Developing rich professional competences (digital literacy!) in addition to professional competence is better than just prof.comp.
Defrag meeting recommender: from the co-authorship network and the co-citations therein, a recommender can identify when authors are working on the same topic (=keywords) but with different co-authors and different literature. This can be a strong indicator of unwanted fragmentation. A recommender can be trained that proposes to hold a 'getting to know each other' Flashmeeting that may initiate desired defragmentation. For example, analyzing the ECTEL co-authorship and co-citation graphs, Mohamed Amine Chatti, a researcher from RWTH Aachen University, Germany is an isolated member connected only to his 2 co-authors. A textual analysis of the content of his paper reveals that he is working on the automated annotation of learning materials. If that topic is searched inside the ECTEL collection of papers, it appears that there is a strongly related group of researchers working in the same field (centred on Alexandra Cristea). The location of Mohamed and Alexandra group could be seen in Figure 1. The recommender could suggest Alexandra and Mohamed to meet.
Defrag group recommender: communities are far from homogeneous. Sub-groups can emerge, particularly in big communities, which are connected by a small set (two or three) of members acting as bridge builders between otherwise disconnected components in the interaction graph. Alerts about such structural dysfunctions including the provision of solutions such as joint virtual meetings can help to mend them and improve effective collaboration inside the global community.An example that can be extracted from the ECTEL co-authorship graph is the structure of the collaboration of the research groups lead by Rob Koper, from Open University Nederlands and Erik Duval, from KULeuven (Figure 2). The main linkage between these two groups is Marcus Specht. Encouraging joint meetings between members of these two groups could lead to to stronger collaboration and a healthier structure.
Science 2.0 and language technology
Science 2.0<br />Fridolin WildKMi, The Open University<br />firstname.lastname@example.org<br />
(96dpi)<br />Knowledge could be the delta at the receiver (a paper, a human, a library).<br />Information could be the quality of a certain signal.<br />Information could be a logical abstractor.<br />Science could be about systematically giving birth to information in order to create knowledge<br />Science, Information, Knowledge<br />
Tools that bring together people and content artefacts in activities that support in constructing and processing information and knowledge.<br />Early qualitative research: capturing hunting experiences on the cave walls.<br /> ... are probably around us ever since the ‚homo habilis‘ started to use more sophisticated stone tools at the beginning of the Pleistocene some two million years ago.<br />Research SupportEnvironments<br />
Actors (people, artefacts, and tools) in various locations with heterogeneous affiliations, purposes, styles, objectives, etc.<br />Network effects can make the network more valuable with growing size (cf. ‘distributed cognition’).<br />To develop a shared understanding is part of the research work because language underspecifies meaning: future ‘cloud’ research will build on it<br />And at the same time: linguistic relativity (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis): language culture restricts our thinking<br />Inherently Networks<br />
<ul><li>Research support environmentsare part of the research outcomes!
In the words of Waldrop (2008), science 2.0 relates to “new practices of scientists who post raw experimental results, nascent theories, claims of discovery and draft papers on the Web for others to see and comment on”. <br />Underwood et al. (2009) postulate even further that science 2.0 offers more potential than mere efficiency optimization (through improved workflows and better sharing possibilities): participation in research can be broadened beyond existing scientific communities. A science 2.0 is about crowd-sourcing of ideas and the refinement of knowledge in an open debate.<br />Shneiderman  adds another aspect and sees in Science 2.0 “new technologies [that] continue to reorder whole disciplines”, as “increased collaboration [is stimulated] through these socio-technical systems”. Gillet et al.  see in Science 2.0 a concept that federates a variety of communication channels to ease internal communication within an existing scientific network and beyond.<br />8<br />Science 2.0 isabout new practices.<br />These practices are supported by new tools.<br />Who cares whether there is a causal relationship between them.<br />Science 2.0 is about broad, intense, and global participation in research.<br />Maybe there is also a methodological change?<br />Science 2.0<br />
MASH-UPS<br /><ul><li>End-user friendly gluing together of publicly available processing services with (public and private) data, often rendered in a widget for access and presentation
Long-tail software development: not dozens of markets of millions, but millions of markets of dozens
Form of opportunistic design (Hartmann et al., 2008; Ncube et al., 2008; Gamble & Gamble, 2008)</li></ul>New Practices<br />9<br />
Competences motivated<br />#14<br />(Wild et al., 2009)<br />plan<br />reflect<br />monitor<br />interact<br />act<br />Intended<br />outcome<br />Necessary<br />trigger<br />Minimal<br />condition<br /><ul><li>Planning competence refers to those skills, abilities, habits, attitudes, and knowledge that fix how goals, schedules, and paths are set.
Reflection is creative sense making of the past and enables planning.
Monitoring refers to how progress control is performed.
Last but not least, the pair acting and interacting group social & collaboration and information & tool competences. </li></ul>Plan<br />Reflect<br />Monitor<br />Act<br />Interact<br />Qualitative Interviews: 15 persons in 5 sessions (each 40 min to 1 hour)<br />
STELLAR Mash-Up Architecture<br />Users involve in use-cases.<br />Each case deploys widgetsin support of the given task.<br />Widgets use infrastructure services & data(from within the PLE container or from a web 2.0). <br />A directoryserves the management and deployment of the portfolio.<br />Interoperability standards secure the flexible recombination of widgets, services, and data.<br />#16<br />
Geo-locator for persons and institutes</li></li></ul><li>THE STELLAR Feed ecosystem<br />OPEN ARCHIVE<br />converters<br />aggregators<br />filters<br />WIDGET: TEL EXHIBIT<br />http://universe.stellarnet.eu/mod/visitelf/pages/vis.php,currently beta tested for public release on teleurope.eu<br />19<br />
Visibility produces awareness<br />Awareness triggers social norms<br />Mutual visibility triggers accountability<br />Which reinforces social norms<br />Tale of two doors<br />(Erickson, 2007)<br />
A social proxy is a minimalist graphical representation that makes people and their activities more visible (Erickson, 2007)<br />An awareness proxyis a minimalist graphical representation that makes researchers and their research activities more visible<br />Proxies<br />
Topic Proxy<br />Two-Mode factor analysis of the co-occurrences in the terminology<br />Results in a latent-semantic vector space<br />
The mathemagics behind<br />Meaning Interaction Analysis<br />
2000<br />Terminology<br />Going to become less important: distance (‐20), web (‐18), hypermedia (‐17), computer (15), internet (15), and multimedia (14).<br />Going to disappear: www(13), medic(ine)(6+5), agent(9), and site(9)<br />
2008<br />Terminology<br />new: blended (28), ict (27), mobile (25), port‐folio (16), space (16), peer (13), and podcast (12)<br />more important: digital (+33), teacher (31), practice (27), social (26), student (24), game (23), science (17), assess (15), effect (13), implement (12), innovative(12)<br />
Field Proxy:project Authors into the space<br />
Spot unwanted fragmentation<br />e.g. two authors work on the same topic, but with different collaborator groups and with different literature<br />Intervention Instrument: automatically recommend to hold a flashmeeting<br />Bringing together what belongs together<br />Wild, Ochoa, Heinze, Crespo, Quick (2009)<br />
Communities are often not very dense, i.e. not resilient<br />With key persons withdrawing, the network can fragment<br />Recommend to build additional links, cutting out the middleman<br />Creating cohesion<br />Wild, Ochoa, Heinze, Crespo, Quick (2009)<br />
Reflecting on Conceptual Change<br />Reflection is an interactive process of creative sense-making of the past<br />
Tying shoelaces<br />Douglas Adams’ ‘meaning of liff’:<br />Epping: The futile movements of forefingers and eyebrows used when failing to attract the attention of waiters and barmen.<br />Shoeburyness: The vague uncomfortable feeling you get when sitting on a seat which is still warm from somebody else's bottom<br />I have been convincingly Sapir-Whorfed by this book.<br />Non-textual concepts things we can’t (easily) learn from language<br />
Science 2.0 is social and so are the support environments.<br />Environments are outcomes of research activity. <br />Their creation and maintenance is fostered by awareness. <br />They are re-structured in networked collaboration.<br />Mash-Ups & language technologycan play an important role in supporting research.<br />Recent advances in technology and practiceprovide fascinating new means for open,networked, andself-organisedco-construction of knowledge.<br />Up, up, towardsa Science 2.0<br />
Call for Papers to the<br />Research 2.0 workshop at EC-TEL in Barcelona<br />Submission deadline: June 27<br />Paper acceptance: July 11<br />Conference: September 28 to October 1<br />Topics (not limited to):<br /><ul><li>Evaluation of existing Research2.0 tools and infrastructures from a TEL perspective
Development of TEL-related use case scenarios for Research2.0 tools and infrastructures
Influence of Research2.0 tools and technologies on scientific practices in TEL
Formats and protocols for Research2.0 data exchange (linked data, RSS, BuRST, ...)