[p2pu-dev] big picture (Re: Lernanta architecture)
holtzermann17 at gmail.com
Sun Mar 13 20:32:03 UTC 2011
doesn't just go to one "group" within P2PU. (Sorry, pressed "send"
before I could CC the research group!)
And indeed, doesn't just apply in the "ghetto" or "cloister" of P2PU.
But that might be enough cross-posting for the moment.
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Joe Corneli <holtzermann17 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:52 PM, zuzel.vp <zuzel.vp at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Lernanta can be seen from different angles (e.g., a tool to support
>> peer learning, a tool to support research about peer learning).
> I think this perspective is useful, even if the tool supports both uses.
> Consider the case of a wiki: that FOSwiki I mentioned recently has
> TONS of features (it looks like a few hundred plugins exist:
> http://foswiki.org/Extensions/WebHome). Would this tool work to
> support the two objectives mentioned above? I think, sure, it could
> be adapted to these ends. Indeed, almost any tool could be adapted to
> these ends!
> So what is it, in the big picture, that we're after here? I include
> myself both in the "we" of P2PU community, and the "we" of system
> developers, though I have been focusing on yet another system, the
> Vanilla Forums-based Planetary system,
> http://trac.mathweb.org/planetary. For my purposes it seems crucial
> to be able to mark up, view, interact with, and discuss the relevant
> objects of study. Perhaps in one case these objects are pieces of
> source code, or visual simulations that are generated from source
> code. Perhaps in another case they are mathematical theorems, or
> exercises, or plots. Perhaps in a third case they are user
> interaction histories and diagrams that show user involvement across
> time or across topics.
> The fact that these various cases are parallel points to something
> that seems really important: we're all doing relatively similar
> things! So at a high level it is less a choice of either/or (which
> particular use to support) and more a case of both/and (what do the
> various use-cases have in common?). This might sound like pointless
> philosophizing... but in fact, it seems likely to save a LOT of time
> and energy if we stay aware of the fact that the various systems
> (FOSwiki, Vanilla Forums/Planetary, Drumbeat/Batucada/Lernanta, etc.)
> are all building in the same direction.
> Without the peer learning activities, there is nothing to analyse, so
> that dimension seems to have very clear priority. However, without
> the analytical aspects, we'd just get on with learning whatever we're
> interested in learning, more or less the way it has always been done.
> "We" are working on improving learning opportunities, and presumably
> also improving efficacy beyond "just learning". That goes for
> educationalists, researchers, developers -- and end users. I think
> that sense of shared purpose ought to help both with "focus" and with
> finding the right kind of feedback and critiques.
> About any proposed course of action we can ask: How is what you're
> doing improving learning and efficacy? Maybe the question can be
> worded better... but I think the important thing about this question
> is that it doesn
> p2pu-dev mailing list
> p2pu-dev at lists.p2pu.org
More information about the p2pu-dev