Science of the Invisible

Podcasting for the 21st Century?

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Thu, 24 May 2012 15:03:00 +0000

Some of my tamer students have been tossing me marking sanity YouTube playlists (Ben Howard in the lead so far - I banned drum n' bass). But this is a role that I feel really should be filled by podcasts.

I recently moaned about podcasts here (Podcasting is (still) dying). Nothing arising from that post changed my mind. In this socially-driven age, RSS-driven formats are moribund and social playlists are winning.

With that in mind, I was interested to read about Player FM recently, which allows you to create and share bundles of podcasts. So I did: http://player.fm/ajcann/ (It's a bit wordy. OK, it's a lot wordy.) While you can share a bundle, Player FM is not what I would call a truly social service. And there's no music on Player FM, presumably for legal reasons. Which set me off playing with ds106 radio (which tends to play the old man music I like) - truly social links and commentary via a twitter hashtag. But not terribly convenient. Has anyone built a mashup to display the audio and the hashtag in a single location? (Also, I don't understand the legality of ds106 radio).

So there we have it, podcasting (and RSS) still pretty much broken, you will be told what to listen to via your friend's playlists. Of course, I'm getting old, but it sounds like this could be eternity in teenage mixtape hell. Where's semantic music when you need it?

A.J. Cann

Maybe the sky really is falling

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Wed, 23 May 2012 15:31:00 +0000

In the coming decade, emerging technologies will thoroughly transform higher education. Although distance learning and computer-assisted education have been around since the 1960s, financial pressures are forcing institutions to develop aggressive online programs.
College Crackup and the Online Future. Bloomberg. Web. 23 May 2012.

I've been pretty sceptical of the apocalyptic "end of higher education" stories being published in the US for the past couple of years, although when you read the catalog of woe in this Bloomberg series (the above is the final in a three part series), you might begin to doubt that view.

What's changed my mind is the way we in the UK seem impelled to import the American way of doing things, particularly American crises, and particularly under this government. There's no sign that that will change, so maybe the sky really is falling.

For years I have clung to my academic status and fought off well-meaning suggestions that I was a "learning technologist". I have a feeling the time may have come to make that change.

A.J. Cann

Open Access to US Federally Funded Research

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Mon, 21 May 2012 07:14:00 +0000

For my U.S. readers:

Public petition to the Obama Administration:

Require free, timely access over the Internet to journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research.
We believe in the power of the Internet to foster innovation, research, and education. Requiring the published results of taxpayer-funded research to be posted on the Internet in human and machine readable form would provide access to patients and caregivers, students and their teachers, researchers, entrepreneurs, and other taxpayers who paid for the research. Expanding access would speed the research process and increase the return on our investment in scientific research.
The highly successful Public Access Policy of the National Institutes of Health proves that this can be done without disrupting the research process, and we urge President Obama to act now to implement open access policies for all federal agencies that fund scientific research.

Background: see the Access2Research website

A.J. Cann

Rethinking facebook, and the value of open

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Sun, 20 May 2012 18:11:00 +0000

The last week has been difficult and stressful for me, with more such weeks and months ahead. I cannot discuss this publicly at present, so I have tried as far as possible to put the problems out of my mind. It turns out that is not possible. In the course of the week, my small (I'm a long way off Dunbar's number) private network on facebook has unexpectedly played an important role. Unexpected because for the last few years I have found far more value in open public discussion here and on other networks than in private in groups.

The support of a small private community has forced me to rethink my attitudes over the last week. I am forced to recognize the value of privacy alongside the value of openness. Both have a role to play, and I have redressed my personal balance. I owe them a debt I hope I am able to repay.

I am under no illusion that this post is not a statement of the bleedin' obvious, but personal experience is always the strongest motivation.

A.J. Cann

Why is Google+ ?

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Sat, 19 May 2012 08:28:00 +0000

A.J. Cann

Floatation device

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Fri, 18 May 2012 08:19:00 +0000

I find myself unable to avoid writing about the floatation. So here it is.

I've got a pretty good record of predicting what's going to happen, and a poor record of predicting when it's going to happen. But the writing is clearly on the wall now for facebook. What I don't know is how the bubble will burst - with a sudden pop, or a slow deflation like a leaky football (or Sven Göran Eriksson). Teenagers are already deserting facebook, not over privacy or any of the grown up reasons we would like them to, but mostly because they're bored and are moving on. And when facebook is forced to make a dumb move by its investors, then it will finally be game over. How do I know this? Because I talk to teenagers, online and offline. Unlike universities, which talk at teenagers, especially online. Which is particularly dumb when you're trying to persuade them to sign up to your expensive fee structure. So if you're trying to recruit, what do you do? Pay attention to Google, semantic search has changed the game:

Universities will say "We know how to do Google". But they don't, not any more, just like they didn't really know how to do facebook. Socially driven semantic search is a hard thing for an institution to get its head around. Maybe impossible.

And if you're not into recruitment but just want to hangout where the cool kids are - where do you go then?

Probably reddit.

A.J. Cann

Should I stay or should I go?

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Thu, 17 May 2012 15:39:00 +0000

Gizmodo just published a nice article:
How Yahoo Killed Flickr and Lost the Internet.

I've got a large(ish) collection of Creative Commons images on Flickr, and for some time I've been wondering whether to renew my account when it expires in September, or move elsewhere. Moving will be a major logistic exercise, but do I really trust in the longevity of Yahoo and do nothing?

Recently, it seems as though the site has got a little better again, cleaner and faster. And what is the alternative - is there anything else out there that will serve me as well as Flickr has done over the years?

Update: As ever, useful discussion on Google+

A.J. Cann

Soft science. The softer the better.

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Wed, 16 May 2012 15:48:00 +0000

This popped up a couple of days ago on an email discussion list (yes, they still exist ;-) Worth sharing:

The health professional education community is struggling with a number of issues regarding the place and value of research in the field, including: the role of theory-building versus applied research; the relative value of generalisable versus contextually rich, localised solutions, and the relative value of local versus multi-institutional research. In part, these debates are limited by the fact that the health professional education community has become deeply entrenched in the notion of the physical sciences as presenting a model for ‘ideal’ research. The resulting emphasis on an ‘imperative of proof’ in our dominant research approaches has translated poorly to the domain of education, with a resulting denigration of the domain as ‘soft’ and ‘unscientific’ and a devaluing of knowledge acquired to date. Similarly, our adoption of the physical sciences ‘imperative of generalisable simplicity’ has created difficulties for our ability to represent well the complexity of the social interactions that shape education and learning at a local level.
Using references to the scientific paradigms associated with the physical sciences, this paper will reconsider the place of our current goals for education research in the production and evolution of knowledge within our community, and will explore the implications for enhancing the value of research in health professional education.
Reorienting education research from its alignment with the imperative of proof to one with an imperative of understanding, and from the imperative of simplicity to an imperative of representing complexity well may enable a shift in research focus away from a problematic search for proofs of simple generalisable solutions to our collective problems, towards the generation of rich understandings of the complex environments in which our collective problems are uniquely embedded.

It’s NOT rocket science: rethinking our metaphors for research in health professions education (2010) Medical Education 44(1): 31-39, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03418.x

A.J. Cann

Online peer-assessment in a large first-year class

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Tue, 15 May 2012 15:17:00 +0000

In the context of widening participation, large classes and increased diversity, assessment of student learning is becoming increasingly problematic in that providing formative feedback aimed at developing student writing proves to be particularly laborious. Although the potential value of peer assessment has been well documented in the literature, the associated administrative burden, also in relation to managing anonymity and intellectual ownership, makes this option less attractive, particularly in large classes. A potential solution involves the use of information and communication technologies to automate the logistics associated with peer assessment in a time-efficient way. However, uptake of such systems in the higher education community is limited, and research in this area is only beginning. This case study reports on the use of the Moodle Workshop module for formative peer assessment of students’ individual work in a first-year introductory macro-economics class of over 800 students. Data were collected through an end-of-course evaluation survey of students. The study found that using the feature-rich Workshop module not only addressed many of the practical challenges associated with paper-based peer assessments, but also provided a range of additional options for enhancing validity and reliability of peer assessments that would not be possible with paper-based systems.

Markus Mostert and Jen D. Snowball (2012): Where angels fear to tread: online peer-assessment in a large first-year class, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, doi:10.1080/02602938.2012.683770

Commentary: I'm still looking for a good online peer assessment system which gets around all the problems (administrative load, consortia formation, infantile squabbles, etc). Sadly, this isn't it.

A.J. Cann

Infographics

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Mon, 14 May 2012 17:52:00 +0000

www.easel.ly

A.J. Cann

A taxonomy of edublogs

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Thu, 10 May 2012 08:08:00 +0000

Many Moons Ago When the World Was Young O Gentle Reader, I was asked to take part in a project. My contribution was to be the construction of a taxonomy of edublogs.

Once upon a time, taxonomy was an essential component of any biology degree. But taxonomy is not popular with students (or grant awarders), so it tends to get downplayed these days. This is a shame, because as well as helping us make sense of complexity, it goes beyond that function by suggesting rationale and motivation which lies beneath the surface. Just as our first year students puzzle out the difference between taxonomy and nomenclature, I found myself thinking about the purpose of this exercise.

Although blogging, as opposed to microblogging, is still a minority exercise, it is now sufficiently mainstream to demand further thought. In the networks in which I participate, a lot has been written about science blogs - in particular the rise and fall of networks, and although I'm not involved, political blogs have become more prominent in the UK, but what about edublogs? What framework could we use to think about them? And what does that tell us about the people who write them (and those who try to stop them)?

My first thought was that we could classify edublogs based on roles:

Student - Primary - Secondary - Tertiary

but when I tried to do that it was difficult to see any overarching principles, so I thought about classification based on technologies.

Institutional - dependent on a given infrastructure, a mix of early and late adopters. Some probably didn't know why they blogged, it just felt right (competitive advantage?).

Independent - e.g. Blogger, Typepad, Wordpress, etc. Those who took the trouble to go out and forge an independent path display a strong motivation, although the barriers have been lowered by microblogging of status updates on social networks.

Course blogs - many invisible behind walls in neatly manicured walled gardens. Should this include "portfolios" such as PebblePad?

Video blogs - never caught on in the education sphere - the overhead is too high. Photoblogging is popular, but are there any eduphotoblogs (excluding photography and design courses)?

Microblogs - cannot be ignored in any taxonomy of blogging as it has taken off in such a big way - where is the line between blogging and pure microblogging? Not just Twitter - parallel networks (Yammer, Plurk, but also Friendfeed, Facebook, Google+ ?)

So what does all this tell us? That there is great diversity - of style, purpose. But always a wish to communicate, either from an individual or an institution. The project for which this was intended never happened. Once again I find myself defined by the things I do not do rather than the things I do.

A.J. Cann

Playing with Hangouts On Air

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Wed, 09 May 2012 09:13:00 +0000

I'm not quite sure if the universal availability of Hangouts On Air is the "killer app" for Google+, but it's certainly an important development and one that I anticipate using a lot, so it's time to get some practice in:

A.J. Cann

HEA STEM: Qualitative Approaches to Pedagogical Research in the Biosciences

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Wed, 09 May 2012 08:04:00 +0000

Date: 18 Jun 2012, University of Leicester

Bioscientists are typically very well acquainted with quantitative approaches to research through their subject-based experience. Pedagogical research, however, employs both quantitative and qualitative techniques and the latter often represent unfamiliar territory for researchers in the biosciences, both in terms of utilising the techniques and appreciating the research literature based on these approaches. The aim of this workshop is to provide guidance on using some of the key qualitative techniques. The workshop will take the form of two plenary sessions from researchers with a qualitative background exploring approaches to using these techniques followed by some short case studies from the Biosciences to provide the subject context. There will also be a session to allow colleagues to engage in discussion about developing potential research projects with guided support from the presenters.

Draft programme:

10:00 – 10:20 Registration and Coffee
10:20 – 10:30 Welcome – Jon Scott
10:30 – 11:20 Mark Lemon (DMU) Research in a complex world - towards an integrative approach.
11:20 – 11:50 Neil Morris (Leeds) Bioscientists and educational research - what are we trying to prove?
12:00 – 13:00 Case Studies:
- Anne Tierney (Glasgow) Combining Theory and Practice in Course Design.
- Nick Freestone (Kingston) Semi-structured interviews as a qualitative research method in PedR.
- Helen MacKenzie (Leicester) The use of vignettes in the qualitative interview to visualise the student experience.
- Julian Park (Reading) Interviews as conversations: reflections on fieldwork research
13:00 – 13:40 Lunch and Networking.
13:40 – 14:40 Case Studies:
- Jon Scott (Leicester) Video diaries as an insight into the student experience.
- Hazel Corradi (Bath) Focus groups versus questionnaires for learning resource evaluation.
- Viv Rolfe (DMU) Title to be confirmed.
- Alan Cann (Leicester) An analytical framework for student use of social media.
14:40 – 15:30 Project Discussions.
15:30 – 16:00 Tea and Feedback.
16:00 Close

More info

A.J. Cann

Grinding it out

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Tue, 08 May 2012 11:51:00 +0000

You know how it is. A break from writing, hard to get back into it.
Just read the damn Wordle:

A.J. Cann

The Digital Human

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Tue, 08 May 2012 08:15:00 +0000

Hear Dave White on BBC Radio 4's The Digital Human - controlling your online identity?

A.J. Cann

In the other place this week

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Fri, 04 May 2012 08:59:00 +0000

Highlights from the other place this week:

Death of Flickr. Worrying :-(
"My Flickr Pro account expires tomorrow. I will not be renewing it..."

Still making Waves
"When Google agreed to donate Wave to Apache, it had first to strip it bare. Parts of Wave can be found in Google docs. But it is to Google’s credit—and that of Messrs Mechner and Carmack—that they were willing to brave the legal and technical wrangles to make their work available to all. Other developers would do well to follow in their footsteps."

Pit-bull reviewing, the pursuit of perfection and the victims of success
I may have done eLife a disservice. If it is true that eLife will:
"promote fairness and transparency by publishing the (anonymous) referees’ reports" then it goes up in my estimation. But not much, as it sticks with the failed "Filter on the way in" publishing model rather than following the arXiv model, as it should have done.

What I'm reading (and how) [video]

Pre-publication peer review, the ~~Gold~~ ~~Silver~~ Outdated standard
Retractions of published papers are on the rise, and some scientists fear the situation is out of control.

A.J. Cann

Scratchings

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Thu, 03 May 2012 12:01:00 +0000

Adam held the capsule under his nose, broke the thin plastic and sniffed. The smell of salty water filled his nostrils, with a faint tang of bacon. That was all.

He slept. Modified oligonucleotides slipped through membranes, avoided enzymes. They gathered in his nuclei, zipped themselves up into a full length gene which silently nestled into his 14th chromosome, right where it had been designed to go.

Next morning he woke, dressed, got in the car, drove to Tesco. Bread, milk, apples, tomatoes, shampoo, newspaper, wine, yoghurt, three bags of pork scratchings.

Genetic Variation of an Odorant Receptor OR7D4 and Sensory Perception of Cooked Meat Containing Androstenone. (2012) PLoS ONE 7(5): e35259. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035259
Although odour perception impacts food preferences, the effect of genotypic variation of odorant receptors (ORs) on the sensory perception of food is unclear. Human OR7D4 responds to androstenone, and genotypic variation in OR7D4 predicts variation in the perception of androstenone. Since androstenone is naturally present in meat derived from male pigs, we asked whether OR7D4 genotype correlates with either the ability to detect androstenone or the evaluation of cooked pork tainted with varying levels of androstenone within the naturally-occurring range. Consistent with previous findings, subjects with two copies of the functional OR7D4 RT variant were more sensitive to androstenone than subjects carrying a non- functional OR7D4 WM variant. When pork containing varying levels of androstenone was cooked and tested by sniffing and tasting, subjects with two copies of the RT variant tended to rate the androstenone-containing meat as less favourable than subjects carrying the WM variant. Our data is consistent with the idea that OR7D4 genotype predicts the sensory perception of meat containing androstenone and that genetic variation in an odorant receptor can alter food preferences.

A.J. Cann

Decoupling the scholarly journal

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Thu, 03 May 2012 08:31:00 +0000

"The journal is built around the delivery of ink and paper by horses and boats. Today, we have better ink and faster horses, but no fundamental change. This change, especially in an institution as conservative as the academy, is not easy and takes time."

Decoupling the scholarly journal. (2012) Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6: 19. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00019
Although many observers have advocated the reform of the scholarly publishing system, improvements to functions like peer review have been adopted sluggishly. We argue that this is due to the tight coupling of the journal system: the system's essential functions of archiving, registration, dissemination, and certification are bundled together and siloed into tens of thousands of individual journals. This tight coupling makes it difficult to change any one aspect of the system, choking out innovation. We suggest that the solution is the “decoupled journal (DcJ).” In this system, the functions are unbundled and performed as services, able to compete for patronage and evolve in response to the market. For instance, a scholar might deposit an article in her institutional repository, have it copyedited and typeset by one company, indexed for search by several others, self-marketed over her own social networks, and peer reviewed by one or more stamping agencies that connect her paper to external reviewers. The DcJ brings publishing out of its current seventeenth-century paradigm, and creates a Web-like environment of loosely joined pieces—a marketplace of tools that, like the Web, evolves quickly in response to new technologies and users' needs. Importantly, this system is able to evolve from the current one, requiring only the continued development of bolt-on services external to the journal, particularly for peer review.

A.J. Cann

Followers

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Tue, 01 May 2012 08:35:00 +0000

A.J. Cann

Wikipedia's barnstarring performance

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Tue, 01 May 2012 08:20:00 +0000

I've had several discussions recently with people who seems to have just woken up to the fact that Wikipedia accepts user contributions: "Hey, wouldn't it be a great idea if scientists contributed to Wikipedia?". In these uncomfortable encounters I am forced to play the part of the guy who points out contributing to Wikipedia ain't all sunshine and light.

As if dealing with the Wikipedia incrowd bitchfest wasn't bad enough, I hope I don't shock you by letting on that contributing to Wikipedia doesn't count as Impact for REF. Or anything else, like job security, or that promotion you were hoping for. Nevertheless, contributing to Wikipedia is fundamentally A Good Thing, so the following is of interest:

Experimental Study of Informal Rewards in Peer Production. (2012) PLoS ONE 7(3): e34358. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034358
We test the effects of informal rewards in online peer production. Using a randomized, experimental design, we assigned editing awards or “barnstars” to a subset of the 1% most productive Wikipedia contributors. Comparison with the control group shows that receiving a barnstar increases productivity by 60% and makes contributors six times more likely to receive additional barnstars from other community members, revealing that informal rewards significantly impact individual effort.

Related:

More thoughts on Wikipedia

A.J. Cann

Ways in which I am like Tim O'Reilley #1 (first part of a one part series)

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:36:00 +0000

#1: Google+ is now his primary blogging platform, and more important than his own blog.

A.J. Cann

Google+? It’s very simple

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:09:00 +0000

Today I'm in London giving a workshop on Google+ for science communicators. If you're on Google+ from 2pm UK time this afternoon, say hello. Earlier in the week I wrote a guest post for the Nature Soapbox Science blog on Google, so it seems appropriate to reproduce it here:

If you’re interested in science communication, or learning about science, Google+ is the hot place to be.

In January 2012, Google changed the game when it introduced “Search plus your world”, adding a social element to search results. Talk to any publisher and they will tell you that Google is still by far the biggest player in search, so if you want people to read about your science, you need to pay attention to the dark arts of search engine optimization (SEO). Although Google users can turn social search results off, the vast majority do not, so social is now an inescapable part of search. Apart from posting interesting information that people want to read, there are several elements involved in Google optimization. One is the rather technical markup resulting in “rich snippets” which appear with your avatar as a trusted brand in search results. A much simpler way to boost search visibility is to build a presence on Google+.

As part of our strategy to encourage more people to get interested in plant science (because there are now no plant science degrees in the UK), for the past few months we have been publishing on Google+ alongside our other online spaces on Twitter, Facebook and our blog, but it’s on Google+ where we’ve seen the fastest growth recently.

There are two main criticisms of Google+ that people often raise. The first is that they don’t need and don’t have time for another social network, and all their friends are on Facebook/Twitter. While this is understandable, it’s also changing with time. Show me the person who does not use Google and I’ll accept that they may not be using Google+ in one or two years time.

The second criticism is that Google+ is “too complicated”. When it launched, the unique selling point of Google+ was the Circles feature, a way of dividing people into groups. I also have experience of using Google+ with students, in rather a different way to the way I use my personal account. In questionnaires, students say that they like the security that posting to a defined Circle of their peers gives them. Less danger of looking stupid in public. But for most people, Circles are just too complicated to bother with. And the way Circles work is not straightforward:

Based on: Sarah Horrigan: How Google+ circles work

Circles are a way to organise people you’re interested in and to restrict the audience for your posts or your incoming stream.
Your Circles are private, only you can see them – unless you choose to share.
Putting someone in a Circle allows you to follow their public posts.
It does not mean that if you share something with the Circle you’ve put them in, it’ll appear in their stream (“not push”).
They can see what it is you shared if they visit your profile.
For it to appear in their stream, they’d have to have you in a Circle too.
A circle is not a lasso that you throw around someone else to yank them into a circled conversation.

When I started using Google+ I hoped to have one account I could use for many purposes – discussing science, joking with friends, talking to students. That would only work effectively if I posted everything to separate Circles. But by keeping all my content and discussions private, I would defeat the original purpose of reaching out to talk about science. So I have two Google+ profiles, a somewhat private one for "teaching", and public one for "me". It's a hassle and I wish I didn't have to. The idea of going on to subdivide "me" into little boxes is untenable.
I find myself increasingly abandoning the use of Circles for push and simply using Google+ in a Twitter-like way with public posts. The secret to Google+ happiness turns out to be rather simple. My advice is: KISS (keep it simple, stupid):

Be public.
If you need to grab someone’s attention, message them by using +Username, e.g. +AJ Cann.

A lot of my posts are science or education-related, but not all. Some are just for fun, or out of technology-induced frustration. Just as my life is not divided into neat circles, neither is my Google+ account. I’m just me – sometimes happy, sometimes sad, sometimes answering questions, sometimes asking them. This is how we live our lives. A little noise is the price we pay for information.

Links:

Annals of Botany on Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112557930243001341513/
MicrobiologyBytes on Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/110599929340190017527/
AJ Cann on Google+ https://plus.google.com/u/0/107962914038670635598/ – come and talk to me.

A.J. Cann

MSc in Learning Innovation

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:48:00 +0000

The programme aims to enable you to gain a thorough understanding of how different pedagogical approaches can be supported and promoted by the affordances of learning technologies. You will develop a detailed and critical understanding of learning, teaching and training innovation, which you can apply to your own contexts.

Module 1: Technology-enhanced Learning
Module 2: Learning design for the 21st Century
Module 3: Research design and methods
Module 4: Case studies of innovation
Module 5: Dissertation project

One year full-time campus-based.

Start Date: September 2012

A.J. Cann

Putting Visitors and Residents on the rack

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:25:00 +0000

At #heanpl last week we sat around talking about Visitors and Residents all day. This was fun, but by mid-afternoon I'd decided that there were questions that needed to be asked...

Karl Popper argued that the central problem in the philosophy of science is that of demarcation, i.e. of distinguishing between science and non-science such as logic, metaphysics, psychoanalysis, and religion. Popper's major insight into the philosophy of science was empirical falsification. Put simply, a true scientific hypothesis is falsifiable and can be tested by experiment, whereas any statement which is non-falsifiable by experimentation is a mere belief. In addition, Popper also stated that a good scientific theory:

is wide-ranging and open to examination.
is clear and precise.

Confused? You have my sympathy, so here are a few examples:

Science:

All swans are white: falsifiable through testing (look for non-white swans).
The Earth orbits around the sun: falsifiable through testing (astronomical observation).
The acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the Earth is 9.8 m s^-2: falsifiable through testing (measure it).

Belief:

God is good.
Gluttony is a sin.
The English are better than the French.

In order to progress, first we need to define Visitors and Residents as a testable hypothesis. From the First Mondays paper, I suggest:

The behavior of Web users can be mapped onto a continuum between Visitors, who see the Web as a tool, and Residents, who see the Web as a space.

Is this hypothesis falsifiable, wide-ranging and open to examination, clear and precise?

Problems:

Wide-ranging and open to examination? √
Clear and precise? The non-binary continuum nature of the framework makes falsification difficult. Any observations which seem to fit the theory are fine, but observations which clearly do not fit into this framework are required for falsification and thus acceptance as a valid hypothesis. Is such data obtainable or can the framework be stretched to meet all eventualities ?

Clearly, I'm way out of my depth here, so your input is required :-)

Update:

A.J. Cann

Micropedagogy and Macropedagogy

noreply@blogger.com (AJC) — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:14:00 +0000

You know it's a good meeting when you run out of cognitive space before the coffee arrives...

I'm still batting around ideas from the #heanpl meeting in Oxford last week. I have a somewhat random collection of thoughts which occurred to me during the day that I'm slowly working my way through.

The attendees at this meeting represented a wide range of sometimes but not always overlapping interests. It seems to me at it is sometimes helpful to break the umbrella concept of pedagogy (the theory and practice of teaching) into smaller parts:

Macropedagogy: the part of pedagogy concerned with large-scale or general factors such as theories and philosophies of learning, such as behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, etc.
Micropedagogy: the part of pedagogy concerned with discrete data and the outcomes for individuals, such as learning analytics, feedback, etc.

I'm very much in the micropedagogy camp, but the Visitors and Residents concept is interesting to me because it seems to span both parts of the pedagogy divide.

Another thought which occurred during the day was about the overlap between the idea and attributes of Visitors and Residents, and bridging and bonding capital as discussed by Robert Putnam in Bowling Alone. Although Dave is keen to stress that the terms are descriptive and neither visitors or residents are superior to the other, it seems to me that residency is inherently analogous to bonding capital, while visiting is linked to the lightweight (or agile, if you prefer) behavior represented by bridging capital.

Finally, a remark from Dave Cormier:

quickly mutated into "the Community is the curriculum". As this discussion progressed, there was some usage of the term Resident to describe activity offline. While I understand the point being made, I am personally unhappy with the use of the term in this way because it muddies the water and reduces the value of the concept.

You know it's a good meeting when you're still blogging about it a week later :-)

A.J. Cann