Det verkar som att det b\u00c3\u00b6rjar r\u00c3\u00b6ra p\u00c3\u00a5 sig i utbildningsv\u00c3\u00a4rlden. P\u00c3\u00a5 flera oberoende h\u00c3\u00a5ll b\u00c3\u00b6rjar det att dyka upp saker som p\u00c3\u00a5 sikt kan leda till en ny syn att organisera l\u00c3\u00a4rande och skolor.<\/p>\n\n
Den traditionella metoden att publicera forskning \u00c3\u00a4r att skicka sitt arbete till en vetenskaplig tidskrift som l\u00c3\u00a5ter (vanligen) tre andra forskare granska arbetet (peer review<\/a>), och om de anser att det h\u00c3\u00a5ller m\u00c3\u00a5ttet s\u00c3\u00a5 startar processen med att f\u00c3\u00a5 artikeln publiceringsklar, Experterna skickar synpunkter till redakt\u00c3\u00b6ren som l\u00c3\u00a4gger till egna synpunkter och skickar allt till f\u00c3\u00b6rfattaren som f\u00c3\u00a5r revidera etc. Det tar tid. Get Wiki With it<\/a> diskuterar peer reviewed journals och processen med att få ett forskningsresultat publicerat. Tydligen har Nature<\/a> börjat med en Wiki-process parallellt med den gängse granskningen. <\/p>\n\n Fysiker\/matematiker har länge använt en öppen process på arXiv.org<\/a> (X är det grekiska ”chi”, uttalas alltså archive). Communities online, inte peer reviews, avslöjade fusket<\/a> bakom stamcellsforskaren Woo Suk Hwangs resultat till exempel.<\/p>\n\n Intressant.<\/p>\n\n Jag bl\u00c3\u00a4ddrade i en bok vi skall anv\u00c3\u00a4nda som kurslitteratur i v\u00c3\u00a5r sommarkurs<\/a> och d\u00c3\u00a5 ramlade jag \u00c3\u00b6ver f\u00c3\u00b6ljande passage:<\/p>\n\n ”In the real world when people need to learn something, they usually do not remove themselves from their normal situations and force themselves into sterile rooms to listen to lectures on formal principles about what they are doing.” ( Jonassen, 2003. s. 71<\/em> )<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n I ett blogginl\u00c3\u00a4gg av Barbara Ganley<\/a> som f\u00c3\u00b6rel\u00c3\u00a4ste i Skellefte\u00c3\u00a5 f\u00c3\u00b6rra veckan<\/a> refererade hon till n\u00c3\u00a5gon som pratade om att f\u00c3\u00b6retag g\u00c3\u00a4rna skulle rekrytera humanister. De har m\u00c3\u00a5nga relevanta kunskaper som \u00c3\u00a4r nyttiga f\u00c3\u00b6r f\u00c3\u00b6retagen, men problemet \u00c3\u00a4r att de saknar f\u00c3\u00b6rm\u00c3\u00a5ga till lagarbete och probleml\u00c3\u00b6sning. Det beror enligt Barbara p\u00c3\u00a5 att det \u00c3\u00a4r fel kompetenser som premieras i traditionell skola. Nu hittar jag f\u00c3\u00b6rst\u00c3\u00a5s inte den passagen s\u00c3\u00a5 jag kan l\u00c3\u00a4nka till den …<\/p>\n\n N\u00c3\u00a4r jag letade efter det s\u00c3\u00a5 ramlade jag \u00c3\u00b6ver detta hos Stephanie Hendrick<\/a><\/p>\n\n they did, however, have a great definition of learning, \u00e2\u20ac\u02dca process of socially negotiated construction of meaning\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 (5), which is what i feel we do a bit with blogging. ( Motivations of CMC, language learning, and blogging<\/em> )<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n Det f\u00c3\u00b6rst\u00c3\u00a4rker en tanke jag skulle vilja utveckla n\u00c3\u00a5gon g\u00c3\u00a5ng. Att bloggande som metod borde kunna anv\u00c3\u00a4ndas f\u00c3\u00b6r att utveckla kritiskt t\u00c3\u00a4nkande. Det \u00c3\u00a4r en annan sak som Barbara pratade om i Skellefte\u00c3\u00a5, men som jag inte lyckas hitta n\u00c3\u00a5gon bra referens till. Hon skriver v\u00c3\u00a4ldigt<\/em> mycket den m\u00c3\u00a4nnskan … Det h\u00c3\u00a4r hittade jag iaf: <\/p>\n\n The linking, commenting and archiving capabilities of the weblog, in creating internal connections within each student’s work from draft to completion, draws attention to the processes involved in scholarship and to the multiple writing voices called upon depending on the situation, as well as immersing the students in the complex relationships between writer and reader. Through this network of linking and the tension created by the homepage’s insatiable<\/acronym> insistence on being fed with new posts, the weblog reaches its potential (Pacquet 2002). Student written and oral work improves dramatically in terms of critical thinking, organization, and clarity of expression. ( Blogging as a Dynamic, Transformative Medium in an American Liberal Arts Classroom<\/em> )<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n Och det finns fler som funderar p\u00c3\u00a5 detta omr\u00c3\u00a5de (kanske det bara \u00c3\u00a4r f\u00c3\u00b6r mig detta \u00c3\u00a4r en ny tanke?):<\/p>\n\n At this point you might ask yourself, ”If there are no reviewers and anyone can write anything in their weblog, how is it then possible to find high-quality content in weblogs?”. The answer is that quality emerges in weblogs largely as a result of the web of hyperlinks that is weaved by the community of editors. Although it is true that there is no review process prior to publishing, one definitely occurs immediately after publication. ( Personal knowledge publishing and its uses in research<\/em> )<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n Bensoussan, Marsha m fl (2005) CMC among multilingual students of English for academic purposes: linguistic and sociolinguistic communicative factors in online written responses<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n Ganley, Barbara () Blogging as a Dynamic, Transformative Medium in an American Liberal Arts Classroom<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n Jonassen, David (2003) Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective<\/em> <\/p>\n\n Paquet, S\u00c3\u00a9bastien (2002) Personal knowledge publishing and its uses in research<\/em><\/a>\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Det verkar som att det b\u00c3\u00b6rjar r\u00c3\u00b6ra p\u00c3\u00a5 sig i utbildningsv\u00c3\u00a4rlden. P\u00c3\u00a5 flera oberoende h\u00c3\u00a5ll b\u00c3\u00b6rjar det att dyka upp saker som p\u00c3\u00a5 sikt kan leda till en ny syn att organisera l\u00c3\u00a4rande och skolor. Den traditionella metoden att publicera … Forts\u00e4tt l\u00e4sa Bloggar f\u00c3\u00b6r att tr\u00c3\u00a4na kritiskt t\u00c3\u00a4nkande.<\/h4>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Referenser<\/h4>\n\n