António Pedro presents us with two chapters: the Annotated Bibliography, and the Illustrated Annotated Bibliography. For me, this is a original idea to organize the AB. The chosen material, in the first “chapter”, includes 3 references: 2 articles and a very practical web page. In the Illustrated Annotated Bibliography, António Pedro presents a set of videos, cartoons, diagram, all produced like learning objects to explain the theory of cooperative freedom. He finishes both chapters with some personal notes, as conclusions.
António Pedro’s AB is clear, very well structured and easy to read.
A point for improvement would be the presentation format of the AB: maybe António Pedro could have always used the same font and colour font, in order to make it more “design friendly”. But it is just a detail!
sexta-feira, 26 de março de 2010
Unit 1 - LO review
When analysing our class LOs, I decided that for me, the most important criteria of evaluation was content and clarity in the idea transmission. Then, it would be on the how it was transmitted. I decided to comment on Paula Silva’s.
You can find it here: http://percursodeestudoseme-learning.blogspot.com/
Content criteria:
Paula’s LO describes the principles of the theory of cooperative freedom and, most important (for me :)), it details the theory with the practical techniques by witch the theory is placed into practice at NKI. This was the determinant criteria for selecting this LO. Besides explaining the theory of cooperative freedom, giving examples of how it can be placed into practice (in the case, at NKI), really helps to understand the principle.
How it was transmited criteria.
I really enjoyed the presentation with Prezi. (in fact, I really enjoyed knowing about this tool – thanks Mª João). This tool allows one to have a presentation based on a slide/canvas, through witch one can guide the attendees. One can say it is Power Point with different dynamic tools: the zoom tool (is it the correct name??). Through this tool, Paula guides us to the theories and examples “headlines”. Plus, I like the chosen colours.
For improvement, I would only suggest a view of the canvas as an all, in order to understand better the structure of the LO, and consequently, of the idea. This could be at the end of the LO.
You can find it here: http://percursodeestudoseme-learning.blogspot.com/
Content criteria:
Paula’s LO describes the principles of the theory of cooperative freedom and, most important (for me :)), it details the theory with the practical techniques by witch the theory is placed into practice at NKI. This was the determinant criteria for selecting this LO. Besides explaining the theory of cooperative freedom, giving examples of how it can be placed into practice (in the case, at NKI), really helps to understand the principle.
How it was transmited criteria.
I really enjoyed the presentation with Prezi. (in fact, I really enjoyed knowing about this tool – thanks Mª João). This tool allows one to have a presentation based on a slide/canvas, through witch one can guide the attendees. One can say it is Power Point with different dynamic tools: the zoom tool (is it the correct name??). Through this tool, Paula guides us to the theories and examples “headlines”. Plus, I like the chosen colours.
For improvement, I would only suggest a view of the canvas as an all, in order to understand better the structure of the LO, and consequently, of the idea. This could be at the end of the LO.
quinta-feira, 25 de março de 2010
In process...
... of responding to activity 3 of Unit 1 (peer LO and AB review), I start to understand the theory of cooperative freedom intrinsically: I'm learning a lot with analising and reflecting on my colleagues work. Nice...
quarta-feira, 17 de março de 2010
Learning Object on Cooperative Freedom
What about Cooperative Frredom? is the name of my first PPEL learning Object. Besides challenging and motivating, it was a great way to "fit" all the ideas about the theory of cooperative freedom into place.
domingo, 14 de março de 2010
Cooperative online education, by Morten Flate Paulsen
Paulsen, M. F. Cooperative Online Education. Seminar.net - International journal of media, technology and lifelong learning. Vol. N – Issue N – 20NN
In this article Morten Flate Paulsen illustrates the theory of cooperative freedom.
The author starts with some references, in order to clearly distinguish collaborative from cooperative work in distance learning context.
Professor Paulsen states that The Theory of Cooperative Freedom is based on the following three pillars: 1. Voluntary, but attractive participation; 2. Means promoting individual flexibility; 3. Means promoting affinity to learning community
Paulsen also connects transparency to cooperation, in an online educational context. Transparency promotes quality work, but should not be “used” indiscriminately.
Then, the author lists some social software and states the web 2.0 as cooperative learning facilitators. Some examples are wikis, blogs and bookmarkings. PLE’s (Personal learning environments) can surpass the role of LMS’s, once the first are better so serve students needs.
In order to illustrate the theory of Cooperative Freedom, Professor Morten Paulsen describes some of the investigation work about online cooperation he as been doing in NKI through 4 surveys about NKI’s services and tools. These services include, among others: students progress follow-up strategies (directed to teachers and to students) and the CLIP (Cooperative Learner Information Profile) strategy.
In this article Morten Flate Paulsen illustrates the theory of cooperative freedom.
The author starts with some references, in order to clearly distinguish collaborative from cooperative work in distance learning context.
Professor Paulsen states that The Theory of Cooperative Freedom is based on the following three pillars: 1. Voluntary, but attractive participation; 2. Means promoting individual flexibility; 3. Means promoting affinity to learning community
Paulsen also connects transparency to cooperation, in an online educational context. Transparency promotes quality work, but should not be “used” indiscriminately.
Then, the author lists some social software and states the web 2.0 as cooperative learning facilitators. Some examples are wikis, blogs and bookmarkings. PLE’s (Personal learning environments) can surpass the role of LMS’s, once the first are better so serve students needs.
In order to illustrate the theory of Cooperative Freedom, Professor Morten Paulsen describes some of the investigation work about online cooperation he as been doing in NKI through 4 surveys about NKI’s services and tools. These services include, among others: students progress follow-up strategies (directed to teachers and to students) and the CLIP (Cooperative Learner Information Profile) strategy.
quarta-feira, 10 de março de 2010
Interview with Prof. Morten Paulsen
Q & A with Ed Tech Leaders
Interview with Morten Flate Paulsen, by Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan M. Fulgham
In this entreview, Prof. Morten Falte Paulsen talks about some projects in witch he has/is envolved. Then Prof. Morten describes the main ideas of his Theory of Cooreative Freedom.
The Theory of Cooperative freedom states that, online students seek for freedom, flexibility and social unity, all together, which is most of the times difficult to combine.
For its comprehension, the following explanations are of great help:
Individual learning provides superior individual flexibility, but very limited affinity to a learning community. It has a strong position in online education delivered by institutions with a tradition in distance education.
Collaborative learning requires participation in a learning community, but limits individual flexibility. One may say that collaborative learning requires that students sink or swim together. Collaborative learning is common in online education offered by traditional face-to-face institutions.
Cooperative learning focuses on opportunities to encourage both individual flexibility and affinity to a learning community. Cooperative learning seeks to foster some benefits from individual freedom and other benefits from cooperation in online learning communities. It thrives in virtual learning environments that emphasize individual freedom within online learning communities.
Through out the interview, Professor Morten Paulsen answers to some of the biggest pedagogical challenges that online courses providers (institutions, teacher, designers, …) face wile trying to respond to online students needs:
We should urge students to take part in and build a learning community. But we should also respect students’ preferences and choices, if they prefer to study alone. Therefore, a cornerstone in cooperative learning is that cooperation should be voluntary, but also attractive, appealing, and alluring. It should be offered as an omnipresent opportunity to those who seek cooperation.
The challenge for educational networks is to include services that allow students to produce and refine content that contributes to learning and sharing of knowledge.
(…)
Interview with Morten Flate Paulsen, by Michael F. Shaughnessy and Susan M. Fulgham
In this entreview, Prof. Morten Falte Paulsen talks about some projects in witch he has/is envolved. Then Prof. Morten describes the main ideas of his Theory of Cooreative Freedom.
The Theory of Cooperative freedom states that, online students seek for freedom, flexibility and social unity, all together, which is most of the times difficult to combine.
For its comprehension, the following explanations are of great help:
Individual learning provides superior individual flexibility, but very limited affinity to a learning community. It has a strong position in online education delivered by institutions with a tradition in distance education.
Collaborative learning requires participation in a learning community, but limits individual flexibility. One may say that collaborative learning requires that students sink or swim together. Collaborative learning is common in online education offered by traditional face-to-face institutions.
Cooperative learning focuses on opportunities to encourage both individual flexibility and affinity to a learning community. Cooperative learning seeks to foster some benefits from individual freedom and other benefits from cooperation in online learning communities. It thrives in virtual learning environments that emphasize individual freedom within online learning communities.
Through out the interview, Professor Morten Paulsen answers to some of the biggest pedagogical challenges that online courses providers (institutions, teacher, designers, …) face wile trying to respond to online students needs:
We should urge students to take part in and build a learning community. But we should also respect students’ preferences and choices, if they prefer to study alone. Therefore, a cornerstone in cooperative learning is that cooperation should be voluntary, but also attractive, appealing, and alluring. It should be offered as an omnipresent opportunity to those who seek cooperation.
The challenge for educational networks is to include services that allow students to produce and refine content that contributes to learning and sharing of knowledge.
(…)
terça-feira, 9 de março de 2010
PPEL - Collaborative vs Cooperative Learning
Collaborative versus Cooperative Learning – a Comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning, by Ted Panitz.
In this article, the author proceeds with an extent review on both concepts - collaborative learning and cooperative learning – , distinguishing them both theoretically, and practically.
Panitz operacionalizes both terms, giving several practical examples of what can be considered a cooperative activity and a collaborative activity:
“In the cooperative model the teacher maintains complete control of the class, even though the students work in groups to accomplish a goal of a course. (…) The teacher provides additional articles for the students to read and analyze, beyond the text, and then asks the students to work in groups to answer the question. The groups then present their results to the whole class and discuss their reasoning. A follow up question may then be posed to the groups to analyze the United Nations to determine if this has been an effective organization to prevent world wars and to make recommendations on possible changes needed to make the UN more effective. The teacher might use specific structures, such as a Jig Saw model, to help facilitate the group interactions. He/she might require a specific product such as a term paper or report, class presentations, and an exam at the end of the topic. The students do the work necessary to consider the material being covered but the teacher maintains control of the process at each stage.
In this article, the author proceeds with an extent review on both concepts - collaborative learning and cooperative learning – , distinguishing them both theoretically, and practically.
Panitz operacionalizes both terms, giving several practical examples of what can be considered a cooperative activity and a collaborative activity:
“In the cooperative model the teacher maintains complete control of the class, even though the students work in groups to accomplish a goal of a course. (…) The teacher provides additional articles for the students to read and analyze, beyond the text, and then asks the students to work in groups to answer the question. The groups then present their results to the whole class and discuss their reasoning. A follow up question may then be posed to the groups to analyze the United Nations to determine if this has been an effective organization to prevent world wars and to make recommendations on possible changes needed to make the UN more effective. The teacher might use specific structures, such as a Jig Saw model, to help facilitate the group interactions. He/she might require a specific product such as a term paper or report, class presentations, and an exam at the end of the topic. The students do the work necessary to consider the material being covered but the teacher maintains control of the process at each stage.
In the collaborative model groups would assume almost total responsibility for answering the question. The students determine if they had enough information to answer the question. If not they identify other sources, such as journals, books, videos, the internet, to name a few. The work of obtaining the extra source material would be distributed among the group members by the group members. The group would decide how many reasons they could identify. The collaborative teacher would not specify a number, but would assess the progress of each group and provide suggestions about each group’s approach and the data generated. It might also occur to the students to list the reasons in order of priority. The teacher would be available for consultations and would facilitate the process by asking for frequent progress reports from the groups, facilitate group discussions about group dynamics, help with conflict resolution, etc. The final product is determined by each group, after consultation with the teacher. The means of assessment of the group’s performance would also be negotiated by each group with the teacher. Some groups might decide to analyze the UN, as the cooperative group was directed to do, or they might try to come up with a completely new organization. They might go back through history to determine how other periods of peace were created. The process is very open ended while it maintains a focus on the overall goal. The students develop a very strong ownership for the process and respond very positively to the fact that they are given almost complete responsibility to deal with the problem posed to them and they have significant input into their assessment.”
I believe this is a good starting point for the theme Cooperative freedom, once it helps clarify the difference between the concepts collaboration and cooperation.
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)
