and where to turn!

Next, I'd like to marvel at a resonance I'm picking up between what Nick says about handwriting and mapping styles (17 March 2010, 05:55 PM), and what Emma reminds us with regard to boilerplate-style application of learning styles (18 March 2010, 08:14 AM) to accommodate a variety of, and variations in, learners' preferences.

As a case in point, a colleague sent me back two maps that I'd prepared on related perspectives of a joint project, at different times, with the same mapping tools (IHMC Cmaps), and suggested that visible differences in the mapping styles deserved further exploration.