Web 2.0 in action: Informal Learning

Web 2.0, very interesting. Well I just viewed this very interesting blog that pointed me to some very interesting links. Now you can either view that person's blog or read my blog. Who cares as long as the information gets across.


So along with web 2.0 is the concept of informal learning: learning without a curriculum, learning that is achieved by a natural desire to get information to solve a problem, learning that is acquired unintentionally through conversation. In the blog David Delgado makes mention of Jay Cross who presents a very good video on informal learning.



Jay cross states that the most powerful technology or learning tool is human conversation....splendid!! :). So these social networking tools available are allowing humans to have conversation uninhibited by space and time. He further distinguished between training and learning. Training is something some one does for you, while learning is more internal and it's done by the self. So "People can train you, but they can't learn you."


This includes pooling expertise, even from people who are retired....wow retirement does not mean solely sitting at home or having nice vacations but knowledge can still be passed on.


The concept of informal learning is very important, if a business wants to be a learning organization...which is another buzz word these days :). The point is learning is ongoing and in order to be successful organizations have to motivate their staff to collaborate and keep current with what's happening even without formal training structures in place.

View David's blog for a lot more information.

Web 2.0

What is Web 2.0 ?

It is amazing how technology has evolved. I think the relationship with technology and humans could be referred to as symbiotic, by this I mean they both shape each other. Technology changes the way we do things but also human behaviors/needs dictate the types of technologies that are developed.


http://www.digital-web.com/articles/web_2_for_designers/ in this article Richard MacManus and Joshua Porter explains 6 trends that characterize Web 2.0. They do a very good job.

1. Writing Semantic Mark up: Transition to XML

To illustrate this point they made mention of RSS (Real Simple Syndication) which is an XML format for syndicating content. Moving away from static HTML. I have personally enjoyed the benefits of RSS feeds. It certainly saves time when one can receive updates when new content is added to a site rather than having to search the site all the time.

2. Providing Web Services: Moving Away from place.

Under this section they discussed that XML makes content sharable and transformable between different systems. Therefore, content is not tied to the place (the website). They also made mention of programmatic interfaces, where anyone can build an interface to content on any domain if the developers provide a web service API (Application Program interface).

3. Remixing Content: About when and what, not who or why

Content is no longer contained in one place. They mention that Web 2.0 is about building event-driven experiences rather than sites. "Because content flows across the web in RSS feeds and can be remixed along the way, web designers must now think beyond sites and figure out how to brand content itself."

4. Emergent Navigation and Relevance: Users are in control

Web 2.0 allows content from several places to be aggregated based on the users needs. Therefore, built in navigation schemes on specific websites will soon be used less as users are able to read content without ever visiting a domain. Therefore, navigation paths will be determined by users' behaviors not by inbuilt design.

5. Adding Meta-data Overtime: Communities building social information

Sites are now available that allow the average person who is not competent in building a website to add meta-tags. Search engines search meta-tags so the results will bring up not only designers results but now everybody has a say. Content is more extensive. example del.icio.us allows people to store their bookmarks online and also create meta-tags.

6. Shift to programming: separation or structure and style

Seeing that Web 2.0 is all about networking they argue that words and semantics are more important than presentation and layout. Therefore designers will have to think about branding site content not just the site; think beyond presentation of the site to API's and syndication.


Well it sounds hard, but is either you get with the program or get left behind. So now it's not only about being tech-savvy it's about being text-savvy (I coined this, I mean one has to know how to creatively use words to bring users together.)

Good reading visiting the link and take peek.

The Delphi Method

One of the methods that was mentioned in the email that was sent was the Delphi Method. What is this Delphi Method?

From the readings this method is primarily used for forecasting and decision making. Like a lot of other research and technological innovations it began in the military. In 1946 a Project called RAND (short for Research and Development)

Definition: The Delphi Method is based on a structured process for collecting and distilling knowledge from a group of experts by means of a series of questionnaires interspersed with controlled opinion feedback.

Premise: Human judgment (Expert Knowledge) is acceptable in fields that have no yet developed scientific laws to make decisions.

A little Extra Information

The word Delphi is associated with Greek Mythology. Delphi was an Oracle, where the intermediaries would give forecast and advice to the gods. However, Helmer and Dalkey the founders of the method, would rather than the method not be associated with the Greek Oracle. But I guess that’s life names stick J

Advantages

- Experts make decisions

- Anonymity allows free formation of opinions that the social interaction of usual group discussion may inhibited

- Experts who geographically dispersed can deal systematically in complex task and problem solving.

- useful in answering one, specific, single-dimension question

How is it done?

In a Nutshell: a series of questionnaires are sent either by mail or via computerized systems, to a pre-selected group of experts. These questionnaires are designed to elicit and develop individual responses to the problems posed and to enable the experts to refine their views as the group’s work progresses in accordance with the assigned task. The group interaction is anonymous.

1. Formation of a team to undertake and monitor a Delphi on a given subject.
2. Selection of one or more panels to participate in the exercise. Customarily, the panelists are experts in the area to be investigated.
3. Development of the first round Delphi questionnaire
4. Testing the questionnaire for proper wording (e.g., ambiguities, vagueness)
5. Transmission of the first questionnaires to the panelists
6. Analysis of the first round responses
7. Preparation of the second round questionnaires (and possible testing)
8. Transmission of the second round questionnaires to the panelists
9. Analysis of the second round responses (Steps 7 to 9 are reiterated as long as desired or necessary to achieve stability in the results.)
10. Preparation of a report by the analysis team to present the conclusions of the exercise

Questions to ask before considering using the Delphi Method.

• What kind of group communication process is desirable in order to explore the problem at hand?
• Who are the people with expertise on the problem and where are they located?
• What are the alternative techniques available and what results can reasonably be expected from their application?

Disadvantages/critiques

- Unscientific

- Illusory expertise: some of the experts may be poor forecasters. The expert tends to be a specialist and thus views the forecast in a setting which is not the most appropriate one.

- The simplification urge: Experts tend to judge the future of events in isolation from other developments. A holistic view of future events where change has had a pervasive influence cannot be visualized easily. At this point cross-impact analysis is of some help.

- Format bias: it should be recognized that the format of the questionnaire may be unsuitable to some potential societal participants.

My Opinion: I am reading a book called Renaissance E-learning for another course and it has a section of quotes that were made against the realization of certain inventions that exist today. Most of the quotes were made by experts in the field. Example, “I have travelled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won’t last out the year.” Editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall. 1957

This goes to show that sometimes experts are not necessarily good forecasters. However, I like the fact that it’s anonymous and it brings together the opinions’ of experts from several geographical locations. It has merits but, as with most Data collection methods should not be used alone and should be used with caution.

I think even though it's used primarily for forecasting it can also be used to develop solutions to complex organizational problems.

http://www.iit.edu/~it/delphi.html

Questionnaire redesigned

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7121830.html

This article describes an intervention to redesign questionnaires that measure human performance, primarily of those in leadership positions. The article offers some salient limitations to the current use of evaluation and frequency scales. The intervention/invention seems feasible to me but the last part is a bit statistical or more quantitative (so those among us who use this aspect of the left brain a bit more than me can review and tell me what you think :) .

Proposed arguments

• The author distinguishes between evaluation scales and frequency magnitude. The former judge how well the individual performs and the latter tell how often the individual displays or engages in a behavior.
• These scales often report two extreme findings the underdone and the overdone. He asserts that it easily identifies the underdone but assumes that high scores are good and people often make invalid inferences. “For example, a high rating of 4 (“Frequently, if not always”) in response to the item “Speaks up in a group” using the frequency/magnitude scale could mean one of two things: either the individual speaks up appropriately often or that the individual dominates group discussions. Therefore, a high score does not mean that the individual is an effective communicator and group leader, etc. Again, there is no provision for the overdo extreme.”
• These scales often do not provide the reasons why the individuals were given the ratings they received.
• They are lopsided as they do not assess complimentary attitudes and characteristics.

Solution

• Have a questionnaire that requires participants to rate along a continuum. Where the middle indicates balance, represented by a zero (0). The deficient end will be represented by increasingly negative (-) figures and the overdone end is represented by increasingly positive (+) figures.

← Too little (-1 or more)-The right amount (0)-Too much (+1 or mote) →

• Second the questionnaire will assess complimentary characteristics and attitudes but will do so implicitly and the questions for matching characteristics will not be placed beside each other. (This is where the statistics comes in)

Human? Google?

It's amazing the search results that come up when one types in human performance in a search engine. Well for me I was looking for methods/guidelines/heuristics that were used to collect data on human performance. Most of the search results were not directly related to human beings but were related to technologies that were designed to function as human beings.

Another set were about Psychology or scientifically related which, I did not mind as it's good to learn from other fields but then they started using some statistical data to explain findings and I just went to another source. Among the scientific topics were human enhancements.


Second, am I the only one that's late? Did you know that Google had a program called Analytics.

http://www.google.com/analytics/index.html

http://64.233.179.110/analytics/tour/index_en-US.html

The New Google Analytics

Google Analytics has been re-designed to help you learn even more about where your visitors come from and how they interact with your site.

Discover. Share. Act.

The new Google Analytics makes it easy to improve your results online. Write better ads, strengthen your marketing initiatives, and create higher-converting websites. Google Analytics is free to all advertisers, publishers, and site owners.