Talk:PCF4 Innovation/Archive
- Hi Paul - can you give us a few guidelines, for example:
- Purpose of the paper
- How it will be used
- Description of the target audience
- Scope/length of the paper
Post your thoughts directly under the purpose heading of the paper. Thanks --Mackiwg 13:41, 2 April 2006 (CEST)
- Paul another thought - you've suggested a number of innovative examples - eg learning the alphabet using computers without the help of teachers - I assume that this is the hole in the wall initiative - It would be good to reference the example with a website or footnote if available. --210.86.47.232 02:53, 3 April 2006 (CEST)
Olabisi - Initial reflections
Hello All Just a few initial thoughts on Paul's paper. Yes, I agree with Tony Bates - technology really drives change. We probably should be careful that it does not lead us into an interpretation of leaner-centredness as mainly/only convenience for the learner. Even though education has over the years been a major user of the new technologies of whatever period, it has not really been able to take advantage of its dominance in the market place to influence new directions in development and use of the technologies. The latest technologies seem to be taking education in very opposing directions. On the one hand, there is the web-based asynchronous interactive tools that are designed to encourage reflection and higher order thinking. Then there are the iPods that are geared towards the didactic stuff. There seems to be a push towards downloading and recording for playback. A colleague pointed me to this website about Podcasting: http://edmarketing.apple.com/adcinstitute/wp-content/Missouri_Podcasting_White_Paper.pdf Olabisi P.S. Paul, while the web page is about me, I really cannot use it. Unfortunately however, I dont have a personal one, yet.
Hi Olabisi - Good points -
We must not under estimate the potential of iPods - and we're moving into the next phase of Vodcasts! - the signifance of this stuff is 2 fold, I think:
- A 60gig portable device that is cable of delivering rich multimedia content - while still unaffordable for the majority of folk in developing societies - they are noneless cheaper than computers - so maybe through smart sharing of resources these portable devices can make a difference
- The ability to use aspects of the semantic web (eg RSS & Attom feeds.) This means that information can come to the user rather than the user getting lost in the sea of information on the web.
That said you've made an important point that the technology doesn't determine quality of the learning resource. More importantly, its the quality of the learning design that the technology implements. Also your post has reminded me of another innovative project from Finland in collaboration with Africa - namely the MobileEd project which is exploring the use of mobile phones in conjunction with Wikipedia - its very impressive - see: http://mobiled.uiah.fi/?page_id=3 . We should include links to these projects as examples in the innovation paper.
Finally - shouldn't we mention the $100 wind-up portable computer somewhere in the paper? Cheers --Mackiwg 08:18, 4 April 2006 (CEST)
Thanks Wayne for the link to Mobiled. It really looks impressive. What it suggests to me is that when you are able to integrate the technologies effectively and use each appropriately then there can be real benefits. I must really look at it in more detail later. One question - should we be paying attention to the issue of convergence of services provided and how that may impact educational provision? The thought came to me listening to a BBC business news item earlier tonight, where they were reporting that Richard Branson (Virgin Atlantic) was selling off his TV network (I think) to some other company and that meant that mobile, TV, cable, internet services were now being provided from a single source. Should we be taking that into consideration and start thinking how we can use that to the advatage of education? Olabisi
Hi Olabisi - Yeah I think convergence is at the root of innovation for education. You're right we need to have a core sub-heading around convergence.
Its not only the convergence between telecoms, computing and what were learning about learning (the notion of knowledge media) - but also the convegence of communication modalites in a single medium. For example the Web is not only a medium for content, it is also a medium for asynchronous communication where the content of the comunication can become content for future interactions. mmmmm this is an important point. Thanks for that. --Mackiwg 12:21, 7 April 2006 (CEST)
OK - I've tried to work in much of what you have said online and the comments I've received offline. Please run through it and make further edits as you see fit.
Thanks Paul
---
Managing Innovation
Hello everyone First a procedural note. I intended to continue the same thread but somehow I have ended up (apparently) starting one. That's because I seem to have 'forgotten' how to contiue a thread. My last posting was not clearly delineated from the preceding one and I dont know how that happened. Anyway, I'll work it out... In any event, I want to make a slight shift to more organisational matters, to look at factors that can impact the success or failure of an innovation. The terms 'champion' and 'early adopters' are frequently mentioned as necessary factors for the success of an innovation. But is there anything else? Even as I am writing this, I am trying to think of our situation in UWIDEC to see what are the factors working for and/or against our efforts. Certainly, there is also the issue of getting the bottom-up vis-a-vis top-down relationship right. Will think about all this some more ahead of my next visit. Olabisi
Hi - don't worry about starting new "threads" were in fact using wiki technology as a discussion forum tool (which relates to your earlier point about convergence <smile>. It seems to me that if we create a new heading, we've got a new thread. We'll need to think about organisation issues (I'm personally not a great fan of Moore's technology adoption cycles re "early adopters', "early majority" but that just a personal preference) - But we do need to think carefully about organisational issues - in fact most of the organisations I've worked for, have constrained innovation <smile>. Bureacracy is not necessarily a good organistional form for innovation. Ironically industry understands the benefits and costs of innovation. They will invest in high-risk pilots knowing in advance that many will fail. The hit-rate for success is about 2 in every 7 attempts. This issue is that these companies understand that it pays to have 5 "failures" because without them you would not have found the two successes. So I guess I'm saying that in Education we don't understand the advantages of risk-taking <smile>. --Mackiwg 12:30, 7 April 2006 (CEST)
- [View source↑]
- [History↑]
